Russian opposition politician Boris Nemtsov shot dead in Moscow
Former deputy PM and critic of Vladimir Putin who was due to lead major rally on Sunday was killed near the Kremlin
Prominent Russian opposition politician Boris Nemtsov has been shot dead in Moscow. Nemtsov, a former deputy prime minister and a sharp critic of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, was reportedly shot four times in the back by a killer in a passing car.
The killing took place in the very centre of Moscow late on Friday evening on a bridge near St Basil’s Cathedral and the Kremlin, two days before Nemtsov was due to lead a major opposition rally in Moscow.
Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said the president would take the investigation into Nemtsov’s death under “personal control”, and that he believed the killing to be a provocation.
“Putin noted that this cruel killing has all the signs of a hit, and is a pure provocation,” said Peskov. He said Putin offered condolences to Nemtsov’s family.
Nemtsov, 55, was deputy prime minister during the 1990s in the government of Boris Yeltsin. He had written a number of reports in recent years linking Putin and his inner circle to corruption, and was one of the most well-known politicians among Russia’s small and beleaguered opposition.
On February 28 2015 17:45 Jetaap wrote: At this point I'm starting to think that the biggest threat for Europe is not ISIS, but Russia and putin going absolutely crazy ...
Please, if that guy seriously was a threat to Putin, he would have let him live and fake the elections, like Bush.
If you think about it, Putin would not really care about Nemtsov, unless he applies the following logic: kill Nemtsov, remove a good portion of his followers from the crowd (not really), accuse Ukraine/CIA/opposition itself via propaganda machine(it already does so, Ukraine girl that was not even hurt with that amount of shots totally helps),????,PROFIT.
Now, opposition has no actual reason for that either, even though he could act as a trigger.
And then here is the most likely case: some batshit crazy "patriot" that went ahead and shot the hated man. Why he would leave the girl alive is beyond me... actually never mind, leaving her alive would be perfect, considering that it was most likely planned.
If any of you still have delusions of Russia being a democracy, where law and rights of opposition of Kremlin are respected, please get rid of those. You will save yourself future disappointments.
Oh, the "Putin dosn't gain anything from having him/her killed/arrested" is getting old.
Bonus points for "provocation", waiting for Ławrow to appear with "CIA did this" line.
Russia dosn't like him, Russia loves him. They will stand united around their leader and against enemies as long as political propaganda from Kremlin is strong enough to convince ordinary people that there is external threat to Fedaration that wants Russia on it knees. You need to understand that real events have little meaning there, it's what kind of narration about those events is used matters.
Weird though, as much as I dislike Putin, and I think he is a dictator, it does seem like the general consensus is that Russia likes him.
afaik a part of russia longs the days of stalin, a time when the URSS was the second world power
Exactly, and Putin isn't being weak, and isn't letting his country get thrown around. So yeah, the west dislikes him, and the western world tends to dislike any country that's not a democracy with free speech rather quickly, it's important to see that's not the only world view.
Either way, Garry Kasparov has been trying to warn the western world for ages now, and it seems like Russia can pose a threat. Still not sure what to make of the whole Russia situation, and how to go about dealing with it.
On February 28 2015 18:43 Narw wrote: If any of you still have delusions of Russia being a democracy, where law and rights of opposition of Kremlin are respected, please get rid of those. You will save yourself future disappointments.
Oh, the "Putin dosn't gain anything from having him/her killed/arrested" is getting old.
Bonus points for "provocation", waiting for Ławrow to appear with "CIA did this" line.
Point is, Putin really does not gain anything from having him killed here, well, except the ability to swiftly get rid of the report Nemtsov was preparing, that could have acted like an actual trigger. Could have.
On February 28 2015 19:09 Sprouter wrote: Wow they don't care just shoot him on the street
I just love how all western media are like "Putin critic shot", even BBC who are usually reasonable and indeed started the story with a more neutral headline but then changed it. The man was known to be reckless and pig-headed, he was receiving death threats all his life because of his business interests, there are tons of reasons why someone could have want him dead, but no, it's obvious that it was Putin who had him shot because... we don't like him much right now.
I'm not a fan of Putin and the way he runs the country, but man, this anti Russian propaganda is so disgusting at times.
Yeah, poor Putin, western media so rude towards him. All that happened recently was some invasion of Ukraine, shooting down a plane and some critic being shot, no biggie. Wonder why media are so hard towards him :/.
Next time they should just headline it some random politician in some random country shot, that way no one gets offended.
On February 28 2015 19:51 Random() wrote: I just love how all western media are like "Putin critic shot", even BBC who are usually reasonable and indeed started the story with a more neutral headline but then changed it. The man was known to be reckless and pig-headed, he was receiving death threats all his life because of his business interests, there are tons of reasons why someone could have want him dead, but no, it's obvious that it was Putin who had him shot because... we don't like him much right now.
I'm not a fan of Putin and the way he runs the country, but man, this anti Russian propaganda is so disgusting at times.
I think speculation about the Russian government ordering an assassination is kinda stupid here. But Putin has more than enough militant fan boys that might think they do him (or their country) a favor by silencing that opposing voice.
On February 28 2015 19:51 Random() wrote: I just love how all western media are like "Putin critic shot", even BBC who are usually reasonable and indeed started the story with a more neutral headline but then changed it. The man was known to be reckless and pig-headed, he was receiving death threats all his life because of his business interests, there are tons of reasons why someone could have want him dead, but no, it's obvious that it was Putin who had him shot because... we don't like him much right now.
I'm not a fan of Putin and the way he runs the country, but man, this anti Russian propaganda is so disgusting at times.
Of course the media will write "Putin critic shot". Do you think "Random business man shot" will sell any papers? Media usually have a certain narrative that they follow which makes them biased. But that does not automatically mean it is state propaganda. For example the British media is also often "unfair" when it writes about the EU or the catholic church or makes German nazi references wherever possible. That is simply what sells.
It is still very different from a clear state propaganda organ like RT.
On February 28 2015 18:43 Narw wrote: If any of you still have delusions of Russia being a democracy, where law and rights of opposition of Kremlin are respected, please get rid of those. You will save yourself future disappointments.
Oh, the "Putin dosn't gain anything from having him/her killed/arrested" is getting old.
Bonus points for "provocation", waiting for Ławrow to appear with "CIA did this" line.
Point is, Putin really does not gain anything from having him killed here, well, except the ability to swiftly get rid of the report Nemtsov was preparing, that could have acted like an actual trigger. Could have.
On February 28 2015 19:51 Random() wrote: I just love how all western media are like "Putin critic shot", even BBC who are usually reasonable and indeed started the story with a more neutral headline but then changed it. The man was known to be reckless and pig-headed, he was receiving death threats all his life because of his business interests, there are tons of reasons why someone could have want him dead, but no, it's obvious that it was Putin who had him shot because... we don't like him much right now.
I'm not a fan of Putin and the way he runs the country, but man, this anti Russian propaganda is so disgusting at times.
Of course the media will write "Putin critic shot". Do you think "Random business man shot" will sell any papers? Media usually have a certain narrative that they follow which makes them biased. But that does not automatically mean it is state propaganda. For example the British media is also often "unfair" when it writes about the EU or the catholic church or makes German nazi references wherever possible. That is simply what sells.
It is still very different from a clear state propaganda organ like RT.
You're right of course, it's just that I don't appreciate respectable media such as the BBC lowering themselves to tabloid-style headlines. Al Jazeera, Russian and Chinese newspapers mostly went with "Russian opposition politician shot dead". CNN and BBC: "Putin critic slain", "Putin critic shot dead", an obvious difference in tone and implications.
I don't think that Putin was directly involved in this murder, but still it may be his fault because of insane propaganda on Russian TV. Also, there is some news about that Nemtsov wanted to show some report about Ukrainian war, but there is not much information about that at the moment.
Random(), i have been in both USA and Russia, and i can say as native Russian speaker that Anti Europe and Anti US propaganda in Russia is much stronger than any other sides propaganda. You don't even understand how biased and one sided news in Russian TV are. I have been in usa for 48 days and didn't see that much anti Russian propaganda, of course there is a bit biased information sometimes but not even close to Russian TV. But i may be wrong coz i have seen usa TV only for 48 days this summer. I have been watching Russian TV for whole my life.
It's not that Putin had him shot, it's that he was shot because of Putin, or rather because of his opposition to him. The atmosphere of hate in Russia towards West, Ukraine, Russian liberals and democrats is just astounding. Coupled with the rise of nationalism this event was kind of expected, but this is not what Kremlin wants, because it provokes more protest and that would provoke more violence, and again more protest. That's the kind of sequence of events that brought Yanukovich down.
On February 28 2015 21:11 eriksonis6 wrote: Random(), i have been in both USA and Russia, and i can say as native Russian speaker that Anti Europe and Anti US propaganda in Russia is much stronger than any other sides propaganda. You don't even understand how biased and one sided news in Russian TV are. I have been in usa for 48 days and didn't see that much anti Russian propaganda, of course there is a bit biased information sometimes but not even close to Russian TV. But i may be wrong coz i have seen usa TV only for 48 days this summer. I have been watching Russian TV for whole my life.
I speak Russian too and although I have never lived in Russia, I know exactly what you mean about Russian TV. Russians suck at information wars, Russian TV storyline is like something straight from the Soviet times: "they're all bloody Nazis over there, they're killing people for speaking Russian, we must protect our brethren". No one in their right mind is going to take that seriously. Western media, however, are much more subtle and smart about that, they are most of the time reasonably objective, but a fact omitted here, a carefully picked headline there (like this one) and eventually the public opinion is still shifted towards this image of Russia as being crazy land-grabbing communist empire, which in my opinion is not exactly fair.
They suck at information wars? You need to understand that their "narration" is not directed towards outside world, its directed towards citizens of Russia. It's a masterpiece of propaganda to convince that a nation that was called few years ago a brethren nation is now invaded by Russia and that's the right thing to do! It dosn't need to be subtle, it needs to provide explanation of current events that's in line with current government expectations. They aren't supposed to ask difficult questions, they are just there to provide reliable answers that can strengthen current agenda.
So it might be hard for you to understand but yeah, vast majority of Russians do believe that Ukraine is ruled by Nazi's, they do believe that whole West is trying to break Russia and some do even believe they live in democratic country and not totalitarian state that is moving closer and closer to North Korea style.
By no means its profitable for our current governement. They don't need the opposition gaining a new martyr. Putin has ~90% citizens support why would he even bother.
First, RIP Nemtsov. While his role as a Putin critic is emphasized, he was involved in a number of projects in the region and will be fondly remembered by many.
Second, I'm surprised the thread isn't closed yet. Usually this topic isn't tolerated on TL because the lack of information and sensitive topics lead to poor discussion. This isn't a call to close it at all, but I wouldn't get too attached to this thread...
Third, a response to the quoted text:
On February 28 2015 22:29 insitelol wrote: By no means its profitable for our current governement. They don't need the opposition gaining a new martyr. Putin has ~90% citizens support why would he even bother.
I'm sure the polls measure something, but I don't think anyone knows what exactly. I wouldn't take them too seriously.
On February 28 2015 21:11 eriksonis6 wrote: Random(), i have been in both USA and Russia, and i can say as native Russian speaker that Anti Europe and Anti US propaganda in Russia is much stronger than any other sides propaganda. You don't even understand how biased and one sided news in Russian TV are. I have been in usa for 48 days and didn't see that much anti Russian propaganda, of course there is a bit biased information sometimes but not even close to Russian TV. But i may be wrong coz i have seen usa TV only for 48 days this summer. I have been watching Russian TV for whole my life.
I speak Russian too and although I have never lived in Russia, I know exactly what you mean about Russian TV. Russians suck at information wars, Russian TV storyline is like something straight from the Soviet times: "they're all bloody Nazis over there, they're killing people for speaking Russian, we must protect our brethren". No one in their right mind is going to take that seriously. Western media, however, are much more subtle and smart about that, they are most of the time reasonably objective, but a fact omitted here, a carefully picked headline there (like this one) and eventually the public opinion is still shifted towards this image of Russia as being crazy land-grabbing communist empire, which in my opinion is not exactly fair.
Dont think they are stupid around there, making propaganda that doesn't work. It does though, it's just targeted at the weaker-minded people than you are, and there is an abundance of those in Russia (and in other countries as well to be fair).
Propaganda always works, as long as there is little to no alternative. Being smart doesn't make that much of a difference, having access to information does. Only about 5-10% of russian people have access to foreign media and have the language skills to use that access, the rest are left either with TV or russian segment of the Internet which is, well, suffering.
On March 01 2015 00:17 BluzMan wrote: Propaganda always works, as long as there is little to no alternative. Being smart doesn't make that much of a difference, having access to information does. Only about 5-10% of russian people have access to foreign media and have the language skills to use that access, the rest are left either with TV or russian segment of the Internet which is, well, suffering.
Majority of russians have access, it's just that majority of Russians both don't know English and prefer to trust state-owned media for whatever reason.
The problem is that many people isn't stupid, but they simply are hearing only things that they want to hear. Level of hatred and intolerance in Russian society at the moment is really high (thanks to propaganda).
On March 01 2015 00:17 BluzMan wrote: Propaganda always works, as long as there is little to no alternative. Being smart doesn't make that much of a difference, having access to information does. Only about 5-10% of russian people have access to foreign media and have the language skills to use that access, the rest are left either with TV or russian segment of the Internet which is, well, suffering.
I think it is. There are different quality and intensity levels of propaganda. On one side there is smart and covert type, almost reliable; and there is the opposite - the brutal and emotional one. First one is for smarter people that need to be persuaded, the other is for simpler ones, who can't really be bothered with reasoning, but who react readily to strong emotional cues. Russian media use all types of propaganda, from one end to the other. TLers from Russia are probably more accustomed to the smart and covert type, while the non-Russians are more familiar with the brutal one, because that's what they are being shown to laugh at (or get scared from).
On February 28 2015 19:51 Random() wrote: I just love how all western media are like "Putin critic shot", even BBC who are usually reasonable and indeed started the story with a more neutral headline but then changed it. The man was known to be reckless and pig-headed, he was receiving death threats all his life because of his business interests, there are tons of reasons why someone could have want him dead, but no, it's obvious that it was Putin who had him shot because... we don't like him much right now.
I'm not a fan of Putin and the way he runs the country, but man, this anti Russian propaganda is so disgusting at times.
Was he a Putin critic? Was he shot?
I think he/she doesn't deny that. The point is at emphasis. So if you have two headlines:
"Russian opposition leader got shot"
and
"Putin critic got shot"
Obviously the latter is more likely to make you dislike Putin. That said, Putin may only be overthrown from inside Russia. That's why he is so scared of protests and opposition.
Reading this thread makes me see that there really is a lot of anti russian propaganda in europe and the US xD. Putin maybe is bad, but hes in no way worse than the US or erupean goverments.
Also, i agree with the fact that killing him isn't the best idea from the russian goverment perspective (and even if they did it, itwasn't the best idea). Killing the one who opose you can just make it easier for people to say "oh look, they are more tyranic than what we thought, lets get them out of the goverment". That has happened through all history on different contries, so killing your opposers isn't the wiset thing to do, but who knows really.
On March 01 2015 01:34 [Phantom] wrote: Reading this thread makes me see that there really is a lot of anti russian propaganda in europe and the US xD. Putin maybe is bad, but hes in no way worse than the US or erupean goverments.
Also, i agree with the fact that killing him isn't the best idea from the russian goverment perspective (and even if they did it, itwasn't the best idea). Killing the one who opose you can just make it easier for people to say "oh look, they are more tyranic than what we thought, lets get them out of the goverment". That has happened through all history on different contries, so killing your opposers isn't the wiset thing to do, but who knows really.
RIP Boris Nemtsov
Yeah sure he is in no way worse than european governements or the US... so I guess Obama will still be president in 10 years?
On March 01 2015 01:34 [Phantom] wrote: Reading this thread makes me see that there really is a lot of anti russian propaganda in europe and the US xD. Putin maybe is bad, but hes in no way worse than the US or erupean goverments.
Also, i agree with the fact that killing him isn't the best idea from the russian goverment perspective (and even if they did it, itwasn't the best idea). Killing the one who opose you can just make it easier for people to say "oh look, they are more tyranic than what we thought, lets get them out of the goverment". That has happened through all history on different contries, so killing your opposers isn't the wiset thing to do, but who knows really.
RIP Boris Nemtsov
How is he not worse when he attacks even his own "brother" nation, Ukraine? And don't compare that to nazis. We don't live in that era anymore.
On March 01 2015 01:34 [Phantom] wrote: Reading this thread makes me see that there really is a lot of anti russian propaganda in europe and the US xD. Putin maybe is bad, but hes in no way worse than the US or erupean goverments.
Also, i agree with the fact that killing him isn't the best idea from the russian goverment perspective (and even if they did it, itwasn't the best idea). Killing the one who opose you can just make it easier for people to say "oh look, they are more tyranic than what we thought, lets get them out of the goverment". That has happened through all history on different contries, so killing your opposers isn't the wiset thing to do, but who knows really.
RIP Boris Nemtsov
Yeah sure he is in no way worse than european governements or the US... so I guess Obama will still be president in 10 years?
You are not gonna achieve much with this kind of supposedly rhetoric question since it is really not common sense among Russian citizens that the ones who hold power should be regularly re-elected (I lack a better word here, since elections in Russia have really been a joke in the recent years). Stability by means of absence of change in general is valued way higher among the common folk in Russia than any value you might consider "common sense".
On March 01 2015 01:34 [Phantom] wrote: Reading this thread makes me see that there really is a lot of anti russian propaganda in europe and the US xD. Putin maybe is bad, but hes in no way worse than the US or erupean goverments.
Also, i agree with the fact that killing him isn't the best idea from the russian goverment perspective (and even if they did it, itwasn't the best idea). Killing the one who opose you can just make it easier for people to say "oh look, they are more tyranic than what we thought, lets get them out of the goverment". That has happened through all history on different contries, so killing your opposers isn't the wiset thing to do, but who knows really.
RIP Boris Nemtsov
Yeah sure he is in no way worse than european governements or the US... so I guess Obama will still be president in 10 years?
Putin is now at 86% approval rating, Obama has like what? 20%?
Nemtsov was a non-factor of a non-factor in modern Russian politics, and was lately way more involved in business than politics. Wait for the investigation to finish then point fingers people, hysterical CNN tier speculating helps nobody. Seeing as how he was energy minister in Russia during the Yeltsin regime there is a long list of shady people he was in contact with.
On March 01 2015 01:34 [Phantom] wrote: Reading this thread makes me see that there really is a lot of anti russian propaganda in europe and the US xD. Putin maybe is bad, but hes in no way worse than the US or erupean goverments.
I can understand when someone who doesn't have to access to media or speaks only Russian can make a comment like that. But when i see someone who uses Internet and obviously speaks English writes such a turd i actually do lose faith in humanity. Yes buddy, that evil Merkel scheming just now how to annex parts of Austria, all those anti-Obama TV stations being shut down left and right.
Use a fucking brain before you post, it doesn't hurt. And if you are clueless about something don't post about it.
Putin maybe is bad, but hes in no way worse than the US or European governments.
Russians propaganda nowadays tolerate nationalism, hate and homophobia. And i believe that developed country shouldn't do this.
But generally, in my opinion this murder was made brutally by ultra right victim of Propaganda. And most interesting part now will be Putin's reaction to this murder. If he will have enough social and political power to stop this kind of behavior of citizens, or Russia is going in complete chaos and Putin is loosing his control over the country and people.
But that's just my opinion and truth might be different.
On March 01 2015 01:34 [Phantom] wrote: Reading this thread makes me see that there really is a lot of anti russian propaganda in europe and the US xD. Putin maybe is bad, but hes in no way worse than the US or erupean goverments.
I can understand when someone who doesn't have to access to media or speaks only Russian can make a comment like that. But when i see someone who uses Internet and obviously speaks English writes such a turd i actually do lose faith in humanity. Yes buddy, that evil Merkel scheming just now how to annex parts of Austria, all those anti-Obama TV stations being shut down left and right.
Use a fucking brain before you post, it doesn't hurt. And if you are clueless about something don't post about it.
'Everybody that doesn't agree with me is a fucking idiot and is wrong' 'The propaganda I drink in every day is much better than the propaganda you drink in every day'
Maybe you should use your brain.
edit: and lay off the personal attacks, this is a discussion forum where people can voice there own opinions on xy subject. If you can't handle somebody else having an opinion count to 10 before hitting 'post'.
Why would putin shot a critic, when he have that many rotting in jail? Well because putin is satan, and obama is the defender of the good. There is no propaganda in the west media, it's only in iran/russia/china/north korea the axe of evil, don't you remember?
I can't believe there are still people that doesn't know who is on the good side and who is on the bad side...
I think there's a fundamental misconception regarding how Russian propaganda works. It's not that they feed you a narrative that the Kremlin likes, that didn't even work in Soviet times, with the exception of inspiring countless jokes... Instead, they push out countless absurd theories (in this case, the different Kremlin controlled channels have used: Nemtsov's gf had an abortion, he was a CIA agent, muslims killed him because of Charlie Hebdo, the mafia killed him, Ukrainians killed him as a provocation). Each and every news piece is intentionally emotionally charged. This creates an atmosphere of mistrust, where you cannot trust anything you see in the media, you can't be sure of a single fact, or take any claim seriously. In the context of such mistrust, people are radicalized, the rational part of public discourse is diminished while emotional reactions are amplified. This makes it easier to rally people around an idea, such as an orthodox Russian war against Ukrainian nazis, and European homophiles. In the end, the facts don't matter, these are just emotionally unstable people reacting against a perceived injustice or threat, hoping to find a single stable point in a confusing world.
On March 01 2015 01:34 [Phantom] wrote: Reading this thread makes me see that there really is a lot of anti russian propaganda in europe and the US xD. Putin maybe is bad, but hes in no way worse than the US or erupean goverments.
I can understand when someone who doesn't have to access to media or speaks only Russian can make a comment like that. But when i see someone who uses Internet and obviously speaks English writes such a turd i actually do lose faith in humanity. Yes buddy, that evil Merkel scheming just now how to annex parts of Austria, all those anti-Obama TV stations being shut down left and right.
Use a fucking brain before you post, it doesn't hurt. And if you are clueless about something don't post about it.
'Everybody that doesn't agree with me is a fucking idiot and is wrong' 'The propaganda I drink in every day is much better than the propaganda you drink in every day'
Maybe you should use your brain.
edit: and lay off the personal attacks, this is a discussion forum where people can voice there own opinions on xy subject. If you can't handle somebody else having an opinion count to 10 before hitting 'post'.
his argument was solid though. freedom of critical expression, and not annexing neighbour nations are pretty big differences that totally contradict [Phantom]s original thesis.
How much truth is in the story that Nemtsov was "close" to proving damaging evidence on Putin in sparking the following;
he was working on a report which apparently included concrete evidence that Russia was directly involved in the separatist movement which erupted in Ukraine last year.
Seems a bit "movie" like the way Russia is run at the moment, pretty scary place to live.
On March 01 2015 01:34 [Phantom] wrote: Reading this thread makes me see that there really is a lot of anti russian propaganda in europe and the US xD. Putin maybe is bad, but hes in no way worse than the US or erupean goverments.
I can understand when someone who doesn't have to access to media or speaks only Russian can make a comment like that. But when i see someone who uses Internet and obviously speaks English writes such a turd i actually do lose faith in humanity. Yes buddy, that evil Merkel scheming just now how to annex parts of Austria, all those anti-Obama TV stations being shut down left and right.
Use a fucking brain before you post, it doesn't hurt. And if you are clueless about something don't post about it.
'Everybody that doesn't agree with me is a fucking idiot and is wrong' 'The propaganda I drink in every day is much better than the propaganda you drink in every day'
Maybe you should use your brain.
edit: and lay off the personal attacks, this is a discussion forum where people can voice there own opinions on xy subject. If you can't handle somebody else having an opinion count to 10 before hitting 'post'.
Shooting down of Malesian airplane with Netherlands citizens on it, creating totalitarian regime in Russia and then using the power of that regime to blackmail neighbours into submission (hi Georgia, hi Ukraine), arrests of political players that aren't in line with what Kremlin wants, events in Chechnya...
Compare that to Europe which just wants to freaking trade with everyone.
And i handle other oppinions just fine, but since i don't plan on being politicly correct i have no problem with calling it bullshit when it needs to be called. Now you can go back to whatever you were doing instead of trying to derail a topic that puts Russia in negative light. I know you are good at it, but shuu.
On March 01 2015 02:15 Pandemona wrote: How much truth is in the story that Nemtsov was "close" to proving damaging evidence on Putin in sparking the following;
he was working on a report which apparently included concrete evidence that Russia was directly involved in the separatist movement which erupted in Ukraine last year.
Seems a bit "movie" like the way Russia is run at the moment, pretty scary place to live.
Well, his partner promised to release that evidence, but something tells me that Nemtsov had the key part of it and after his death, his flat had been visited by police (usual act after most of killings, but hey, you see where i am going with this). With that, suddenly, Putin kills 3 birds with a single round: some fear for opposition, lower chance of actually serious sanctions (because, let's be honest, existing evidence is not damning enough) and masses can still shout that this was organized by USA/Ukraine/girl's ex-bf/whoever!
On March 01 2015 01:34 [Phantom] wrote: Reading this thread makes me see that there really is a lot of anti russian propaganda in europe and the US xD. Putin maybe is bad, but hes in no way worse than the US or erupean goverments.
I can understand when someone who doesn't have to access to media or speaks only Russian can make a comment like that. But when i see someone who uses Internet and obviously speaks English writes such a turd i actually do lose faith in humanity. Yes buddy, that evil Merkel scheming just now how to annex parts of Austria, all those anti-Obama TV stations being shut down left and right.
Use a fucking brain before you post, it doesn't hurt. And if you are clueless about something don't post about it.
'Everybody that doesn't agree with me is a fucking idiot and is wrong' 'The propaganda I drink in every day is much better than the propaganda you drink in every day'
Maybe you should use your brain.
edit: and lay off the personal attacks, this is a discussion forum where people can voice there own opinions on xy subject. If you can't handle somebody else having an opinion count to 10 before hitting 'post'.
Shooting down of Malesian airplane with Netherlands citizens on it, creating totalitarian regime in Russia and then using the power of that regime to blackmail neighbours into submission (hi Georgia, hi Ukraine), arrests of political players that aren't in line with what Kremlin wants, events in Chechnya...
Compare that to Europe which just wants to freaking trade with everyone.
And i handle other oppinions just fine, but since i don't plan on being politicly correct i have no problem with calling it bullshit when it needs to be called. Now you can go back to whatever you were doing instead of trying to derail a topic that puts Russia in negative shadow. I know you are good at it, but shuu.
1. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest Russia proper had anything to do with the downing of MH17 other than nato media spamming 'appeals to emotion' articles backed by air, state department pictures from trial program versions of satellite maps with lines drawn on them in paint without any source as to how those lines got there. As well as shady/blurry youtube video's either not geolocated a full year after release or proven to be in territory under Kiev government control. edit: oh, and twitter...
The only country frequently asking for updates regarding MH17 are Russia and Malasia, but on August 8, Ukraine, the Netherlands, Australia and Belgium signed a non-disclosure agreement pertaining to data obtained during the investigation into the causes of the crash of Malaysian Airlines MH17, so we won't know what happened most likely ever.
2. Georgia invaded South Ossetia, fact. Another fun fact: the wanted criminal Sakashvili now works for the Ukranian government, his appointment was strongly condemned by the Georgian government because Sakashvili is a criminal and a traitor of his own people.
Now that thats over with we can move onto some other lies being spread in this thread. Have any of you ever watched Russian television? Really watched Russian news? If you actually had you would know that they constantly report about extremely negative events regarding Russia. The fall of the rouble was widely covered and blamed on the incompetence of the government in dealing with the situation. There are vastly more political talk ect. shows than in western countries, in which all political view points get a say and the Russian public in general is very much more politically self-aware than their western counterparts.
On March 01 2015 01:34 [Phantom] wrote: Reading this thread makes me see that there really is a lot of anti russian propaganda in europe and the US xD. Putin maybe is bad, but hes in no way worse than the US or erupean goverments.
Also, i agree with the fact that killing him isn't the best idea from the russian goverment perspective (and even if they did it, itwasn't the best idea). Killing the one who opose you can just make it easier for people to say "oh look, they are more tyranic than what we thought, lets get them out of the goverment". That has happened through all history on different contries, so killing your opposers isn't the wiset thing to do, but who knows really.
RIP Boris Nemtsov
Yeah sure he is in no way worse than european governements or the US... so I guess Obama will still be president in 10 years?
Putin is now at 86% approval rating, Obama has like what? 20%?
Nemtsov was a non-factor of a non-factor in modern Russian politics, and was lately way more involved in business than politics. Wait for the investigation to finish then point fingers people, hysterical CNN tier speculating helps nobody. Seeing as how he was energy minister in Russia during the Yeltsin regime there is a long list of shady people he was in contact with.
Well powerful shady people at the top don't hire amateurs to do the job. The killing was done in a walking proximity to Kremlin, where hunders of cameras are around. If this is a business matter, all of the investigative power of FSB will be thrown at it to prove that Putin is clean. Do you think the assassin and the person behind it would want that and even make the investigators' job easy? This looks like a stupid hate crime right now, and there is a clear cut version of why he would be hated.
P.S. I find it funny that you've used "Yeltsin regime", yet I've never seen you use "Putin regime". You man are so freaking biased.
On March 01 2015 01:34 [Phantom] wrote: Reading this thread makes me see that there really is a lot of anti russian propaganda in europe and the US xD. Putin maybe is bad, but hes in no way worse than the US or erupean goverments.
Also, i agree with the fact that killing him isn't the best idea from the russian goverment perspective (and even if they did it, itwasn't the best idea). Killing the one who opose you can just make it easier for people to say "oh look, they are more tyranic than what we thought, lets get them out of the goverment". That has happened through all history on different contries, so killing your opposers isn't the wiset thing to do, but who knows really.
RIP Boris Nemtsov
Yeah sure he is in no way worse than european governements or the US... so I guess Obama will still be president in 10 years?
Putin is now at 86% approval rating, Obama has like what? 20%?
Nemtsov was a non-factor of a non-factor in modern Russian politics, and was lately way more involved in business than politics. Wait for the investigation to finish then point fingers people, hysterical CNN tier speculating helps nobody. Seeing as how he was energy minister in Russia during the Yeltsin regime there is a long list of shady people he was in contact with.
Well powerful shady people at the top don't hire amateurs to do the job. The killing was done in a walking proximity to Kremlin, where hunders of cameras are around. If this is a business matter, all of the investigative power of FSB will be thrown at it to prove that Putin is clean. Do you think the assassin and the person behind it would want that and even make their job easy? This looks like a stupid hate crime right now, and there is a clear cut version of why he would be hated.
Nobody cared enough about him (politically) to kill him. That's like saying if Alex Jones got killed tomorrow Obama did it because he 'knew everything' and was threatening to expose it.
On March 01 2015 01:34 [Phantom] wrote: Reading this thread makes me see that there really is a lot of anti russian propaganda in europe and the US xD. Putin maybe is bad, but hes in no way worse than the US or erupean goverments.
Also, i agree with the fact that killing him isn't the best idea from the russian goverment perspective (and even if they did it, itwasn't the best idea). Killing the one who opose you can just make it easier for people to say "oh look, they are more tyranic than what we thought, lets get them out of the goverment". That has happened through all history on different contries, so killing your opposers isn't the wiset thing to do, but who knows really.
RIP Boris Nemtsov
Yeah sure he is in no way worse than european governements or the US... so I guess Obama will still be president in 10 years?
Putin is now at 86% approval rating, Obama has like what? 20%?
Nemtsov was a non-factor of a non-factor in modern Russian politics, and was lately way more involved in business than politics. Wait for the investigation to finish then point fingers people, hysterical CNN tier speculating helps nobody. Seeing as how he was energy minister in Russia during the Yeltsin regime there is a long list of shady people he was in contact with.
Well powerful shady people at the top don't hire amateurs to do the job. The killing was done in a walking proximity to Kremlin, where hunders of cameras are around. If this is a business matter, all of the investigative power of FSB will be thrown at it to prove that Putin is clean. Do you think the assassin and the person behind it would want that and even make their job easy? This looks like a stupid hate crime right now, and there is a clear cut version of why he would be hated.
Nobody cared enough about him (politically) to kill him. That's like saying if Alex Jones got killed tomorrow Obama did it because he 'knew everything' and was threatening to expose it.
Nobody? Are you friends with every political psycho in Russia?
On March 01 2015 01:34 [Phantom] wrote: Reading this thread makes me see that there really is a lot of anti russian propaganda in europe and the US xD. Putin maybe is bad, but hes in no way worse than the US or erupean goverments.
Also, i agree with the fact that killing him isn't the best idea from the russian goverment perspective (and even if they did it, itwasn't the best idea). Killing the one who opose you can just make it easier for people to say "oh look, they are more tyranic than what we thought, lets get them out of the goverment". That has happened through all history on different contries, so killing your opposers isn't the wiset thing to do, but who knows really.
RIP Boris Nemtsov
Yeah sure he is in no way worse than european governements or the US... so I guess Obama will still be president in 10 years?
Putin is now at 86% approval rating, Obama has like what? 20%?
Nemtsov was a non-factor of a non-factor in modern Russian politics, and was lately way more involved in business than politics. Wait for the investigation to finish then point fingers people, hysterical CNN tier speculating helps nobody. Seeing as how he was energy minister in Russia during the Yeltsin regime there is a long list of shady people he was in contact with.
Well powerful shady people at the top don't hire amateurs to do the job. The killing was done in a walking proximity to Kremlin, where hunders of cameras are around. If this is a business matter, all of the investigative power of FSB will be thrown at it to prove that Putin is clean. Do you think the assassin and the person behind it would want that and even make their job easy? This looks like a stupid hate crime right now, and there is a clear cut version of why he would be hated.
Nobody cared enough about him (politically) to kill him. That's like saying if Alex Jones got killed tomorrow Obama did it because he 'knew everything' and was threatening to expose it.
Nobody? Are you friends with every political psycho in Russia?
I meant nobody in a political sense, politically he was less than a non-threat. I would have more of a chance of breaking 1% of vote in the Australian elections than Nemtsov in the Russian ones.
It was highly planned so its maybe it could be one of those smart crazy people (not a crazy-crazy one). Though I don't see why a smart person would go to all this trouble to take out an extremely fringe politician.
edit: which is why the 'business' angle is probably the most logical.
Seeing as how he was energy minister in Russia during the Yeltsin regime there is a long list of shady people he was in contact with.
The same Yeltsin regime that put Putin in power to ensure that nothing bad will happen to "The Family"?
I liked your stuff about Georgia and Malaysian plane, mind writing about this a bit? Also a bit about Putin enterprises in St. Petersburg, would really love to know what is official line about that. Don't forget to explain how a guy that was basicly responsible for a 100 million USD scam becomes a Prime Minister in a democratic country.
On March 01 2015 01:34 [Phantom] wrote: Reading this thread makes me see that there really is a lot of anti russian propaganda in europe and the US xD. Putin maybe is bad, but hes in no way worse than the US or erupean goverments.
Also, i agree with the fact that killing him isn't the best idea from the russian goverment perspective (and even if they did it, itwasn't the best idea). Killing the one who opose you can just make it easier for people to say "oh look, they are more tyranic than what we thought, lets get them out of the goverment". That has happened through all history on different contries, so killing your opposers isn't the wiset thing to do, but who knows really.
RIP Boris Nemtsov
Yeah sure he is in no way worse than european governements or the US... so I guess Obama will still be president in 10 years?
Putin is now at 86% approval rating, Obama has like what? 20%?
Nemtsov was a non-factor of a non-factor in modern Russian politics, and was lately way more involved in business than politics. Wait for the investigation to finish then point fingers people, hysterical CNN tier speculating helps nobody. Seeing as how he was energy minister in Russia during the Yeltsin regime there is a long list of shady people he was in contact with.
Well powerful shady people at the top don't hire amateurs to do the job. The killing was done in a walking proximity to Kremlin, where hunders of cameras are around. If this is a business matter, all of the investigative power of FSB will be thrown at it to prove that Putin is clean. Do you think the assassin and the person behind it would want that and even make their job easy? This looks like a stupid hate crime right now, and there is a clear cut version of why he would be hated.
Nobody cared enough about him (politically) to kill him. That's like saying if Alex Jones got killed tomorrow Obama did it because he 'knew everything' and was threatening to expose it.
Nobody? Are you friends with every political psycho in Russia?
I meant nobody in a political sense, politically he was less than a non-threat. I would have more of a chance of breaking 1% of vote in the Australian elections than Nemtsov in the Russian ones.
It was highly planned so its maybe it could be one of those smart crazy people (not a crazy-crazy one). Though I don't see why a smart person would go to all this trouble to take out an extremely fringe politician.
edit: which is why the 'business' angle is probably the most logical.
to cut the long story short: do you think there is no hate atmosphere towards the so-called "fifth column" in Russia?
Seeing as how he was energy minister in Russia during the Yeltsin regime there is a long list of shady people he was in contact with.
The same Yeltsin regime that put Putin in power to ensure that nothing bad will happen to "The Family"?
I liked your stuff about Georgia and Malaysian plane, mind writing about this a bit? Also a bit about Putin enterprises in St. Petersburg, would really love to know what is official line about that. Don't forget to explain how a guy that was basicly responsible for a 100 million USD scam becomes a Prime Minister in a democratic country.
We are not really aloud to talk about the Ukraine situation (apart from brief mentions in context) on TL so I'm afraid I can not elaborate. My one post should be more than enough to point anybody that wants to know more about those subjects without derailing the thread in the right direction... just type it into google, you will find everything you need
Please don't start discussing MH17 and the like. That's exactly the kind of derailing that will get this thread closed. And the discussion will be terrible.
While I don't believe Putin had Nemtsov killed at the time (there's no real evidence yet), the argument for why he is a threat is being misrepresented. Anyone that isn't part of "systemic opposition", i.e., people in the pay of the govt. but pretending to be a (placeholder) opposition for show, is going to be entirely outside of the political system. In this it's similar to Ukraine.
What Putin truly fears is a Ukrainian style Orange revolution, or Maidan, in which dissatisfaction leads to massive public unrest and his ousting. And Nemtsov was one of the most prominent organizers of different public demonstrations. Just 2h before his death, he spoke at Echo Moscow, calling a demonstration for tomorrow, demanding free elections. This demonstration will now mourn his death.
Seeing as how he was energy minister in Russia during the Yeltsin regime there is a long list of shady people he was in contact with.
The same Yeltsin regime that put Putin in power to ensure that nothing bad will happen to "The Family"?
I liked your stuff about Georgia and Malaysian plane, mind writing about this a bit? Also a bit about Putin enterprises in St. Petersburg, would really love to know what is official line about that. Don't forget to explain how a guy that was basicly responsible for a 100 million USD scam becomes a Prime Minister in a democratic country.
We are not really aloud to talk about the Ukraine situation (apart from brief mentions in context) on TL so I'm afraid I can not elaborate. My one post should be more than enough to point anybody that wants to know more about those subjects without derailing the thread in the right direction... just type it into google, you will find everything you need
But i'm not asking you about Ukraine situation here my friend. It's about St.Petersburg and Putin and that food transport of some sort? Let's clear those filihy suspicions of Putin ever being even remotly connected to illegal activity or anything in the likes of it by just showing how crystal his past it. Don't you agree?
EDIT: To make it clear, i don't belive Putin was directly responsible for killing of Nemtsov. I do belive tho, and it's oppinion that the hatred towards opposition if Russia could lead to some kind of "rightful act" of killing a traitor by some overactive citizen. Or it could be just mobsters stuff, or his recent report about financial status of Duma politicians that triggered the trigger. Maybe the investigation will clear some doubts but i would't count on it too hard.
On March 01 2015 01:34 [Phantom] wrote: Reading this thread makes me see that there really is a lot of anti russian propaganda in europe and the US xD. Putin maybe is bad, but hes in no way worse than the US or erupean goverments.
Also, i agree with the fact that killing him isn't the best idea from the russian goverment perspective (and even if they did it, itwasn't the best idea). Killing the one who opose you can just make it easier for people to say "oh look, they are more tyranic than what we thought, lets get them out of the goverment". That has happened through all history on different contries, so killing your opposers isn't the wiset thing to do, but who knows really.
RIP Boris Nemtsov
Yeah sure he is in no way worse than european governements or the US... so I guess Obama will still be president in 10 years?
Putin is now at 86% approval rating, Obama has like what? 20%?
Nemtsov was a non-factor of a non-factor in modern Russian politics, and was lately way more involved in business than politics. Wait for the investigation to finish then point fingers people, hysterical CNN tier speculating helps nobody. Seeing as how he was energy minister in Russia during the Yeltsin regime there is a long list of shady people he was in contact with.
Well powerful shady people at the top don't hire amateurs to do the job. The killing was done in a walking proximity to Kremlin, where hunders of cameras are around. If this is a business matter, all of the investigative power of FSB will be thrown at it to prove that Putin is clean. Do you think the assassin and the person behind it would want that and even make their job easy? This looks like a stupid hate crime right now, and there is a clear cut version of why he would be hated.
Nobody cared enough about him (politically) to kill him. That's like saying if Alex Jones got killed tomorrow Obama did it because he 'knew everything' and was threatening to expose it.
Nobody? Are you friends with every political psycho in Russia?
I meant nobody in a political sense, politically he was less than a non-threat. I would have more of a chance of breaking 1% of vote in the Australian elections than Nemtsov in the Russian ones.
It was highly planned so its maybe it could be one of those smart crazy people (not a crazy-crazy one). Though I don't see why a smart person would go to all this trouble to take out an extremely fringe politician.
edit: which is why the 'business' angle is probably the most logical.
to cut the long story short: do you think there is no hate atmosphere towards the so-called "fifth column" in Russia?
I think people who receive money by western governments to undermine Russia are just as disliked as people who receive money from Russia to undermine western governments in those countries. People universally don't like moles.
I don't live in Russia so I've never met a inner-city Moscovite liberal who works for an NGO, to tell you the truth I've never seen one in Serbia (apart from on TV) but they seem to be living well off of their paychecks. Though Serbia is an extremely politically messed up country at the moment to the point where you don't know who is doing what anymore. They are all paid by somebody though.
On March 01 2015 03:03 Narw wrote: But i'm not asking you about Ukraine situation here my friend. It's about St.Petersburg and Putin and that food transport of some sort? Let's clear those filihy suspicions of Putin ever being even remotly connected to illegal activity or anything in the likes of it by just showing how crystal his past it. Don't you agree?
I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you link an article?
edit: I can't find anything on google thats not on a clear propaganda source
On March 01 2015 02:12 Ghanburighan wrote: I think there's a fundamental misconception regarding how Russian propaganda works. It's not that they feed you a narrative that the Kremlin likes, that didn't even work in Soviet times, with the exception of inspiring countless jokes... Instead, they push out countless absurd theories (in this case, the different Kremlin controlled channels have used: Nemtsov's gf had an abortion, he was a CIA agent, muslims killed him because of Charlie Hebdo, the mafia killed him, Ukrainians killed him as a provocation). Each and every news piece is intentionally emotionally charged. This creates an atmosphere of mistrust, where you cannot trust anything you see in the media, you can't be sure of a single fact, or take any claim seriously. In the context of such mistrust, people are radicalized, the rational part of public discourse is diminished while emotional reactions are amplified. This makes it easier to rally people around an idea, such as an orthodox Russian war against Ukrainian nazis, and European homophiles. In the end, the facts don't matter, these are just emotionally unstable people reacting against a perceived injustice or threat, hoping to find a single stable point in a confusing world.
this post made the most sense to me. thanks for sharing this point of view
On March 01 2015 01:34 [Phantom] wrote: Reading this thread makes me see that there really is a lot of anti russian propaganda in europe and the US xD. Putin maybe is bad, but hes in no way worse than the US or erupean goverments.
Also, i agree with the fact that killing him isn't the best idea from the russian goverment perspective (and even if they did it, itwasn't the best idea). Killing the one who opose you can just make it easier for people to say "oh look, they are more tyranic than what we thought, lets get them out of the goverment". That has happened through all history on different contries, so killing your opposers isn't the wiset thing to do, but who knows really.
RIP Boris Nemtsov
Yeah sure he is in no way worse than european governements or the US... so I guess Obama will still be president in 10 years?
Putin is now at 86% approval rating, Obama has like what? 20%?
Nemtsov was a non-factor of a non-factor in modern Russian politics, and was lately way more involved in business than politics. Wait for the investigation to finish then point fingers people, hysterical CNN tier speculating helps nobody. Seeing as how he was energy minister in Russia during the Yeltsin regime there is a long list of shady people he was in contact with.
Well powerful shady people at the top don't hire amateurs to do the job. The killing was done in a walking proximity to Kremlin, where hunders of cameras are around. If this is a business matter, all of the investigative power of FSB will be thrown at it to prove that Putin is clean. Do you think the assassin and the person behind it would want that and even make their job easy? This looks like a stupid hate crime right now, and there is a clear cut version of why he would be hated.
Nobody cared enough about him (politically) to kill him. That's like saying if Alex Jones got killed tomorrow Obama did it because he 'knew everything' and was threatening to expose it.
Nobody? Are you friends with every political psycho in Russia?
I meant nobody in a political sense, politically he was less than a non-threat. I would have more of a chance of breaking 1% of vote in the Australian elections than Nemtsov in the Russian ones.
It was highly planned so its maybe it could be one of those smart crazy people (not a crazy-crazy one). Though I don't see why a smart person would go to all this trouble to take out an extremely fringe politician.
edit: which is why the 'business' angle is probably the most logical.
to cut the long story short: do you think there is no hate atmosphere towards the so-called "fifth column" in Russia?
I think people who receive money by western governments to undermine Russia are just as disliked as people who receive money from Russia to undermine western governments in those countries. People universally don't like moles.
So you are saying that there is some hate atmosphere towards the so-called "fifth column" in Russia, but it is totally in line with the relevant hate atmospheres in other countries?
On March 01 2015 01:34 [Phantom] wrote: Reading this thread makes me see that there really is a lot of anti russian propaganda in europe and the US xD. Putin maybe is bad, but hes in no way worse than the US or erupean goverments.
Also, i agree with the fact that killing him isn't the best idea from the russian goverment perspective (and even if they did it, itwasn't the best idea). Killing the one who opose you can just make it easier for people to say "oh look, they are more tyranic than what we thought, lets get them out of the goverment". That has happened through all history on different contries, so killing your opposers isn't the wiset thing to do, but who knows really.
RIP Boris Nemtsov
Yeah sure he is in no way worse than european governements or the US... so I guess Obama will still be president in 10 years?
Putin is now at 86% approval rating, Obama has like what? 20%?
Nemtsov was a non-factor of a non-factor in modern Russian politics, and was lately way more involved in business than politics. Wait for the investigation to finish then point fingers people, hysterical CNN tier speculating helps nobody. Seeing as how he was energy minister in Russia during the Yeltsin regime there is a long list of shady people he was in contact with.
Well powerful shady people at the top don't hire amateurs to do the job. The killing was done in a walking proximity to Kremlin, where hunders of cameras are around. If this is a business matter, all of the investigative power of FSB will be thrown at it to prove that Putin is clean. Do you think the assassin and the person behind it would want that and even make their job easy? This looks like a stupid hate crime right now, and there is a clear cut version of why he would be hated.
Nobody cared enough about him (politically) to kill him. That's like saying if Alex Jones got killed tomorrow Obama did it because he 'knew everything' and was threatening to expose it.
Nobody? Are you friends with every political psycho in Russia?
I meant nobody in a political sense, politically he was less than a non-threat. I would have more of a chance of breaking 1% of vote in the Australian elections than Nemtsov in the Russian ones.
It was highly planned so its maybe it could be one of those smart crazy people (not a crazy-crazy one). Though I don't see why a smart person would go to all this trouble to take out an extremely fringe politician.
edit: which is why the 'business' angle is probably the most logical.
to cut the long story short: do you think there is no hate atmosphere towards the so-called "fifth column" in Russia?
I think people who receive money by western governments to undermine Russia are just as disliked as people who receive money from Russia to undermine western governments in those countries. People universally don't like moles.
So you are saying that there is some hate atmosphere towards the so-called "fifth column" in Russia, but it is totally in line with the relevant hate atmospheres in other countries?
I've answered this question like 3 times already. Is there a point to all of this?
On March 01 2015 01:34 [Phantom] wrote: Reading this thread makes me see that there really is a lot of anti russian propaganda in europe and the US xD. Putin maybe is bad, but hes in no way worse than the US or erupean goverments.
Also, i agree with the fact that killing him isn't the best idea from the russian goverment perspective (and even if they did it, itwasn't the best idea). Killing the one who opose you can just make it easier for people to say "oh look, they are more tyranic than what we thought, lets get them out of the goverment". That has happened through all history on different contries, so killing your opposers isn't the wiset thing to do, but who knows really.
RIP Boris Nemtsov
Yeah sure he is in no way worse than european governements or the US... so I guess Obama will still be president in 10 years?
Putin is now at 86% approval rating, Obama has like what? 20%?
Nemtsov was a non-factor of a non-factor in modern Russian politics, and was lately way more involved in business than politics. Wait for the investigation to finish then point fingers people, hysterical CNN tier speculating helps nobody. Seeing as how he was energy minister in Russia during the Yeltsin regime there is a long list of shady people he was in contact with.
Well powerful shady people at the top don't hire amateurs to do the job. The killing was done in a walking proximity to Kremlin, where hunders of cameras are around. If this is a business matter, all of the investigative power of FSB will be thrown at it to prove that Putin is clean. Do you think the assassin and the person behind it would want that and even make their job easy? This looks like a stupid hate crime right now, and there is a clear cut version of why he would be hated.
Nobody cared enough about him (politically) to kill him. That's like saying if Alex Jones got killed tomorrow Obama did it because he 'knew everything' and was threatening to expose it.
Is this Boris Nemtsov really the equivalent of Alex Jones? The guy actually served in government in multiple stations, whereas Jones is a crazy person that owns a bunch of radio stations.
On March 01 2015 01:36 Jetaap wrote: [quote] Yeah sure he is in no way worse than european governements or the US... so I guess Obama will still be president in 10 years?
Putin is now at 86% approval rating, Obama has like what? 20%?
Nemtsov was a non-factor of a non-factor in modern Russian politics, and was lately way more involved in business than politics. Wait for the investigation to finish then point fingers people, hysterical CNN tier speculating helps nobody. Seeing as how he was energy minister in Russia during the Yeltsin regime there is a long list of shady people he was in contact with.
Well powerful shady people at the top don't hire amateurs to do the job. The killing was done in a walking proximity to Kremlin, where hunders of cameras are around. If this is a business matter, all of the investigative power of FSB will be thrown at it to prove that Putin is clean. Do you think the assassin and the person behind it would want that and even make their job easy? This looks like a stupid hate crime right now, and there is a clear cut version of why he would be hated.
Nobody cared enough about him (politically) to kill him. That's like saying if Alex Jones got killed tomorrow Obama did it because he 'knew everything' and was threatening to expose it.
Nobody? Are you friends with every political psycho in Russia?
I meant nobody in a political sense, politically he was less than a non-threat. I would have more of a chance of breaking 1% of vote in the Australian elections than Nemtsov in the Russian ones.
It was highly planned so its maybe it could be one of those smart crazy people (not a crazy-crazy one). Though I don't see why a smart person would go to all this trouble to take out an extremely fringe politician.
edit: which is why the 'business' angle is probably the most logical.
to cut the long story short: do you think there is no hate atmosphere towards the so-called "fifth column" in Russia?
I think people who receive money by western governments to undermine Russia are just as disliked as people who receive money from Russia to undermine western governments in those countries. People universally don't like moles.
So you are saying that there is some hate atmosphere towards the so-called "fifth column" in Russia, but it is totally in line with the relevant hate atmospheres in other countries?
I've answered this question like 3 times already. Is there a point to all of this?
The point is, as I see it, that the irrational, extremely hateful atmosphere towards every single public figure who disaggrees with the government's course of action / point of view, spread through the majority of Russian mass media, is enough to influence some group of aggressive conservative pseudo-patriots, "religious" anti-maidan members or whoever else who believes he might be doing the society a favor this way, into committing such a crime.
I would be extremely afraid to be in an open opposition to the dictatorship of Putin. I admire people who have so much courage to act and express their displeasure of current Russian politics. You are basically terrorized to remain in obedience. This is the true terrorism.
On February 28 2015 18:43 Narw wrote: If any of you still have delusions of Russia being a democracy, where law and rights of opposition of Kremlin are respected, please get rid of those. You will save yourself future disappointments.
Oh, the "Putin dosn't gain anything from having him/her killed/arrested" is getting old.
Bonus points for "provocation", waiting for Ławrow to appear with "CIA did this" line.
Point is, Putin really does not gain anything from having him killed here, well, except the ability to swiftly get rid of the report Nemtsov was preparing, that could have acted like an actual trigger. Could have.
On February 28 2015 19:09 Sprouter wrote: Wow they don't care just shoot him on the street
Few hundreds meters away from Kremlin too!
Considering the men he had sentenced to life time in prison and then proceeding to having their food poisoned? Look there is nothing stopping this man from taking others down. He wanted that oil-pipeline for his government just like he can take out anyone who opposes him.
On March 01 2015 01:34 [Phantom] wrote: Reading this thread makes me see that there really is a lot of anti russian propaganda in europe and the US xD. Putin maybe is bad, but hes in no way worse than the US or erupean goverments.
Also, i agree with the fact that killing him isn't the best idea from the russian goverment perspective (and even if they did it, itwasn't the best idea). Killing the one who opose you can just make it easier for people to say "oh look, they are more tyranic than what we thought, lets get them out of the goverment". That has happened through all history on different contries, so killing your opposers isn't the wiset thing to do, but who knows really.
RIP Boris Nemtsov
Yeah sure he is in no way worse than european governements or the US... so I guess Obama will still be president in 10 years?
Putin is now at 86% approval rating, Obama has like what? 20%?
Nemtsov was a non-factor of a non-factor in modern Russian politics, and was lately way more involved in business than politics. Wait for the investigation to finish then point fingers people, hysterical CNN tier speculating helps nobody. Seeing as how he was energy minister in Russia during the Yeltsin regime there is a long list of shady people he was in contact with.
Well powerful shady people at the top don't hire amateurs to do the job. The killing was done in a walking proximity to Kremlin, where hunders of cameras are around. If this is a business matter, all of the investigative power of FSB will be thrown at it to prove that Putin is clean. Do you think the assassin and the person behind it would want that and even make their job easy? This looks like a stupid hate crime right now, and there is a clear cut version of why he would be hated.
Nobody cared enough about him (politically) to kill him. That's like saying if Alex Jones got killed tomorrow Obama did it because he 'knew everything' and was threatening to expose it.
Is this Boris Nemtsov really the equivalent of Alex Jones? The guy actually served in government in multiple stations, whereas Jones is a crazy person that owns a bunch of radio stations.
Alex Jones would get more votes in the US than Nemtsov would get in Russia though. The fact that someone like Alex Jones has more credibility as a politician than Nemtsov shows just how much of a non-factor these fringe politicians are. Fringe is fringe.
There are many people who served in Bush and Clinton administrations who are less than nobodies whose views nobody cares about. Jesse Ventura was the governor of Minnesota from 1999 till 2003, if he died it wouldn't mean FEMA death camps exist.
@zeo I understand that his star had fallen, and so may be irrelevant in that sense. But what were his views that were so extreme that lead you to compare him to Alex Jones? NWO-believing, moon-landing faked, 9/11 truther Alex Jones?
On March 01 2015 02:55 xuanzue wrote: so, the PARNAS has 1 seat of 3787. and here people really like to sell like this guy was a real threat to Putin.
So name me 3 most influentional oppositional leaders in Russia for the 27.02.2015
Gary Kasparov(1), and his twitter account.
and Gennady Zyuganov(2) and any other guy (3)from the communist party. I'm pretty sure the 2nd political force in Russia is the communist party and they are more a real threat against Putin.
On March 01 2015 04:45 Falling wrote: @zeo I understand that his star had fallen, and so may be irrelevant in that sense. But what were his views that were so extreme that lead you to compare him to Alex Jones? NWO-believing, moon-landing faked, 9/11 truther Alex Jones?
Oh no, I didn't mean it like that. I'm not saying they hold the same views, I'm saying that even somebody with 'moonlanding hoax' views would be a more relevant politician than Nemtsov. Maybe there were other politicians holding the same views as him that voters liked more, idk. There are many political parties in eastern Europe that exist only to get election money and whose names you only see on ballot sheets during election, I'm sure many people in Russia don't even know the name of the party he was the head of.
On March 01 2015 04:45 Falling wrote: @zeo I understand that his star had fallen, and so may be irrelevant in that sense. But what were his views that were so extreme that lead you to compare him to Alex Jones? NWO-believing, moon-landing faked, 9/11 truther Alex Jones?
he believed that the russian government is corrupt ... i guess that's enough for zeo
On March 01 2015 04:45 Falling wrote: @zeo I understand that his star had fallen, and so may be irrelevant in that sense. But what were his views that were so extreme that lead you to compare him to Alex Jones? NWO-believing, moon-landing faked, 9/11 truther Alex Jones?
he believed that the russian government is corrupt ... i guess that's enough for zeo
You do realize you are talking about someone that held a high ranking position in a government so bad, so corrupt, so awful that they made Putin look like the savior of Russia? It's like the perfect opposition for Putin, imagine how bad you have to be to make Putin look 90% approval rating good? Putin probably wishes these opposition leaders stay around forever.
On March 01 2015 02:55 xuanzue wrote: so, the PARNAS has 1 seat of 3787. and here people really like to sell like this guy was a real threat to Putin.
So name me 3 most influentional oppositional leaders in Russia for the 27.02.2015
Gary Kasparov(1), and his twitter account.
and Gennady Zyuganov(2) and any other guy (3)from the communist party. I'm pretty sure the 2nd political force in Russia is the communist party and they are more a real threat against Putin.
What makes you think Communist Party is in any way opposition towards Kremlin and in which way they pose any threat to Putin? Also i can't read minds, so feel free to elaborate who is the other guy.
By opposition i mean a party that actively seeks to challenge and question actions of current government, not some exotic guy who likes to tell that Putin isn't Stalin (it's a negative in his eyes) and starts in Presidental elections.
On March 01 2015 02:55 xuanzue wrote: so, the PARNAS has 1 seat of 3787. and here people really like to sell like this guy was a real threat to Putin.
So name me 3 most influentional oppositional leaders in Russia for the 27.02.2015
Gary Kasparov(1), and his twitter account.
and Gennady Zyuganov(2) and any other guy (3)from the communist party. I'm pretty sure the 2nd political force in Russia is the communist party and they are more a real threat against Putin.
I'm sorry, but the communist party is not real opposition. It's one of the many (some more, some less) fake, so-called "systematical opposition" parties, that are nothing but joke pretend-opposition parties. Both their leaders' and Kasparov's influence is nowadays much lower than either that of Navalny or Nemtsov.
On March 01 2015 04:45 Falling wrote: @zeo I understand that his star had fallen, and so may be irrelevant in that sense. But what were his views that were so extreme that lead you to compare him to Alex Jones? NWO-believing, moon-landing faked, 9/11 truther Alex Jones?
he believed that the russian government is corrupt ... i guess that's enough for zeo
You do realize you are talking about someone that held a high ranking position in a government so bad, so corrupt, so awful that they made Putin look like the savior of Russia? It's like the perfect opposition for Putin, imagine how bad you have to be to make Putin look 90% approval rating good? Putin probably wishes these opposition leaders stay around forever.
Wait there are people who actually think those approval ratings are legit?
On March 01 2015 04:45 Falling wrote: @zeo I understand that his star had fallen, and so may be irrelevant in that sense. But what were his views that were so extreme that lead you to compare him to Alex Jones? NWO-believing, moon-landing faked, 9/11 truther Alex Jones?
he believed that the russian government is corrupt ... i guess that's enough for zeo
You do realize you are talking about someone that held a high ranking position in a government so bad, so corrupt, so awful that they made Putin look like the savior of Russia? It's like the perfect opposition for Putin, imagine how bad you have to be to make Putin look 90% approval rating good? Putin probably wishes these opposition leaders stay around forever.
Wait there are people who actually think those approval ratings are legit?
They may or may not be actually legit, but if you speak/listen to the general public in Russia, you certainly get the impression that they are not that far off...
On March 01 2015 04:45 Falling wrote: @zeo I understand that his star had fallen, and so may be irrelevant in that sense. But what were his views that were so extreme that lead you to compare him to Alex Jones? NWO-believing, moon-landing faked, 9/11 truther Alex Jones?
he believed that the russian government is corrupt ... i guess that's enough for zeo
You do realize you are talking about someone that held a high ranking position in a government so bad, so corrupt, so awful that they made Putin look like the savior of Russia? It's like the perfect opposition for Putin, imagine how bad you have to be to make Putin look 90% approval rating good? Putin probably wishes these opposition leaders stay around forever.
by forever you mean... kiled in mysterious circumstances or poisoned to death? do you think its hard for a dictator to have 90% approval rating? I see the same with the angolan cleptocracy and their followers and apologists make the same excuses as you.
On March 01 2015 02:55 xuanzue wrote: so, the PARNAS has 1 seat of 3787. and here people really like to sell like this guy was a real threat to Putin.
So name me 3 most influentional oppositional leaders in Russia for the 27.02.2015
Gary Kasparov(1), and his twitter account.
and Gennady Zyuganov(2) and any other guy (3)from the communist party. I'm pretty sure the 2nd political force in Russia is the communist party and they are more a real threat against Putin.
I'm sorry, but the communist party is not real opposition. It's one of the many (some more, some less) fake, so-called "systematical opposition" parties, that are nothing but joke pretend-opposition parties. Both their leaders' and Kasparov's influence is nowadays much lower than either that of Navalny or Nemtsov.
Nemtsov's Republican Party of Russia: Seats in the State Duma 0 / 450 Seats in the Regional Parliaments 1 / 3,787
More influential than the 92 Seats in the State Duma Communist Party? Really?
On March 01 2015 02:55 xuanzue wrote: so, the PARNAS has 1 seat of 3787. and here people really like to sell like this guy was a real threat to Putin.
So name me 3 most influentional oppositional leaders in Russia for the 27.02.2015
Gary Kasparov(1), and his twitter account.
and Gennady Zyuganov(2) and any other guy (3)from the communist party. I'm pretty sure the 2nd political force in Russia is the communist party and they are more a real threat against Putin.
I'm sorry, but the communist party is not real opposition. It's one of the many (some more, some less) fake, so-called "systematical opposition" parties, that are nothing but joke pretend-opposition parties. Both their leaders' and Kasparov's influence is nowadays much lower than either that of Navalny or Nemtsov.
Nemtsov's Republican Party of Russia: Seats in the State Duma 0 / 450 Seats in the Regional Parliaments 1 / 3,787
More influential than the 92 Seats in the State Duma Communist Party? Really?
I think they meant that the communist party is controlled opposition.
On March 01 2015 04:45 Falling wrote: @zeo I understand that his star had fallen, and so may be irrelevant in that sense. But what were his views that were so extreme that lead you to compare him to Alex Jones? NWO-believing, moon-landing faked, 9/11 truther Alex Jones?
he believed that the russian government is corrupt ... i guess that's enough for zeo
You do realize you are talking about someone that held a high ranking position in a government so bad, so corrupt, so awful that they made Putin look like the savior of Russia? It's like the perfect opposition for Putin, imagine how bad you have to be to make Putin look 90% approval rating good? Putin probably wishes these opposition leaders stay around forever.
Wait there are people who actually think those approval ratings are legit?
Again, you underestimate how Russian mentality works, how condensated external threat propaganda is happening there. His charts climbed up since Ukraine conflict started, the more Russians feel threatened by West the more they believe Putin is the solution to this imaginary threat. He have the support, no need for him to influence those charts in anyway.
On February 28 2015 17:45 Jetaap wrote: At this point I'm starting to think that the biggest threat for Europe is not ISIS, but Russia and putin going absolutely crazy ...
Please, if that guy seriously was a threat to Putin, he would have let him live and fake the elections, like Bush.
And you showed how dumb you are.
That is curious I wonder if Putin really did have something to do with it or just some random guy killing him because he disagreed with his views.
On March 01 2015 02:55 xuanzue wrote: so, the PARNAS has 1 seat of 3787. and here people really like to sell like this guy was a real threat to Putin.
So name me 3 most influentional oppositional leaders in Russia for the 27.02.2015
Gary Kasparov(1), and his twitter account.
and Gennady Zyuganov(2) and any other guy (3)from the communist party. I'm pretty sure the 2nd political force in Russia is the communist party and they are more a real threat against Putin.
I'm sorry, but the communist party is not real opposition. It's one of the many (some more, some less) fake, so-called "systematical opposition" parties, that are nothing but joke pretend-opposition parties. Both their leaders' and Kasparov's influence is nowadays much lower than either that of Navalny or Nemtsov.
Nemtsov's Republican Party of Russia: Seats in the State Duma 0 / 450 Seats in the Regional Parliaments 1 / 3,787
More influential than the 92 Seats in the State Duma Communist Party? Really?
If you believe that party members in the parlament actually had any real influence on core politics in Russia for the last 8-12 years, you are sorely mistaken.
On March 01 2015 02:55 xuanzue wrote: so, the PARNAS has 1 seat of 3787. and here people really like to sell like this guy was a real threat to Putin.
So name me 3 most influentional oppositional leaders in Russia for the 27.02.2015
Gary Kasparov(1), and his twitter account.
and Gennady Zyuganov(2) and any other guy (3)from the communist party. I'm pretty sure the 2nd political force in Russia is the communist party and they are more a real threat against Putin.
I'm sorry, but the communist party is not real opposition. It's one of the many (some more, some less) fake, so-called "systematical opposition" parties, that are nothing but joke pretend-opposition parties. Both their leaders' and Kasparov's influence is nowadays much lower than either that of Navalny or Nemtsov.
Nemtsov's Republican Party of Russia: Seats in the State Duma 0 / 450 Seats in the Regional Parliaments 1 / 3,787
More influential than the 92 Seats in the State Duma Communist Party? Really?
I think they meant that the communist party is controlled opposition.
I don't know, people seem to think that just because a party is in the opposition they have to hate and undermine the ruling government. Not saying 'Putin is the devil' doesn't make you controlled opposition. Thats silly.
On March 01 2015 05:34 TwilightRain wrote: If you believe that party members in the parlament actually had any real influence on core politics in Russia for the last 8-12 years, you are sorely mistaken.
They have more influence than random people on the street that nobody voted for.
On March 01 2015 02:55 xuanzue wrote: so, the PARNAS has 1 seat of 3787. and here people really like to sell like this guy was a real threat to Putin.
So name me 3 most influentional oppositional leaders in Russia for the 27.02.2015
Gary Kasparov(1), and his twitter account.
and Gennady Zyuganov(2) and any other guy (3)from the communist party. I'm pretty sure the 2nd political force in Russia is the communist party and they are more a real threat against Putin.
I'm sorry, but the communist party is not real opposition. It's one of the many (some more, some less) fake, so-called "systematical opposition" parties, that are nothing but joke pretend-opposition parties. Both their leaders' and Kasparov's influence is nowadays much lower than either that of Navalny or Nemtsov.
Nemtsov's Republican Party of Russia: Seats in the State Duma 0 / 450 Seats in the Regional Parliaments 1 / 3,787
More influential than the 92 Seats in the State Duma Communist Party? Really?
I think they meant that the communist party is controlled opposition.
The statements from the Communist party are write by radical zealots. the speech of the communist party repeats that they want to abolish the private property again, the banishment of the oligarchs and they want to set up a proletarian dictatorship. They denounced Putin in the last elections.
on the other hand Putin is really close to the oligarchs and recently has been reveled his contributions to Le Pen in France. those people believing that Putin is a commie is funny, but most funny will be to see the communist party rise again as soon as Putin falls, that seems to be in less of 2 years.
On March 01 2015 02:55 xuanzue wrote: so, the PARNAS has 1 seat of 3787. and here people really like to sell like this guy was a real threat to Putin.
So name me 3 most influentional oppositional leaders in Russia for the 27.02.2015
Gary Kasparov(1), and his twitter account.
and Gennady Zyuganov(2) and any other guy (3)from the communist party. I'm pretty sure the 2nd political force in Russia is the communist party and they are more a real threat against Putin.
I'm sorry, but the communist party is not real opposition. It's one of the many (some more, some less) fake, so-called "systematical opposition" parties, that are nothing but joke pretend-opposition parties. Both their leaders' and Kasparov's influence is nowadays much lower than either that of Navalny or Nemtsov.
Nemtsov's Republican Party of Russia: Seats in the State Duma 0 / 450 Seats in the Regional Parliaments 1 / 3,787
More influential than the 92 Seats in the State Duma Communist Party? Really?
I think they meant that the communist party is controlled opposition.
I don't know, people seem to think that just because a party is in the opposition they have to hate and undermine the ruling government. Not saying 'Putin is the devil' doesn't make you controlled opposition. Thats silly.
On March 01 2015 05:34 TwilightRain wrote: If you believe that party members in the parlament actually had any real influence on core politics in Russia for the last 8-12 years, you are sorely mistaken.
They have more influence than random people on the street that nobody voted for.
If you believe that influencing public perception and actions is an utterly irrelevant kind of influence, then yes, by your logic any single member of that sad circus that is the state duma has more influence than the afformentioned two.
On March 01 2015 02:55 xuanzue wrote: so, the PARNAS has 1 seat of 3787. and here people really like to sell like this guy was a real threat to Putin.
So name me 3 most influentional oppositional leaders in Russia for the 27.02.2015
Gary Kasparov(1), and his twitter account.
and Gennady Zyuganov(2) and any other guy (3)from the communist party. I'm pretty sure the 2nd political force in Russia is the communist party and they are more a real threat against Putin.
I'm sorry, but the communist party is not real opposition. It's one of the many (some more, some less) fake, so-called "systematical opposition" parties, that are nothing but joke pretend-opposition parties. Both their leaders' and Kasparov's influence is nowadays much lower than either that of Navalny or Nemtsov.
Nemtsov's Republican Party of Russia: Seats in the State Duma 0 / 450 Seats in the Regional Parliaments 1 / 3,787
More influential than the 92 Seats in the State Duma Communist Party? Really?
I think they meant that the communist party is controlled opposition.
The statements from the Communist party are write by radical zealots. the speech of the communist party repeats that they want to abolish the private property again, the banishment of the oligarchs and they want to set up a proletarian dictatorship. They denounced Putin in the last elections.
on the other hand Putin is really close to the oligarchs and recently has been reveled his contributions to Le Pen in France. those people believing that Putin is a commie is funny, but most funny will be to see the communist party rise again as soon as Putin falls, that seems to be in less of 2 years.
They can still be controlled opposition ..the majority of russians don't want to have a new USSR so by keeping those clowns around they know there won't be a decent force with real politics that can take them out of power. The same can be seen in many african countries that pretend to be "democratic" but make sure the only opposition they get are from people they know won't be able to win any elections.
On March 01 2015 02:55 xuanzue wrote: so, the PARNAS has 1 seat of 3787. and here people really like to sell like this guy was a real threat to Putin.
So name me 3 most influentional oppositional leaders in Russia for the 27.02.2015
Gary Kasparov(1), and his twitter account.
and Gennady Zyuganov(2) and any other guy (3)from the communist party. I'm pretty sure the 2nd political force in Russia is the communist party and they are more a real threat against Putin.
I'm sorry, but the communist party is not real opposition. It's one of the many (some more, some less) fake, so-called "systematical opposition" parties, that are nothing but joke pretend-opposition parties. Both their leaders' and Kasparov's influence is nowadays much lower than either that of Navalny or Nemtsov.
Nemtsov's Republican Party of Russia: Seats in the State Duma 0 / 450 Seats in the Regional Parliaments 1 / 3,787
More influential than the 92 Seats in the State Duma Communist Party? Really?
I think they meant that the communist party is controlled opposition.
I don't know, people seem to think that just because a party is in the opposition they have to hate and undermine the ruling government. Not saying 'Putin is the devil' doesn't make you controlled opposition. Thats silly.
On March 01 2015 05:34 TwilightRain wrote: If you believe that party members in the parlament actually had any real influence on core politics in Russia for the last 8-12 years, you are sorely mistaken.
They have more influence than random people on the street that nobody voted for.
If you believe that influencing public perception and actions is an utterly irrelevant kind of influence, then yes, by your logic any single member of that sad circus that is the state duma has more influence than the afformentioned two.
He exactly knows how it works, there is no reason to think otherwise based on his deep knowledge of Russia and it's affairs. It's just his choice to ignore it and believe in what he believes.
On March 01 2015 02:55 xuanzue wrote: so, the PARNAS has 1 seat of 3787. and here people really like to sell like this guy was a real threat to Putin.
So name me 3 most influentional oppositional leaders in Russia for the 27.02.2015
Gary Kasparov(1), and his twitter account.
and Gennady Zyuganov(2) and any other guy (3)from the communist party. I'm pretty sure the 2nd political force in Russia is the communist party and they are more a real threat against Putin.
On March 01 2015 02:55 xuanzue wrote: so, the PARNAS has 1 seat of 3787. and here people really like to sell like this guy was a real threat to Putin.
So name me 3 most influentional oppositional leaders in Russia for the 27.02.2015
Gary Kasparov(1), and his twitter account.
and Gennady Zyuganov(2) and any other guy (3)from the communist party. I'm pretty sure the 2nd political force in Russia is the communist party and they are more a real threat against Putin.
I'm sorry, but the communist party is not real opposition. It's one of the many (some more, some less) fake, so-called "systematical opposition" parties, that are nothing but joke pretend-opposition parties. Both their leaders' and Kasparov's influence is nowadays much lower than either that of Navalny or Nemtsov.
Nemtsov's Republican Party of Russia: Seats in the State Duma 0 / 450 Seats in the Regional Parliaments 1 / 3,787
More influential than the 92 Seats in the State Duma Communist Party? Really?
I think they meant that the communist party is controlled opposition.
I don't know, people seem to think that just because a party is in the opposition they have to hate and undermine the ruling government. Not saying 'Putin is the devil' doesn't make you controlled opposition. Thats silly.
On March 01 2015 05:34 TwilightRain wrote: If you believe that party members in the parlament actually had any real influence on core politics in Russia for the last 8-12 years, you are sorely mistaken.
They have more influence than random people on the street that nobody voted for.
If you believe that influencing public perception and actions is an utterly irrelevant kind of influence, then yes, by your logic any single member of that sad circus that is the state duma has more influence than the afformentioned two.
Influencing public perception? I highly doubt people took them that seriously. If one of them were to say 'government is corrupt' people would nod their head or something but obviously no one took them seriously enough to vote for them. These are extremely low numbers.
Or do you mean influencing public perception like Madona or Shakira asking you to plant trees in Africa or something? Yeah people would send money for trees to be planted in Africa but who would vote for Shakira?
edit: I can see how they would highly rated and listened to in the Putin is evil crowd, but that crowd is really small and broken up in Russia
On March 01 2015 02:55 xuanzue wrote: so, the PARNAS has 1 seat of 3787. and here people really like to sell like this guy was a real threat to Putin.
So name me 3 most influentional oppositional leaders in Russia for the 27.02.2015
Gary Kasparov(1), and his twitter account.
and Gennady Zyuganov(2) and any other guy (3)from the communist party. I'm pretty sure the 2nd political force in Russia is the communist party and they are more a real threat against Putin.
I'm sorry, but the communist party is not real opposition. It's one of the many (some more, some less) fake, so-called "systematical opposition" parties, that are nothing but joke pretend-opposition parties. Both their leaders' and Kasparov's influence is nowadays much lower than either that of Navalny or Nemtsov.
Nemtsov's Republican Party of Russia: Seats in the State Duma 0 / 450 Seats in the Regional Parliaments 1 / 3,787
More influential than the 92 Seats in the State Duma Communist Party? Really?
I think they meant that the communist party is controlled opposition.
I don't know, people seem to think that just because a party is in the opposition they have to hate and undermine the ruling government. Not saying 'Putin is the devil' doesn't make you controlled opposition. Thats silly.
On March 01 2015 05:34 TwilightRain wrote: If you believe that party members in the parlament actually had any real influence on core politics in Russia for the last 8-12 years, you are sorely mistaken.
They have more influence than random people on the street that nobody voted for.
If you believe that influencing public perception and actions is an utterly irrelevant kind of influence, then yes, by your logic any single member of that sad circus that is the state duma has more influence than the afformentioned two.
He exactly knows how it works, there is no reason to think otherwise based on his deep knowledge of Russia and it's affairs. It's just his choice to ignore it and believe in what he believes.
Is that the impression that you've got? I've got the impression that he hasn't been following the inner-political happenings in the last decade in Russia nearly close enough to understand how the system actually works nowadays and give any kind of "qualified" opinion. That's why I'm not gonna argue on that point anymore.
On March 01 2015 02:55 xuanzue wrote: so, the PARNAS has 1 seat of 3787. and here people really like to sell like this guy was a real threat to Putin.
So name me 3 most influentional oppositional leaders in Russia for the 27.02.2015
Gary Kasparov(1), and his twitter account.
and Gennady Zyuganov(2) and any other guy (3)from the communist party. I'm pretty sure the 2nd political force in Russia is the communist party and they are more a real threat against Putin.
nice joke.
1) Navalny 2) Nemtsov 3) Khodorkovsky
Nemtsov past was playing too much against him, I'd argue that it's Navalny and noone close. Ryzhkov has okay reputation, so he's kinda high there and people tend to listen to him, and probably, okay, Khodorkovsky is top-3, just because there is noone better.
Nemtsov was awful in public speaking as well, God damn it. Anyway, rest in peace.
wait, a topic where u can expect criticism of russia? i wonder if zeo will get involved! oh, wait...
seriously though, i dont agree with russia bashing and jumping to conclusion at all, but reading pages 3 through 5 is even worse. i've honestly never seen TL tolerate someone so blatantly biased for this long... that turkey apologist lasted like what, a week? i thought 200 pages of derailment on ukraine crisis was enough. pls don't let another potentially interesting topic get shut down because of an individuals subtle subject steering and flame baiting
also, on point, this sounds about right
On February 28 2015 21:28 Cheerio wrote: It's not that Putin had him shot, it's that he was shot because of Putin, or rather because of his opposition to him. The atmosphere of hate in Russia towards West, Ukraine, Russian liberals and democrats is just astounding. Coupled with the rise of nationalism this event was kind of expected, but this is not what Kremlin wants, because it provokes more protest and that would provoke more violence, and again more protest. That's the kind of sequence of events that brought Yanukovich down.
On March 01 2015 02:55 xuanzue wrote: so, the PARNAS has 1 seat of 3787. and here people really like to sell like this guy was a real threat to Putin.
So name me 3 most influentional oppositional leaders in Russia for the 27.02.2015
Gary Kasparov(1), and his twitter account.
and Gennady Zyuganov(2) and any other guy (3)from the communist party. I'm pretty sure the 2nd political force in Russia is the communist party and they are more a real threat against Putin.
I'm sorry, but the communist party is not real opposition. It's one of the many (some more, some less) fake, so-called "systematical opposition" parties, that are nothing but joke pretend-opposition parties. Both their leaders' and Kasparov's influence is nowadays much lower than either that of Navalny or Nemtsov.
Nemtsov's Republican Party of Russia: Seats in the State Duma 0 / 450 Seats in the Regional Parliaments 1 / 3,787
More influential than the 92 Seats in the State Duma Communist Party? Really?
I think they meant that the communist party is controlled opposition.
I don't know, people seem to think that just because a party is in the opposition they have to hate and undermine the ruling government. Not saying 'Putin is the devil' doesn't make you controlled opposition. Thats silly.
On March 01 2015 05:34 TwilightRain wrote: If you believe that party members in the parlament actually had any real influence on core politics in Russia for the last 8-12 years, you are sorely mistaken.
They have more influence than random people on the street that nobody voted for.
If you believe that influencing public perception and actions is an utterly irrelevant kind of influence, then yes, by your logic any single member of that sad circus that is the state duma has more influence than the afformentioned two.
Influencing public perception? I highly doubt people took them that seriously. If one of them were to say 'government is corrupt' people would nod their head or something but obviously no one took them seriously enough to vote for them. These are extremely low numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Russian_legislative_election_protests At peaks there were 100,000+ people in a single place in Moscow alone, that's 0,1% of the whole population of Russia right there. After the recent events and economic hardships right now I find it hard to believe that oppositionally minded people in Russia started to like Putin more. After the protests failed people kind of lost hope, and after the recent events they are also scared. So I dont expect mass protests any time soon, but saying there are no people who support real opposition is totally ignorant.
On March 01 2015 02:55 xuanzue wrote: so, the PARNAS has 1 seat of 3787. and here people really like to sell like this guy was a real threat to Putin.
So name me 3 most influentional oppositional leaders in Russia for the 27.02.2015
Gary Kasparov(1), and his twitter account.
and Gennady Zyuganov(2) and any other guy (3)from the communist party. I'm pretty sure the 2nd political force in Russia is the communist party and they are more a real threat against Putin.
I'm sorry, but the communist party is not real opposition. It's one of the many (some more, some less) fake, so-called "systematical opposition" parties, that are nothing but joke pretend-opposition parties. Both their leaders' and Kasparov's influence is nowadays much lower than either that of Navalny or Nemtsov.
Nemtsov's Republican Party of Russia: Seats in the State Duma 0 / 450 Seats in the Regional Parliaments 1 / 3,787
More influential than the 92 Seats in the State Duma Communist Party? Really?
I think they meant that the communist party is controlled opposition.
I don't know, people seem to think that just because a party is in the opposition they have to hate and undermine the ruling government. Not saying 'Putin is the devil' doesn't make you controlled opposition. Thats silly.
On March 01 2015 05:34 TwilightRain wrote: If you believe that party members in the parlament actually had any real influence on core politics in Russia for the last 8-12 years, you are sorely mistaken.
They have more influence than random people on the street that nobody voted for.
If you believe that influencing public perception and actions is an utterly irrelevant kind of influence, then yes, by your logic any single member of that sad circus that is the state duma has more influence than the afformentioned two.
Influencing public perception? I highly doubt people took them that seriously. If one of them were to say 'government is corrupt' people would nod their head or something but obviously no one took them seriously enough to vote for them. These are extremely low numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Russian_legislative_election_protests At peaks there were 100,000+ people in a single place in Moscow alone, that's 0,1% of the whole population of Russia right there. After the recent events and economic hardships right now I find it hard to believe that oppositionally minded people in Russia started to like Putin more. After the protests failed people kind of lost hope, and after the recent events they are also scared. So I dont expect mass protests any time soon, but saying there are no people who support real opposition is totally ignorant.
I don't have a nice way of showing this, but I do get the impression that people were happier with Putin in 2014 than in the prior years. There were less protests, and whatever the ratings showed, they jumped a whole lot. This probably represents some kind of a popularity increase. Also, with the destruction of free speech wrought in the beginning of 2014, there must have been a consolidation of public opinion.
So name me 3 most influentional oppositional leaders in Russia for the 27.02.2015
Gary Kasparov(1), and his twitter account.
and Gennady Zyuganov(2) and any other guy (3)from the communist party. I'm pretty sure the 2nd political force in Russia is the communist party and they are more a real threat against Putin.
I'm sorry, but the communist party is not real opposition. It's one of the many (some more, some less) fake, so-called "systematical opposition" parties, that are nothing but joke pretend-opposition parties. Both their leaders' and Kasparov's influence is nowadays much lower than either that of Navalny or Nemtsov.
Nemtsov's Republican Party of Russia: Seats in the State Duma 0 / 450 Seats in the Regional Parliaments 1 / 3,787
More influential than the 92 Seats in the State Duma Communist Party? Really?
I think they meant that the communist party is controlled opposition.
I don't know, people seem to think that just because a party is in the opposition they have to hate and undermine the ruling government. Not saying 'Putin is the devil' doesn't make you controlled opposition. Thats silly.
On March 01 2015 05:34 TwilightRain wrote: If you believe that party members in the parlament actually had any real influence on core politics in Russia for the last 8-12 years, you are sorely mistaken.
They have more influence than random people on the street that nobody voted for.
If you believe that influencing public perception and actions is an utterly irrelevant kind of influence, then yes, by your logic any single member of that sad circus that is the state duma has more influence than the afformentioned two.
Influencing public perception? I highly doubt people took them that seriously. If one of them were to say 'government is corrupt' people would nod their head or something but obviously no one took them seriously enough to vote for them. These are extremely low numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Russian_legislative_election_protests At peaks there were 100,000+ people in a single place in Moscow alone, that's 0,1% of the whole population of Russia right there. After the recent events and economic hardships right now I find it hard to believe that oppositionally minded people in Russia started to like Putin more. After the protests failed people kind of lost hope, and after the recent events they are also scared. So I dont expect mass protests any time soon, but saying there are no people who support real opposition is totally ignorant.
I don't have a nice way of showing this, but I do get the impression that people were happier with Putin in 2014 than in the prior years. There were less protests, and whatever the ratings showed, they jumped a whole lot. This probably represents some kind of a popularity increase. Also, with the destruction of free speech wrought in the beginning of 2014, there must have been a consolidation of public opinion.
Well first of all after Euromaidan the legislation went a long way to make people think twice before protesting, including increased criminal penalty and substantial financial fines. Security forces were also watching over every gathering and interfering on quite a lot of occasions not allowing the protests to develop. And there is also the 85% approval rating making it pretty pointless to protest right now.
I think the year 2014 brought a much larger polarity of views towards Putin in Russia. Clearly he won over quite a few people who were neutral, or who started to like him more, but people who viewed his methods in the negative light to begin with got their views reinforced.
Some people in the thread have already floated the idea that Putin probably didn't order the killing, but has created the conditions that led to it. There's a Guardian piece considering the same idea:
At a recent launch of the Anti-Maidan movement in Russia, the leader of a biker gang, known as “the Surgeon”, who has been photographed many times with Putin, said foreign powers were sharpening their teeth to attack Russia. The Anti-Maidan movement would ensure that they could not do so, with violence if necessary. Another name for the movement was “death to faggots”, said the Surgeon.
Nemtsov frequently appeared on lists of “traitors” published online by extremist groups, and given that many radical Russian nationalists have been fighting a war in east Ukraine for the past six months, there have long been fears that the bloodshed could at some point move to the streets of Moscow.
The well-organised hit, in one of the most closely watched parts of Moscow, of a man who was undoubtedly under state surveillance just two days before a major opposition march, does not smack of an amateur job. Assuming a jealous lover or angry fellow liberal would not be able to organise a drive-by shooting in the shadows of the Kremlin towers, the remaining options are disturbing.
If, as Peskov says, it was senseless for the Kremlin to kill someone who posed very little threat, that leaves another option that is perhaps even more terrifying: that the campaign of hate that has erupted over the past year is spiralling out of the control of those who manufactured it.
“Actually it would be in some way less worrying if Putin had ordered Nemtsov’s killing,” wrote Ksenia Sobchak, a socialite turned journalist and opposition activist. “It would be an awful system, but at least a system, a manageable system. But I feel, unfortunately, this is not the case. There is no Putin who gave a command to kill. But there is a Putin who has built an appalling terminator, and he has lost control of it.”
Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said the president would take the investigation into Nemtsov’s death under “personal control”, and that he believed the killing to be a provocation.
I'm glad Putin will personally take control of the investigation, because it's the only way OJ will catch the real killer.
On March 01 2015 08:20 Ghanburighan wrote: A new video potentially showing the killing from a distant security camera. If anyone can make sense what's going on here, I'd love to read it.
well, the whole issue is far too troubling for putin... Im very sure that he didnt order the murder by himself (or via a familiar). but he and his nationalistic propaganda are the reason for a climate in russia in which opposition members are considered outlawed.
I can only see two scenarios here: some radical, nationalistic delusioned guys murdered him because they thought they'd do mother russia a favor by doing so; or he was involved in shady business and was killed by some russian mafia business contacts for whatever reason.
anyway, I dont feel pity for the shitstorm that western media raise against putin now. during the last 15 months, there has just been too much russian propaganda bullshit. I mean... how come we blame poor putin for the fact that thousands of russian soldiers wanted to spend their holiday on the crimea and in eastern ukraine? is it putins fault that they bought uniforms and professional weapons in civil gunshops to prepare for their holiday?
after a civil plane was shot down over separatist controlled territory, all they had to say was that "this was an intentional provocation". is it really surprising that, after incidents like those, many bullshit radars trigger upon hearing that russian officials call the murder of a prominent oppositionist "a political provocation"?
I certainly wont deny that western media hasnt been neutral since the get go, that it actually was full of propaganda as well. but it was nowhere near as ridiculous and crude as the russian propaganda. it's certainly their fault if nobody believes them anymore.
anyways, I'll stop my rant right here, RIP Boris Nemtsov.
On March 01 2015 08:20 Ghanburighan wrote: A new video potentially showing the killing from a distant security camera. If anyone can make sense what's going on here, I'd love to read it.
Knowing nothing about the actual area it looks like a typical 'secret meeting' unless there is some other reason for him to have been there like that?
My guess, he thought he was meeting someone he could trust and wasn't. No idea about the specifics though so I could be very wrong. But that's also a typical way to kill people like that. They would never generally go somewhere with their guard down or alone unless they were meeting with someone they thought they could trust or was a double agent type or something along those lines.
On March 01 2015 08:02 Ghanburighan wrote: Some people in the thread have already floated the idea that Putin probably didn't order the killing, but has created the conditions that led to it. There's a Guardian piece considering the same idea:
At a recent launch of the Anti-Maidan movement in Russia, the leader of a biker gang, known as “the Surgeon”, who has been photographed many times with Putin, said foreign powers were sharpening their teeth to attack Russia. The Anti-Maidan movement would ensure that they could not do so, with violence if necessary. Another name for the movement was “death to faggots”, said the Surgeon.
Nemtsov frequently appeared on lists of “traitors” published online by extremist groups, and given that many radical Russian nationalists have been fighting a war in east Ukraine for the past six months, there have long been fears that the bloodshed could at some point move to the streets of Moscow.
The well-organised hit, in one of the most closely watched parts of Moscow, of a man who was undoubtedly under state surveillance just two days before a major opposition march, does not smack of an amateur job. Assuming a jealous lover or angry fellow liberal would not be able to organise a drive-by shooting in the shadows of the Kremlin towers, the remaining options are disturbing.
If, as Peskov says, it was senseless for the Kremlin to kill someone who posed very little threat, that leaves another option that is perhaps even more terrifying: that the campaign of hate that has erupted over the past year is spiralling out of the control of those who manufactured it.
“Actually it would be in some way less worrying if Putin had ordered Nemtsov’s killing,” wrote Ksenia Sobchak, a socialite turned journalist and opposition activist. “It would be an awful system, but at least a system, a manageable system. But I feel, unfortunately, this is not the case. There is no Putin who gave a command to kill. But there is a Putin who has built an appalling terminator, and he has lost control of it.”
Edit: P.S. Cheerio, yeah, that sounds about right.
I've spoken to enough Moscovians to know that this is probably true, and Ksenia Sobchak is absolutely right that this is scarier than a simple political-assassination. It is crazy nationalism. A lot of Moscovians aren't going to be bothered by this assassination one bit. They accept their democracy isn't real, but don't care. Putin is their leader, and they respect that more than anything.
You can be speaking to a Moscovian who seems as gentle and not-a-war-monger as can be, and be shocked by the things that come out of their mouth. Anti-semitism, crazy-level nationalism, crazy ethnic-pride, all based on skewed history, coming from someone who would otherwise be seen by most as a nice, congenial person.
The world we live in, we take for granted based on the information we're given. We don't see it, we don't know it, we have to accept that some things are what we're told.
Russia, particularly Moscow, lives in a somewhat different world than the "West" does. They have a different history, different approach to ethnicity. It's not North Korea-level. But it's bad enough that I can see this assassination being a citizen-led incident.
On March 01 2015 08:20 Ghanburighan wrote: A new video potentially showing the killing from a distant security camera. If anyone can make sense what's going on here, I'd love to read it.
What I could figure. 2 people were walking to the left from right. So no, it doesn't look like a secret meeting. They were slowly being caught up by the snow removing machine. When the machine was covering them from the road and a camera the killing took place at around 23:30:15. Few seconds later the killer runs to the road and gets in the car that stops waiting for him. After that it's basically random cars and people stopping and leaving just seconds later. Like "do you need help?", "oh, he is already dead? Ok then, I'll be on my way". Kind of weird. I guess some of those were KGB people who were supposed to follow Nemtsov since it was just a day from the important opposition march. 23:36 two people come by and stay for some time, but at 23:37:25 they suddenly run away, my best guess is that those are the KGB people. When police arrives at 23:42 the two people who supposedly run away come back.
No one can imagine what I'm feeling in my psyche. Russia lost his great king and next real candidate into presidents. Why he? So cruel, bad and unnecessary way to die. RIP... I wanted to say some more things but I'm aware of being polite inaccurate and thus getting banned.
On March 01 2015 22:09 outscar wrote: No one can imagine what I'm feeling in my psyche. Russia lost his great king and next real candidate into presidents. Why he? So cruel, bad and unnecessary way to die. RIP... I wanted to say some more things but I'm aware of being polite inaccurate and thus getting banned.
My heart is bleeding after this nightmare. Boris Efimovich Nemcov was only one of the powerful, honest, fair, manful and not coward people in the world who could bring Russia into new shining future. He was criticizing Putin's politic actions everytime from start and told his mother at phone before 20 days from his death that Putin can kill him. Bygones will never be bygones. Let the God judge killers.
On March 01 2015 08:02 Ghanburighan wrote: Some people in the thread have already floated the idea that Putin probably didn't order the killing, but has created the conditions that led to it. There's a Guardian piece considering the same idea:
At a recent launch of the Anti-Maidan movement in Russia, the leader of a biker gang, known as “the Surgeon”, who has been photographed many times with Putin, said foreign powers were sharpening their teeth to attack Russia. The Anti-Maidan movement would ensure that they could not do so, with violence if necessary. Another name for the movement was “death to faggots”, said the Surgeon.
Nemtsov frequently appeared on lists of “traitors” published online by extremist groups, and given that many radical Russian nationalists have been fighting a war in east Ukraine for the past six months, there have long been fears that the bloodshed could at some point move to the streets of Moscow.
The well-organised hit, in one of the most closely watched parts of Moscow, of a man who was undoubtedly under state surveillance just two days before a major opposition march, does not smack of an amateur job. Assuming a jealous lover or angry fellow liberal would not be able to organise a drive-by shooting in the shadows of the Kremlin towers, the remaining options are disturbing.
If, as Peskov says, it was senseless for the Kremlin to kill someone who posed very little threat, that leaves another option that is perhaps even more terrifying: that the campaign of hate that has erupted over the past year is spiralling out of the control of those who manufactured it.
“Actually it would be in some way less worrying if Putin had ordered Nemtsov’s killing,” wrote Ksenia Sobchak, a socialite turned journalist and opposition activist. “It would be an awful system, but at least a system, a manageable system. But I feel, unfortunately, this is not the case. There is no Putin who gave a command to kill. But there is a Putin who has built an appalling terminator, and he has lost control of it.”
Edit: P.S. Cheerio, yeah, that sounds about right.
I've spoken to enough Moscovians to know that this is probably true, and Ksenia Sobchak is absolutely right that this is scarier than a simple political-assassination. It is crazy nationalism. A lot of Moscovians aren't going to be bothered by this assassination one bit. They accept their democracy isn't real, but don't care. Putin is their leader, and they respect that more than anything.
You can be speaking to a Moscovian who seems as gentle and not-a-war-monger as can be, and be shocked by the things that come out of their mouth. Anti-semitism, crazy-level nationalism, crazy ethnic-pride, all based on skewed history, coming from someone who would otherwise be seen by most as a nice, congenial person.
The world we live in, we take for granted based on the information we're given. We don't see it, we don't know it, we have to accept that some things are what we're told.
Russia, particularly Moscow, lives in a somewhat different world than the "West" does. They have a different history, different approach to ethnicity. It's not North Korea-level. But it's bad enough that I can see this assassination being a citizen-led incident.
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords comes to mind.
From what I know, Moscow people are more well educated and liberal-minded than the rest of Russia. There were big local elections last September and from what I heard not a single influential opposition candidate was allowed to participate. They just don't want to take any risks since the sympathies can turn out to be very wrong for the government. I think you should expect even more nationalism from somebody who is Russian, but not from Moscow.
On February 28 2015 17:45 Jetaap wrote: At this point I'm starting to think that the biggest threat for Europe is not ISIS, but Russia and putin going absolutely crazy ...
you better believe all those west media rumors.
the western powers are just as much of a thread to the world as russia is.
You understand that you don't need to believe in anything? You have access to all the information in the world, you can use your intellect and ability to process data to actually come to your own conclusions. And while we are at it feel free to elaborate how does, lets say, Europe/NATO recent behavior competes with Russia's recent actions. Don't forget to include all shootings and arrests of independent journalists and activists, don't forget to mention all paramilitary states that NATO installed in Eastern Europe and feel especially free to elaborate on civilian planes shootings by drunk and badly trained local militia sponsored by CIA. Cause if you don't have those i will sadly have to assume that you just made a shitpost.
"In Putin's atmosphere of hatred & violence, abroad & in Russia, bloodshed is the prerequisite to show loyalty, that you are on the team" quote from Kasparow twitter.
One important message is that stability in Russia until recently was reached via economic growth, now it's done via mobilization of the population against enemies.
All I know is, I have watched Russia Today and seen how anti-west (really just anti-US) it can be, and that sometimes it is so obvious and extreme, that I am left genuinely shocked; especially with the stories about Ukraine being composed entirely of nazis killing Russian speaking people. I am even more worried after now reading that most people in Russia simply don't have access to any other sources of news, or that they can't read any foreign languages. I think this is a wake up call to how damaging propaganda can be in its most extreme forms; we assumed this was just an isolated case in North Korea and China, but it started up so easily in Russia...and now it is the norm there.
What is the future of Russia going to be like? Putin looks like he's going to be a dictator for the rest of his life because he controls all the media, and therefore the minds of mostly all Russian citizens. This is why his approval ratings are at 90% in spite of a crumbling economy. If North Korea is any indication there won't ever be a breaking point. People will believe you are the savior even if your economy is non-existent and your technology is from the 50s while people are starving around you.
On March 02 2015 00:59 radscorpion9 wrote: All I know is, I have watched Russia Today and seen how anti-west (really just anti-US) it can be, and that sometimes it is so obvious and extreme, that I am left genuinely shocked; especially with the stories about Ukraine being composed entirely of nazis killing Russian speaking people. I am even more worried after now reading that most people in Russia simply don't have access to any other sources of news, or that they can't read any foreign languages. I think this is a wake up call to how damaging propaganda can be in its most extreme forms; we assumed this was just an isolated case in North Korea and China, but it started up so easily in Russia...and now it is the norm there.
What is the future of Russia going to be like? Putin looks like he's going to be a dictator for the rest of his life because he controls all the media, and therefore the minds of mostly all Russian citizens. This is why his approval ratings are at 90% in spite of a crumbling economy. If North Korea is any indication there won't ever be a breaking point. People will believe you are the savior even if your economy is non-existent and your technology is from the 50s while people are starving around you.
You think it just started in Russia? Funny, it's never really stopped since communism.
On March 01 2015 08:02 Ghanburighan wrote: Some people in the thread have already floated the idea that Putin probably didn't order the killing, but has created the conditions that led to it. There's a Guardian piece considering the same idea:
At a recent launch of the Anti-Maidan movement in Russia, the leader of a biker gang, known as “the Surgeon”, who has been photographed many times with Putin, said foreign powers were sharpening their teeth to attack Russia. The Anti-Maidan movement would ensure that they could not do so, with violence if necessary. Another name for the movement was “death to faggots”, said the Surgeon.
Nemtsov frequently appeared on lists of “traitors” published online by extremist groups, and given that many radical Russian nationalists have been fighting a war in east Ukraine for the past six months, there have long been fears that the bloodshed could at some point move to the streets of Moscow.
The well-organised hit, in one of the most closely watched parts of Moscow, of a man who was undoubtedly under state surveillance just two days before a major opposition march, does not smack of an amateur job. Assuming a jealous lover or angry fellow liberal would not be able to organise a drive-by shooting in the shadows of the Kremlin towers, the remaining options are disturbing.
If, as Peskov says, it was senseless for the Kremlin to kill someone who posed very little threat, that leaves another option that is perhaps even more terrifying: that the campaign of hate that has erupted over the past year is spiralling out of the control of those who manufactured it.
“Actually it would be in some way less worrying if Putin had ordered Nemtsov’s killing,” wrote Ksenia Sobchak, a socialite turned journalist and opposition activist. “It would be an awful system, but at least a system, a manageable system. But I feel, unfortunately, this is not the case. There is no Putin who gave a command to kill. But there is a Putin who has built an appalling terminator, and he has lost control of it.”
Edit: P.S. Cheerio, yeah, that sounds about right.
I've spoken to enough Moscovians to know that this is probably true, and Ksenia Sobchak is absolutely right that this is scarier than a simple political-assassination. It is crazy nationalism. A lot of Moscovians aren't going to be bothered by this assassination one bit. They accept their democracy isn't real, but don't care. Putin is their leader, and they respect that more than anything.
You can be speaking to a Moscovian who seems as gentle and not-a-war-monger as can be, and be shocked by the things that come out of their mouth. Anti-semitism, crazy-level nationalism, crazy ethnic-pride, all based on skewed history, coming from someone who would otherwise be seen by most as a nice, congenial person.
The world we live in, we take for granted based on the information we're given. We don't see it, we don't know it, we have to accept that some things are what we're told.
Russia, particularly Moscow, lives in a somewhat different world than the "West" does. They have a different history, different approach to ethnicity. It's not North Korea-level. But it's bad enough that I can see this assassination being a citizen-led incident.
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords comes to mind.
From what I know, Moscow people are more well educated and liberal-minded than the rest of Russia. There were big local elections last September and from what I heard not a single influential opposition candidate was allowed to participate. They just don't want to take any risks since the sympathies can turn out to be very wrong for the government. I think you should expect even more nationalism from somebody who is Russian, but not from Moscow.
Yeah, I was speaking from my own experience on that, which is Moscow-centered. Researching this more, I see it is surprisingly a well-spread problem.
These sanctions seem so critical to me the more I read about Russia. There is a serious media-bubble there that needs to be broken, and I hope sanctions is the way to break it. I can't think of any other way.
On February 28 2015 17:45 Jetaap wrote: At this point I'm starting to think that the biggest threat for Europe is not ISIS, but Russia and putin going absolutely crazy ...
you better believe all those west media rumors.
the western powers are just as much of a thread to the world as russia is.
So, Europeans, is it ISIS > Russia = The West > Other threats Russia > ISIS ? West
On February 28 2015 19:51 Random() wrote: I just love how all western media are like "Putin critic shot", even BBC who are usually reasonable and indeed started the story with a more neutral headline but then changed it. The man was known to be reckless and pig-headed, he was receiving death threats all his life because of his business interests, there are tons of reasons why someone could have want him dead, but no, it's obvious that it was Putin who had him shot because... we don't like him much right now.
I'm not a fan of Putin and the way he runs the country, but man, this anti Russian propaganda is so disgusting at times.
its called western propaganda....
its funny how you see people demonizing putin and russia. calling it not a democracy. i mean do you think YOU live in a democracy? in france, usa or here in gemrany? dont make me fucking laugh. u can vote whoever you want in any country. things never change they wont. cause politics are a circus show put on to make you believe our politicians dictAte how things are going instead of financial and economic companies.wake the fuck up. look at all the laws after 9/11, this is democracy? look at guantanamo! is this democracy? democracy where the majority of people gets poorer and poorer and 1% gets richer and richer? wasnt democracy about the majority??? you fucking backseat talk about other countries and political leaders who do terrible shit like putin. while living in your own fake reality of "democracy", while all the other goverments do the same shit elsewhere. oh you didnt hear about that? well time to switch from fox news to a real source of information. we are demonized in russia the same way putin and russia is demonized here. roflmao americans criticizing goverments to be not democratic. stop throwing stones in your rotten glashouse :D
On February 28 2015 19:51 Random() wrote: I just love how all western media are like "Putin critic shot", even BBC who are usually reasonable and indeed started the story with a more neutral headline but then changed it. The man was known to be reckless and pig-headed, he was receiving death threats all his life because of his business interests, there are tons of reasons why someone could have want him dead, but no, it's obvious that it was Putin who had him shot because... we don't like him much right now.
I'm not a fan of Putin and the way he runs the country, but man, this anti Russian propaganda is so disgusting at times.
its called western propaganda....
its funny how you see people demonizing putin and russia. calling it not a democracy. i mean do you think YOU live in a democracy? in france, usa or here in gemrany? dont make me fucking laugh. u can vote whoever you want in any country. things never change they wont. cause politics are a circus show put on to make you believe our politicians dictAte how things are going instead of financial and economic companies.wake the fuck up. look at all the laws after 9/11, this is democracy? look at guantanamo! is this democracy? democracy where the majority of people gets poorer and poorer and 1% gets richer and richer? wasnt democracy about the majority??? you fucking backseat talk about other countries and political leaders who do terrible shit like putin. while living in your own fake reality of "democracy", while all the other goverments do the same shit elsewhere. oh you didnt hear about that? well time to switch from fox news to a real source of information. we are demonized in russia the same way putin and russia is demonized here. roflmao americans criticizing goverments to be not democratic. stop throwing stones in your rotten glashouse :D
I wonder how many variations of this same post I've read in the past fifteen years
The frequency of voting is not what actually separates democracies and dictatorships. The point is that I can actually criticize the government here without getting served polonium tea or getting shot in the back. There is no government driven propaganda and a civil class and discourse of ideas actually do exist.
And this is what's different in Russia. Liberals are being decried as traitors, a civil class is pretty non existent. Most dissidents are either artists or journalists. What should be mainstream and completely normal has become some kind of underground phenomenon in Russia.
On March 01 2015 08:02 Ghanburighan wrote: Some people in the thread have already floated the idea that Putin probably didn't order the killing, but has created the conditions that led to it. There's a Guardian piece considering the same idea:
At a recent launch of the Anti-Maidan movement in Russia, the leader of a biker gang, known as “the Surgeon”, who has been photographed many times with Putin, said foreign powers were sharpening their teeth to attack Russia. The Anti-Maidan movement would ensure that they could not do so, with violence if necessary. Another name for the movement was “death to faggots”, said the Surgeon.
Nemtsov frequently appeared on lists of “traitors” published online by extremist groups, and given that many radical Russian nationalists have been fighting a war in east Ukraine for the past six months, there have long been fears that the bloodshed could at some point move to the streets of Moscow.
The well-organised hit, in one of the most closely watched parts of Moscow, of a man who was undoubtedly under state surveillance just two days before a major opposition march, does not smack of an amateur job. Assuming a jealous lover or angry fellow liberal would not be able to organise a drive-by shooting in the shadows of the Kremlin towers, the remaining options are disturbing.
If, as Peskov says, it was senseless for the Kremlin to kill someone who posed very little threat, that leaves another option that is perhaps even more terrifying: that the campaign of hate that has erupted over the past year is spiralling out of the control of those who manufactured it.
“Actually it would be in some way less worrying if Putin had ordered Nemtsov’s killing,” wrote Ksenia Sobchak, a socialite turned journalist and opposition activist. “It would be an awful system, but at least a system, a manageable system. But I feel, unfortunately, this is not the case. There is no Putin who gave a command to kill. But there is a Putin who has built an appalling terminator, and he has lost control of it.”
Edit: P.S. Cheerio, yeah, that sounds about right.
I've spoken to enough Moscovians to know that this is probably true, and Ksenia Sobchak is absolutely right that this is scarier than a simple political-assassination. It is crazy nationalism. A lot of Moscovians aren't going to be bothered by this assassination one bit. They accept their democracy isn't real, but don't care. Putin is their leader, and they respect that more than anything.
You can be speaking to a Moscovian who seems as gentle and not-a-war-monger as can be, and be shocked by the things that come out of their mouth. Anti-semitism, crazy-level nationalism, crazy ethnic-pride, all based on skewed history, coming from someone who would otherwise be seen by most as a nice, congenial person.
The world we live in, we take for granted based on the information we're given. We don't see it, we don't know it, we have to accept that some things are what we're told.
Russia, particularly Moscow, lives in a somewhat different world than the "West" does. They have a different history, different approach to ethnicity. It's not North Korea-level. But it's bad enough that I can see this assassination being a citizen-led incident.
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords comes to mind.
From what I know, Moscow people are more well educated and liberal-minded than the rest of Russia. There were big local elections last September and from what I heard not a single influential opposition candidate was allowed to participate. They just don't want to take any risks since the sympathies can turn out to be very wrong for the government. I think you should expect even more nationalism from somebody who is Russian, but not from Moscow.
Yeah, I was speaking from my own experience on that, which is Moscow-centered. Researching this more, I see it is surprisingly a well-spread problem.
These sanctions seem so critical to me the more I read about Russia. There is a serious media-bubble there that needs to be broken, and I hope sanctions is the way to break it. I can't think of any other way.
Get countries around Russia to start broadcasting their normal content in Russian. Finish, Chinese... borders and by satellite. Force a dialogue by external propaganda in the country. Would probably not turn out well though.
If they hadn't attacked Ukraine things would slowly have progressed towards Democracy through the normal situation of exporting values with goods.
On March 02 2015 00:59 radscorpion9 wrote: I think this is a wake up call to how damaging propaganda can be in its most extreme forms; we assumed this was just an isolated case in North Korea and China, but it started up so easily in Russia...and now it is the norm there.
The US is a direct neighbor. One would assume you would know by now how effective propaganda is.
On March 02 2015 07:03 Nyxisto wrote: The frequency of voting is not what actually separates democracies and dictatorships. The point is that I can actually criticize the government here without getting served polonium tea or getting shot in the back. There is no government driven propaganda and a civil class and discourse of ideas actually do exist.
And this is what's different in Russia. Liberals are being decried as traitors, a civil class is pretty non existent. Most dissidents are either artists or journalists. What should be mainstream and completely normal has become some kind of underground phenomenon in Russia.
^ Pretty much. There are a lot of problems in our respective governments, but at least in Canada Michael Wilson (former Finance Minister of a very unpopular government) is not lying dead in the streets, nor are Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau (leaders of opposition parties) locked up in prison. The problems are simply on a different level.
Ugh
The Guardian's comment section has been over-run with conspiracies- such as that the protestors were well prepared in advance- thus I suppose knowing that Nemstov was going to die in advance. That Nemstov was likely killed by foreigners- Nemstov T-Shirts worn by a Ukranian MP means- " There is only one reason any of them would be in Moscow. Nemtsov was set up and sacrificed, this was planed, and Putin is the real target, and the media is the artillery." Or maybe US did it in the hopes of jump starting a Moscow Spring.
Guys, guys, don't you know we live in hyperreality now? We fight with false flag attacks, propaganda, and currency wars? I'd pin this on the CIA before I'd pin it on Putin - very stupid thing for Putin to do and he's no idiot. I believe Putin would take out a hit on this guy like I believe Assad would use chemical weapons. As far as this "russian media bubble.." Both of our societies are utterly dominated by propaganda - the NYT is worse than Pravda.
On March 01 2015 08:02 Ghanburighan wrote: Some people in the thread have already floated the idea that Putin probably didn't order the killing, but has created the conditions that led to it. There's a Guardian piece considering the same idea:
At a recent launch of the Anti-Maidan movement in Russia, the leader of a biker gang, known as “the Surgeon”, who has been photographed many times with Putin, said foreign powers were sharpening their teeth to attack Russia. The Anti-Maidan movement would ensure that they could not do so, with violence if necessary. Another name for the movement was “death to faggots”, said the Surgeon.
Nemtsov frequently appeared on lists of “traitors” published online by extremist groups, and given that many radical Russian nationalists have been fighting a war in east Ukraine for the past six months, there have long been fears that the bloodshed could at some point move to the streets of Moscow.
The well-organised hit, in one of the most closely watched parts of Moscow, of a man who was undoubtedly under state surveillance just two days before a major opposition march, does not smack of an amateur job. Assuming a jealous lover or angry fellow liberal would not be able to organise a drive-by shooting in the shadows of the Kremlin towers, the remaining options are disturbing.
If, as Peskov says, it was senseless for the Kremlin to kill someone who posed very little threat, that leaves another option that is perhaps even more terrifying: that the campaign of hate that has erupted over the past year is spiralling out of the control of those who manufactured it.
“Actually it would be in some way less worrying if Putin had ordered Nemtsov’s killing,” wrote Ksenia Sobchak, a socialite turned journalist and opposition activist. “It would be an awful system, but at least a system, a manageable system. But I feel, unfortunately, this is not the case. There is no Putin who gave a command to kill. But there is a Putin who has built an appalling terminator, and he has lost control of it.”
Edit: P.S. Cheerio, yeah, that sounds about right.
I've spoken to enough Moscovians to know that this is probably true, and Ksenia Sobchak is absolutely right that this is scarier than a simple political-assassination. It is crazy nationalism. A lot of Moscovians aren't going to be bothered by this assassination one bit. They accept their democracy isn't real, but don't care. Putin is their leader, and they respect that more than anything.
You can be speaking to a Moscovian who seems as gentle and not-a-war-monger as can be, and be shocked by the things that come out of their mouth. Anti-semitism, crazy-level nationalism, crazy ethnic-pride, all based on skewed history, coming from someone who would otherwise be seen by most as a nice, congenial person.
The world we live in, we take for granted based on the information we're given. We don't see it, we don't know it, we have to accept that some things are what we're told.
Russia, particularly Moscow, lives in a somewhat different world than the "West" does. They have a different history, different approach to ethnicity. It's not North Korea-level. But it's bad enough that I can see this assassination being a citizen-led incident.
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords comes to mind.
From what I know, Moscow people are more well educated and liberal-minded than the rest of Russia. There were big local elections last September and from what I heard not a single influential opposition candidate was allowed to participate. They just don't want to take any risks since the sympathies can turn out to be very wrong for the government. I think you should expect even more nationalism from somebody who is Russian, but not from Moscow.
Yeah, I was speaking from my own experience on that, which is Moscow-centered. Researching this more, I see it is surprisingly a well-spread problem.
These sanctions seem so critical to me the more I read about Russia. There is a serious media-bubble there that needs to be broken, and I hope sanctions is the way to break it. I can't think of any other way.
If they hadn't attacked Ukraine things would slowly have progressed towards Democracy through the normal situation of exporting values with goods.
I don't think so. Last time Russia moved towards democracy was during Medvedev's presidency. And it ended with pretty big lasting civil protests on the governments hands. One thing Putin took from that: you can't give people freedom by pieces, they'll still be unhappy, or rather even more unhappy than if you gave them nothing. He also understood that there is a large portion of the population that he can't win over (i.e. the liberal-minded one), so he should not even try and rather focus on the ones that are responding more readily to his initiatives. The reintroduction of the image of the external enemy, the insistance on the Russia's unique way, criticizing Western countries for the lack of democracy and implying they are in deep crysis that might ruin them soon, integration of the church into the state matters and using it in pro-government propaganda - it all didn't start with the events in Ukraine, but much earlier. Events in Ukraine just intensified the processes and made them exposed to the western press attention.
On March 02 2015 07:24 bookwyrm wrote: Guys, guys, don't you know we live in hyperreality now? We fight with false flag attacks, propaganda, and currency wars? I'd pin this on the CIA before I'd pin it on Putin - very stupid thing for Putin to do and he's no idiot. I believe Putin would take out a hit on this guy like I believe Assad would use chemical weapons. As far as this "russian media bubble.." Both of our societies are utterly dominated by propaganda - the NYT is worse than Pravda.
reading posts like these kind of proves it's not the lack of the access to information that is the main problem, some people just see what they want to see. And if propaganda is giving people that, you can't fight it, you just need to make it stop.
I feel so sad for Putin. He is probably completely innocent (and should be presumed innocent) but no one is going to give him a break. It is as if people think Putin has to worry about an opposition politician without realizing that if he does have to worry about an opposition politician then he isn't a tyrant, and if he is a tyrant than why would he have this guy killed.
Buck up Putin, don't let the downers get you down!
Yeah, he must be feeling really bad. Poor Putin. I will send him a card to cheer him up.
"He has nothing to gain" can be true for a person that is actually sane. At this point I'm not so sure that Putin falls into that category. ISIS+Erdogan from the south, a wacko with nuclear weapons from the north. We, Europeans, live in great times.
Is it a fact pretty much that Russia is moving back towards communism? Really haven't been following much recently, but that seems to be something i hear pretty often
On March 02 2015 09:34 arb wrote: Is it a fact pretty much that Russia is moving back towards communism? Really haven't been following much recently, but that seems to be something i hear pretty often
I think it's more 19th century tsarism than communism, really. A lot of change in Russia is fuelled by orthodoxy in contrast to how "degenerated" the West is. That's a word you hear a lot today from a lot of Russians. It might be way more dangerous than the Cold War I guess, because it's more "real". The whole cold war was almost comical and was pretty much just a dick measuring context between the US and Russia while the current conflicts over the last two decades were much more territorial.
On March 02 2015 00:59 radscorpion9 wrote: All I know is, I have watched Russia Today
Don't do that.
On March 02 2015 00:59 radscorpion9 wrote:and seen how anti-west (really just anti-US) it can be, and that sometimes it is so obvious and extreme, that I am left genuinely shocked; especially with the stories about Ukraine being composed entirely of nazis killing Russian speaking people. I am even more worried after now reading that most people in Russia simply don't have access to any other sources of news, or that they can't read any foreign languages. I think this is a wake up call to how damaging propaganda can be in its most extreme forms; we assumed this was just an isolated case in North Korea and China, but it started up so easily in Russia...and now it is the norm there.
What is the future of Russia going to be like? Putin looks like he's going to be a dictator for the rest of his life because he controls all the media, and therefore the minds of mostly all Russian citizens. This is why his approval ratings are at 90% in spite of a crumbling economy. If North Korea is any indication there won't ever be a breaking point. People will believe you are the savior even if your economy is non-existent and your technology is from the 50s while people are starving around you.
As someone who reads news in both English and Russian, I would have to say that Russian news is definitely more objective as a whole (BBC is probably the English last source that still believes in journalistic integrity - everyone else just says whatever they want). There are some sources which are obviously propaganda (and everyone knows they are, this includes RT and Channel 1), and more level-headed sources as well (which are rarely in English). These days, apparently Twitter counts for a source, although if you look back at old threads with Twitter feeds, you will find more reckless speculation than truth.
Putin's approval rating is very high because he made things better for people (and that's also why the West doesn't really like him). It went as low as 20% at some points, such as during the Georgian crisis (though he was PM during this specific point). His popularity spike after the Crimean referendum is very much legitimate, judging by all those I know who didn't really like him much before who approve of him now.
If foreign countries started heavily investing into political parties in your country, you would think of them as traitors as well. Some groups are seen as traitors for exactly this reason; foreign funding for opposition groups in Russia is all too common. Not always fair but this tendency didn't develop without good reason.
On March 02 2015 10:06 LegalLord wrote: Putin's approval rating is very high because he made things better for people (and that's also why the West doesn't really like him). It went as low as 20% at some points, such as during the Georgian crisis (though he was PM during this specific point). His popularity spike after the Crimean referendum is very much legitimate, judging by all those I know who didn't really like him much before who approve of him now.
If foreign countries started heavily investing into political parties in your country, you would think of them as traitors as well. Some groups are seen as traitors for exactly this reason; foreign funding for opposition groups in Russia is all too common. Not always fair but this tendency didn't develop without good reason.
You really believe the West hates Putin because he made life better for the Russian people ? The West doesn't like Putin because Russia's course is incompatible with the self-determination of ex-Soviet nations and because minorities are becoming increasingly marginalized.
Russia's political atmosphere looks like post WW1 Germany. The two enemies are the liberals on the inside who only care about money and themselves and the evil foreign forces who allegedly want to see the people suffer. Then the glorious honest nationalists step in and bring the country back to glorious strength!
On March 02 2015 10:06 LegalLord wrote: Putin's approval rating is very high because he made things better for people (and that's also why the West doesn't really like him). It went as low as 20% at some points, such as during the Georgian crisis (though he was PM during this specific point). His popularity spike after the Crimean referendum is very much legitimate, judging by all those I know who didn't really like him much before who approve of him now.
If foreign countries started heavily investing into political parties in your country, you would think of them as traitors as well. Some groups are seen as traitors for exactly this reason; foreign funding for opposition groups in Russia is all too common. Not always fair but this tendency didn't develop without good reason.
You really believe the West hates Putin because he made life better for the Russian people ? The West doesn't like Putin because Russia's course is incompatible with the self-determination of ex-Soviet nations and because minorities are becoming increasingly marginalized.
Yes, that is more or less the reason. Notice that Putin is least popular whenever his interests contradict that of the United States, such as in Syria or in building missile bases in Poland. Yeltsin was extremely popular in the West (with the exception of when he spoke out against NATO involvement in Yugoslavia), precisely because he didn't do this much.
Let's not even get into the ex-Soviet nations and marginalizing minorities - lot of those issues being swept under the rug in the name of spiting Russia. There were at least a few ethnic conflicts in the republics in the past two decades.
On February 28 2015 19:59 Narw wrote: Yeah, poor Putin, western media so rude towards him. All that happened recently was some invasion of Ukraine, shooting down a plane and some critic being shot, no biggie. Wonder why media are so hard towards him :/.
Next time they should just headline it some random politician in some random country shot, that way no one gets offended.
I think this is one of the simplest yet most poisonous posts in the entire thread. One of the major tenets of Western democracy is supposed to be due process, and more specifically the idea of "innocent until proven guilty." There are at least three major assertions in this short post:
1. There was an invasion of Ukraine. There were certainly volunteers, most of them from Russia, but even many European leaders say that there is no proof of an invasion. This is speculation paraded as fact by biased parties. 2. MH17. Frankly I see no reason why this would be blamed on Russia unless you just wanted to pin it on Russia. No evidence and it seems that the investigation has basically stopped? Until there is evidence that Russia played a hand in this, no reason to assume there is. 3. This shooting. Once again, no evidence, little reason to assume involvement unless that is the interpretation of events you find most suitable to hold.
The fact that all of these are pinned on Russia despite the lack of evidence is quite telling. The reasonable, though less interesting, thing to do would be to simply wait until reliable evidence appears before placing the blame on someone. Isn't that how the whole Syrian chemical weapons charade played out?
On March 02 2015 10:06 LegalLord wrote: Putin's approval rating is very high because he made things better for people (and that's also why the West doesn't really like him). It went as low as 20% at some points, such as during the Georgian crisis (though he was PM during this specific point). His popularity spike after the Crimean referendum is very much legitimate, judging by all those I know who didn't really like him much before who approve of him now.
If foreign countries started heavily investing into political parties in your country, you would think of them as traitors as well. Some groups are seen as traitors for exactly this reason; foreign funding for opposition groups in Russia is all too common. Not always fair but this tendency didn't develop without good reason.
You really believe the West hates Putin because he made life better for the Russian people ? The West doesn't like Putin because Russia's course is incompatible with the self-determination of ex-Soviet nations and because minorities are becoming increasingly marginalized.
Yes, that is more or less the reason. Notice that Putin is least popular whenever his interests contradict that of the United States, such as in Syria or in building missile bases in Poland. Yeltsin was extremely popular in the West (with the exception of when he spoke out against NATO involvement in Yugoslavia), precisely because he didn't do this much.
Let's not even get into the ex-Soviet nations and marginalizing minorities - lot of those issues being swept under the rug in the name of spiting Russia. There were at least a few ethnic conflicts in the republics in the past two decades.
Let me try to get this straight. You claim the west doesn't like Putin because he made life better for Russians, and then you clarify by saying "yes, notice how the west dislikes him most when his policies are in conflict with United States interests". Don't you see a problem in this line of reasoning?
You just said yourself that the West dislikes Putin because his policies are in conflict with the West, not because he "makes life better for Russians". I'm sort of baffled here. You're making it sound like Putin is disliked because the entire Western world is spiteful towards Russians and wants to see them suffer, and not because his policies are so often out of line with the goals of Western countries.
On March 02 2015 00:59 radscorpion9 wrote:and seen how anti-west (really just anti-US) it can be, and that sometimes it is so obvious and extreme, that I am left genuinely shocked; especially with the stories about Ukraine being composed entirely of nazis killing Russian speaking people. I am even more worried after now reading that most people in Russia simply don't have access to any other sources of news, or that they can't read any foreign languages. I think this is a wake up call to how damaging propaganda can be in its most extreme forms; we assumed this was just an isolated case in North Korea and China, but it started up so easily in Russia...and now it is the norm there.
What is the future of Russia going to be like? Putin looks like he's going to be a dictator for the rest of his life because he controls all the media, and therefore the minds of mostly all Russian citizens. This is why his approval ratings are at 90% in spite of a crumbling economy. If North Korea is any indication there won't ever be a breaking point. People will believe you are the savior even if your economy is non-existent and your technology is from the 50s while people are starving around you.
As someone who reads news in both English and Russian, I would have to say that Russian news is definitely more objective as a whole (BBC is probably the English last source that still believes in journalistic integrity - everyone else just says whatever they want). There are some sources which are obviously propaganda (and everyone knows they are, this includes RT and Channel 1), and more level-headed sources as well (which are rarely in English). These days, apparently Twitter counts for a source, although if you look back at old threads with Twitter feeds, you will find more reckless speculation than truth.
Putin's approval rating is very high because he made things better for people (and that's also why the West doesn't really like him). It went as low as 20% at some points, such as during the Georgian crisis (though he was PM during this specific point). His popularity spike after the Crimean referendum is very much legitimate, judging by all those I know who didn't really like him much before who approve of him now.
If foreign countries started heavily investing into political parties in your country, you would think of them as traitors as well. Some groups are seen as traitors for exactly this reason; foreign funding for opposition groups in Russia is all too common. Not always fair but this tendency didn't develop without good reason.
I'd like to remind you that Russia is considered a not free country in terms of press freedom.
The only news channel still resisting being Novaya Gazeta, the others meekly push the Kremlin line.
As for your other point, the only way you can make sense of the claim that `Putin is hated by the West because he helps the people in Russia' if you assume, contrary to all evidence, that the West wants the people of Russia to suffer. Yet, even if you take some of the most vehement critics like Edward Lucas (the current Russian regime strongly dislikes him, see, for example, this RT smear piece), he is actually a self-declared Russiphile who has not only learned Russian but lived in Russia for years. He often mentions his friends in Russia. Why would he want them to suffer?
It's correct to say that Putin and the West have conflicting interests, but he is disliked in the West for concrete policies. Off the top of my head the two big ones are: a) wanting to dismantle the security framework established after the Cold War (for example NATO enlargement, Helsinki Accords, etc), b) establishing a near-abroad where the right of self-determination of peoples is diminished (Georgia and Ukraine are not allowed to establish closer ties with NATO and EU). Lying to Merkel and other leaders also deserves mention, as Merkel, for instance, is widely reported to have taken it as a personal affront (also raiding the offices of the Konrad Adenauer foundation in Russia which she established in honour of her political mentor didn't help).
On March 02 2015 10:06 LegalLord wrote: Putin's approval rating is very high because he made things better for people (and that's also why the West doesn't really like him). It went as low as 20% at some points, such as during the Georgian crisis (though he was PM during this specific point). His popularity spike after the Crimean referendum is very much legitimate, judging by all those I know who didn't really like him much before who approve of him now.
If foreign countries started heavily investing into political parties in your country, you would think of them as traitors as well. Some groups are seen as traitors for exactly this reason; foreign funding for opposition groups in Russia is all too common. Not always fair but this tendency didn't develop without good reason.
You really believe the West hates Putin because he made life better for the Russian people ? The West doesn't like Putin because Russia's course is incompatible with the self-determination of ex-Soviet nations and because minorities are becoming increasingly marginalized.
Yes, that is more or less the reason. Notice that Putin is least popular whenever his interests contradict that of the United States, such as in Syria or in building missile bases in Poland. Yeltsin was extremely popular in the West (with the exception of when he spoke out against NATO involvement in Yugoslavia), precisely because he didn't do this much.
Let's not even get into the ex-Soviet nations and marginalizing minorities - lot of those issues being swept under the rug in the name of spiting Russia. There were at least a few ethnic conflicts in the republics in the past two decades.
Let me try to get this straight. You claim the west doesn't like Putin because he made life better for Russians, and then you clarify by saying "yes, notice how the west dislikes him most when his policies are in conflict with United States interests". Don't you see a problem in this line of reasoning?
You just said yourself that the West dislikes Putin because his policies are in conflict with the West, not because he "makes life better for Russians". I'm sort of baffled here. You're making it sound like Putin is disliked because the entire Western world is spiteful towards Russians and wants to see them suffer, and not because his policies are so often out of line with the goals of Western countries.
Russia as a strong country is not good for Western interests. If you deny that there is a fair bit of animosity towards Russia and Russians in the Western world (among people AND governments), then there is not much more to say.
On March 02 2015 00:59 radscorpion9 wrote: All I know is, I have watched Russia Today
Don't do that.
On March 02 2015 00:59 radscorpion9 wrote:and seen how anti-west (really just anti-US) it can be, and that sometimes it is so obvious and extreme, that I am left genuinely shocked; especially with the stories about Ukraine being composed entirely of nazis killing Russian speaking people. I am even more worried after now reading that most people in Russia simply don't have access to any other sources of news, or that they can't read any foreign languages. I think this is a wake up call to how damaging propaganda can be in its most extreme forms; we assumed this was just an isolated case in North Korea and China, but it started up so easily in Russia...and now it is the norm there.
What is the future of Russia going to be like? Putin looks like he's going to be a dictator for the rest of his life because he controls all the media, and therefore the minds of mostly all Russian citizens. This is why his approval ratings are at 90% in spite of a crumbling economy. If North Korea is any indication there won't ever be a breaking point. People will believe you are the savior even if your economy is non-existent and your technology is from the 50s while people are starving around you.
As someone who reads news in both English and Russian, I would have to say that Russian news is definitely more objective as a whole (BBC is probably the English last source that still believes in journalistic integrity - everyone else just says whatever they want). There are some sources which are obviously propaganda (and everyone knows they are, this includes RT and Channel 1), and more level-headed sources as well (which are rarely in English). These days, apparently Twitter counts for a source, although if you look back at old threads with Twitter feeds, you will find more reckless speculation than truth.
Putin's approval rating is very high because he made things better for people (and that's also why the West doesn't really like him). It went as low as 20% at some points, such as during the Georgian crisis (though he was PM during this specific point). His popularity spike after the Crimean referendum is very much legitimate, judging by all those I know who didn't really like him much before who approve of him now.
If foreign countries started heavily investing into political parties in your country, you would think of them as traitors as well. Some groups are seen as traitors for exactly this reason; foreign funding for opposition groups in Russia is all too common. Not always fair but this tendency didn't develop without good reason.
I'd like to remind you that Russia is considered a not free country in terms of press freedom.
The only news channel still resisting being Novaya Gazeta, the others meekly push the Kremlin line.
Quoting a US-based group which is commonly accused of bias in its choices? I think that is the most that needs to be said.
Most Russian news sources report the news, possibly with a slant, but with much more news than baseless speculation. That is the idea of journalistic integrity, an idea which seems to have been lost in the western media.
On March 02 2015 11:22 Slaughter wrote: Why is a strong Russia bad for the West? A strong Russia is good except when they decide to annex parts of other countries because the mood struck them.
Because large, powerful countries can have conflicting interests in the world. China certainly has different interests than the US, and so does Germany (although at the moment they are a little too dependent on the US to fully pursue them).
Why is a strong Russia bad for the West? A strong Russia is good except when they decide to annex parts of other countries because the mood struck them.
Most Russian news sources report the news, possibly with a slant, but with much more news than baseless speculation. That is the idea of journalistic integrity, an idea which seems to have been lost in the western media.
On March 02 2015 10:06 LegalLord wrote: Putin's approval rating is very high because he made things better for people (and that's also why the West doesn't really like him). It went as low as 20% at some points, such as during the Georgian crisis (though he was PM during this specific point). His popularity spike after the Crimean referendum is very much legitimate, judging by all those I know who didn't really like him much before who approve of him now.
If foreign countries started heavily investing into political parties in your country, you would think of them as traitors as well. Some groups are seen as traitors for exactly this reason; foreign funding for opposition groups in Russia is all too common. Not always fair but this tendency didn't develop without good reason.
You really believe the West hates Putin because he made life better for the Russian people ? The West doesn't like Putin because Russia's course is incompatible with the self-determination of ex-Soviet nations and because minorities are becoming increasingly marginalized.
Yes, that is more or less the reason. Notice that Putin is least popular whenever his interests contradict that of the United States, such as in Syria or in building missile bases in Poland. Yeltsin was extremely popular in the West (with the exception of when he spoke out against NATO involvement in Yugoslavia), precisely because he didn't do this much.
Let's not even get into the ex-Soviet nations and marginalizing minorities - lot of those issues being swept under the rug in the name of spiting Russia. There were at least a few ethnic conflicts in the republics in the past two decades.
Let me try to get this straight. You claim the west doesn't like Putin because he made life better for Russians, and then you clarify by saying "yes, notice how the west dislikes him most when his policies are in conflict with United States interests". Don't you see a problem in this line of reasoning?
You just said yourself that the West dislikes Putin because his policies are in conflict with the West, not because he "makes life better for Russians". I'm sort of baffled here. You're making it sound like Putin is disliked because the entire Western world is spiteful towards Russians and wants to see them suffer, and not because his policies are so often out of line with the goals of Western countries.
Russia as a strong country is not good for Western interests. If you deny that there is a fair bit of animosity towards Russia and Russians in the Western world (among people AND governments), then there is not much more to say.
Actually, I'd say that there has been very little if any animosity towards Russians, and that it is nearly all directed at the Russian government. But no, it appears there isn't much more to say if you're going to claim that the basis of western dislike of Putin is a desire to see Russians suffer. One of the more ridiculous things I've ever read on this site.
Most Russian news sources report the news, possibly with a slant, but with much more news than baseless speculation. That is the idea of journalistic integrity, an idea which seems to have been lost in the western media.
The performance of European countries in the RSF press freedom rankings is impressive. It becomes less impressive, however, when one knows the extent to which RSF depends for its financing upon European governments: either directly or indirectly via the European Union. RSF is commonly referred to as a "non-governmental organization" or "NGO." But in light of its financial dependence upon and close ties to, in particular, the French government and, above all, European institutions, RSF could be regarded as the very prototype of what might better be called a "PGO": a "para-governmental organization." As will be seen in Part II of this exposé (to be published next week), its highly curious rankings map far better upon the external -- and, in certain cases, internal -- political agenda of the European Union than upon any concrete indicators of press freedoms, or restrictions thereupon, in the countries RSF claims to be objectively evaluating.
While it's always nice to discard data as paid propaganda (Edit: sarcasm alert), the methodology and data is available to read on the Freedom of the Press website I linked. You will see that their research is quite sound. And the best part about it, you can decide so yourself, without resorting to shady intermediary sources. Also note that Freedom house and Reporters Without Borders are different organizations and measure very different things (albeit the general assessment is similarly sad for Russia).
Legallord, saying there's 'no reason' MH17 (evidence obfuscated by the Russian paramilitary) should be blamed on Russia is ridiculously naive. I can see why you find integrity and balance in Russian news.The invasion of Ukraine by Russian military personnel is not 'baseless speculation'. It's happening right now and the only dissenting media is coming straight out of Putin's press office. I agree that the current 'hit' on an opposition leader could be extremists, acting alone, but the other two incidents are blatant and only unacknowledged by Russian media.
I also don't know where you get the idea that the West hates Russians. It's just the Putin regime with its antagonistic policies and shameless propaganda.
On March 02 2015 17:19 Ghanburighan wrote: While it's always nice to discard data as paid propaganda (Edit: sarcasm alert), the methodology and data is available to read on the Freedom of the Press website I linked. You will see that their research is quite sound. And the best part about it, you can decide so yourself, without resorting to shady intermediary sources. Also note that Freedom house and Reporters Without Borders are different organizations and measure very different things (albeit the general assessment is similarly sad for Russia).
Wrong. If you had read the article:
This would surely not be too much to expect of an organization disposing of an annual budget of nearly four million euros: much of which, as shown in Part I of this exposé, derives from public French and EU sources. Anyone looking for such a report from RSF, however, will be disappointed. The RSF Press Freedom Index is merely accompanied by a seven-page press release. Four of the seven pages, however, are taken up by a reproduction in tabular form of the index itself. This leaves RSF's discursive presentation of its results topping out at all of two-and-a-half pages or some 1373 words (in the English version): less than half the length of the present article.
A heading on the Web page for the RSF index promising "Evaluation by region" gives one hope for finding something more to chew on. The heading is followed by links for "Americas," "Asia," "Africa," "Europe" and "Middle East." Anyone clicking on those links, however, will discover that they lead to exactly the same 1373-word press release, with merely the subtitles changed! A more brazen expression of RSF's disinterest in providing a detailed justification for its rankings would hardly be possible.
There is no data. They come up with their own scales without any kind of justification and write random numbers 'they feel are right' in.
edit: Oh, just saw that your link was freedom house. One of the most blatant propaganda US funded NGO's in the world.
From their wiki:
On December 7, 2004, U.S. House Representative Ron Paul criticized Freedom House for allegedly administering a U.S.-funded program in Ukraine where "much of that money was targeted to assist one particular candidate." Paul said that
"one part that we do know thus far is that the U.S. government, through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), granted millions of dollars to the Poland-America-Ukraine Cooperation Initiative (PAUCI), which is administered by the U.S.-based Freedom House. PAUCI then sent U.S. Government funds to numerous Ukrainian non-governmental organizations (NGOs). This would be bad enough and would in itself constitute meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. But, what is worse is that many of these grantee organizations in Ukraine are blatantly in favor of presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko."[40]
Zeo, please read what I actually write, not what you'd like me to write. I posted the Freedom House list and not the Reporters Without Borders link, and the former have their methodology and data freely available.
As for Reporters without Borders, you probably mean this methodology sheet. As for data, they publish reports which give you an indication of what is diminishing freedom of the press in a country. The latest on Russia is here. I don't think you can argue with the facts here.
On March 02 2015 18:13 Ghanburighan wrote: Zeo, please read what I actually write, not what you'd like me to write. I posted the Freedom House list and not the Reporters Without Borders link, and the former have their methodology and data freely available.
As for Reporters without Borders, you probably mean this methodology sheet. As for data, they publish reports which give you an indication of what is diminishing freedom of the press in a country. The latest on Russia is here. I don't think you can argue with the facts here.
Cherry picking data from countries who are not in good relations with the US and ingnoring glaring violations of human rights in countries close to the US does not mean they are 'un-biased'
For instance: in Ukraine for criticism of Ukraine parliament, Government or Maidan movement you will get 3 years prison for "undermining of state authority and its power" here is a link to the law: http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb2/webproc4_1?pf3511=54167
Amend Section XV Crimes against the authority of state agencies, local governments and citizens' associations, the Criminal Code of Ukraine (Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (BD), 2001, № 25-26, Article 131), expanding its Article 339- 1 as follows: "Article 339-1. Deliberate actions to undermine the authority of the state and its authorities. Socially dangerous illegal acts that infringe on the authority of Ukraine as a sovereign state, public vilification, abuse, defilement or other actions aimed at undermining the authority of the state government, local government and civic Ukraine and / or cynical, contempt and rejection as certain structural elements of the system of public administration (its relevant authorities) and the state as a whole, which in the future may entail a violation of established social norms and rules of social and political system and life - punishable by correctional labor for up to two years, or arrest up to six months or imprisonment for up to three years. "
All media in a language used at home by 50% of the population was blanket banned.
Do we really have to guess that in the next 'freedom index' Ukraine will have a higher rating than my country even? Do we really have guess that these laws mysteriously will be 'overlooked'
Do people actually believe the extended arm of the white house would be in any way impartial towards coutries the white house perceives as enemies?
Err, Ukraine's Press, according to Freedom House, is NOT FREE Source The only reason they are "partly free" on the map is that they don't have internet controls (yet) but their report clearly places Ukraine on a negative trend.
On March 02 2015 11:22 Slaughter wrote: Why is a strong Russia bad for the West? A strong Russia is good except when they decide to annex parts of other countries because the mood struck them.
You should read Brzezinski: USA has to keep Europe or else they are dead. Therefore they need a weak Russia so Europe doesn't ditch USA for Russia. Moreover, Ukraine is what he call a geopolitical "pivot" that should be pro American.
I like that, extended arm of the White House. Brilliant.
Ukraine, extended arm of White House, full of Nazis (which recent election results clearly show) and nationalists suppressing the freedom of speech and undermining core values for which Russian Federation strives and fights every day. Almost warrants an intervention one could say.
It's a freaking miracle that country doesn't have martial law imposed considering situation in which it is.
On March 02 2015 10:06 LegalLord wrote: Putin's approval rating is very high because he made things better for people (and that's also why the West doesn't really like him). It went as low as 20% at some points, such as during the Georgian crisis (though he was PM during this specific point). His popularity spike after the Crimean referendum is very much legitimate, judging by all those I know who didn't really like him much before who approve of him now.
If foreign countries started heavily investing into political parties in your country, you would think of them as traitors as well. Some groups are seen as traitors for exactly this reason; foreign funding for opposition groups in Russia is all too common. Not always fair but this tendency didn't develop without good reason.
You really believe the West hates Putin because he made life better for the Russian people ? The West doesn't like Putin because Russia's course is incompatible with the self-determination of ex-Soviet nations and because minorities are becoming increasingly marginalized.
Russia's political atmosphere looks like post WW1 Germany. The two enemies are the liberals on the inside who only care about money and themselves and the evil foreign forces who allegedly want to see the people suffer. Then the glorious honest nationalists step in and bring the country back to glorious strength!
Oh man, do you really think the US cares about some random country's right to self-determination? Well I guess they do, as long as that self-determination directly benefits them. They wanted to have a pro-Western country next to Russia with the prospect of installing a military base there, they wanted to kick Russia out of Sevastopol and deny them access to the Black Sea. That's the only reason they gave the go-ahead for the violent takeover of governmental buildings back in 2014 by promising their support, just a few days after a compromise agreement was signed by Yanukovich and the opposition (that included early elections), and they even had the cheek to admit as much.
I thought this "democracy" storyline was old after Yugoslavia and Iraq.
Sorry, this is quickly de-railing and I didn't mean to add to the flames.
It's also worth noting how Russia escalates it's actions. First it was just journalists and legal representatives that got arrested/beaten/killed, then some oligarchs that weren't in line with what was expected, now we move to opposition leader murdered in front of Kremlin. And not only that, Niemcow thought he had some kind of immunity because so far people that had important role in previous governments were seen as untouchable, but seems that is also not the case anymore. This sends a message.
Similar with international situation. First it was just Czeczenia, it's ok, it's inside Russian Federation, there are some reasons, might be worse. Then it was Georgia, not so clear situation anymore, doubts start to arise. Now we move into Ukraine, sovereign state that wanted to get out of corruption relation with Russia. This escalates, and West needs to be ready for it. Next will be what? A NATO country being invaded by green men?
On February 28 2015 19:01 Narw wrote: Russia dosn't like him, Russia loves him. They will stand united around their leader and against enemies as long as political propaganda from Kremlin is strong enough to convince ordinary people that there is external threat to Fedaration that wants Russia on it knees. You need to understand that real events have little meaning there, it's what kind of narration about those events is used matters.
I just wanted to remind you that it's better to separate people from the government.
Our government is apeshit and needs to be prosecuted that's not a question. But there are a lot of people in Russia who oppose Putin and who hate him - like me, for example - so you can not say that all russians love him. There were around 50 thousand people yeasterday at the Nemtsov memorial march which is quite massive number for Moscow - we've had higher numbers twice in the modern history.
Hes approval is absurdly high right now, like 85%+, but you have to consider the effects of propoganda on that. Probably hes core electors represent about 50-60%. These people are mostly rather poor people from more eastern regions and smaller cities who doesn't have any source of information except for the federal TV. It's very hard to oppose such a system because it silences you.
Thank you for your input Nerfed. - It is nice to see that you can actually look through this net of propaganda. I find this whole affair freightening. It shouldn't be so easy to control people's minds in this modern time with internet and information technology. I don't understand how Putin can become such a strong symbol for the country by such blunt means!
It is not unlike the recent surge of right-wing xenophobic parties in Europe and such blatantly corrupt politicians as Berlusconi. It really shows the importance of teaching people critical thinking I guess,- or is it something deeper inside us that makes us give up our own understanding of the world in favor of the great leaders regardless of education?
On March 02 2015 11:22 Slaughter wrote: Why is a strong Russia bad for the West? A strong Russia is good except when they decide to annex parts of other countries because the mood struck them.
You should read Brzezinski: USA has to keep Europe or else they are dead. Therefore they need a weak Russia so Europe doesn't ditch USA for Russia. Moreover, Ukraine is what he call a geopolitical "pivot" that should be pro American.
why do people always assume that russia is an alternative to the usa for europe? compared to europe russia is a piss poor borderline 3rd world country with a highly inefficent administration, a weak market, sub par capital and no relevant scientific advancement on a wider scale. there is literally nothing russia has to offer. if anything, its the other way around. russia should seek out closer relations with europe so they can benefit from europes superior technology, markets, administrations and capital.
On March 02 2015 18:13 Ghanburighan wrote: Zeo, please read what I actually write, not what you'd like me to write. I posted the Freedom House list and not the Reporters Without Borders link, and the former have their methodology and data freely available.
As for Reporters without Borders, you probably mean this methodology sheet. As for data, they publish reports which give you an indication of what is diminishing freedom of the press in a country. The latest on Russia is here. I don't think you can argue with the facts here.
Cherry picking data from countries who are not in good relations with the US and ingnoring glaring violations of human rights in countries close to the US does not mean they are 'un-biased'
so, Freedom House data, the US friendly one, ranks russia low and reporters without borders, the anti US one (according to the article you provided), ranks russia low too. what does that tell you?
On March 02 2015 19:57 Elroi wrote: Thank you for your input Nerfed. - It is nice to see that you can actually look through this net of propaganda. I find this whole affair freightening. It shouldn't be so easy to control people's minds in this modern time with internet and information technology. I don't understand how Putin can become such a strong symbol for the country by such blunt means!
It is not unlike the recent surge of right-wing xenophobic parties in Europe and such blatantly corrupt politicians as Berlusconi. It really shows the importance of teaching people critical thinking I guess,- or is it something deeper inside us that makes us give up our own understanding of the world in favor of the great leaders regardless of education?
Well, i come from the family of scientists who were critical of USSR govt. (probably excluding Gorbachev for emotional reasons - you know, he put a real end to terror state) and Russia govt. (except for Gaidar's office and their continuators who became absent from federal level politics sometime around 2004). Also i live in Moscow - i mean it wasn't hard for me and for my friends who came from "intelligentsiya" families and completed school education during the most democratic time in russian history - to form system of social beliefs very similar to the european ones and maintain some level of critical political thought. But if you consider other people - the majority who got really screwed by povetry in the 90s (while it was OK in Moscow and Saint-Petersburgh and several other regional centers, it was horrible in most of the Russia), by banditism which grew once the USSR-built police system collapsed. For those people the democratic changes correlated in time with severe lowering in life quality, so it's understandable if they formed some form of negative relation towards people who were prominent in the politics of the 90s. Just imagine, for example, you are like 15 y.o., you have nearly nothing to eat, there is no work in your region, you have some kind of internal problems in the family - it would be very hard for you to associate with the western tradition of criticism enough so, later on, you could blame someone who leads you to prosperity in expense of "freedom" (see later). And you never ever tasted that freedom really since during the 90s most of the currently somehow-functioning social institutes were just forming. To bitter the picture - war in Chechnya and default in 1998.
And after all of that comes a man named Putin and it coincides with the global rise of consumption and Oil prices sky rocketing. Now the oligarchy spreads a little ammount of its income to the population and the majority is happy. The majority praises Putin because they do not really understand WHY they are living far more prosperous than ever. And propaganda never sleeps.
I would say that there are two most important parts of Putin's propaganda. The major part is TV, during the last 3-4 years it was made mostly state-controlled and 100% state-controlled on the federal level. The internet plays not that a significant of a role as i understand - only about 1/4 of Russian people have access to the internet and they mostly represent more educated and more prosperous classes which are not the main targets of propaganda. Ofc there a lot of govt. supported bots on the internet and all that stuff. And the second part is so called administrative resource. What it means is the following. All of our state-managed organisation are built in a way that there is a strict line of chiefs and subordinates which spans from ministers to regular people like school teacher. And each one of subordinates depends on her chief in terms of job, salary etc. So when the undisclosed order comes from, say, minister of education and science (or someone from the president office), to the heads of regional departments to "maintain" high voting activity or anything - it gets fucking done. Like, when you are working on the state-paid job in Russia it's not the tax payers who you keep in mind as your superiors - it's the state itself because you are defenseless against it (our courts do what police expects them to do - there's 99.7% of verdict "guilty" during criminal cases).
What i want to say is that we should not really hate and blame those people who support Putin - we should try to educate them or wait for the next generations and hope for the best (which is rather depressing i should say). The problem is that the state system is moving towards the closed mode (in Popper's sence) so it's getting harder and harder to reason with govt. supporters.I really think that sanctions will help to deal with that to some degree. But, for example, if US ships weapons to Ukraine it's gonna be another proxy war and spiraling down for Russia.
On March 02 2015 10:06 LegalLord wrote: Putin's approval rating is very high because he made things better for people (and that's also why the West doesn't really like him). It went as low as 20% at some points, such as during the Georgian crisis (though he was PM during this specific point). His popularity spike after the Crimean referendum is very much legitimate, judging by all those I know who didn't really like him much before who approve of him now.
If foreign countries started heavily investing into political parties in your country, you would think of them as traitors as well. Some groups are seen as traitors for exactly this reason; foreign funding for opposition groups in Russia is all too common. Not always fair but this tendency didn't develop without good reason.
You really believe the West hates Putin because he made life better for the Russian people ? The West doesn't like Putin because Russia's course is incompatible with the self-determination of ex-Soviet nations and because minorities are becoming increasingly marginalized.
Russia's political atmosphere looks like post WW1 Germany. The two enemies are the liberals on the inside who only care about money and themselves and the evil foreign forces who allegedly want to see the people suffer. Then the glorious honest nationalists step in and bring the country back to glorious strength!
Oh man, do you really think the US cares about some random country's right to self-determination? Well I guess they do, as long as that self-determination directly benefits them. They wanted to have a pro-Western country next to Russia with the prospect of installing a military base there, they wanted to kick Russia out of Sevastopol and deny them access to the Black Sea. That's the only reason they gave the go-ahead for the violent takeover of governmental buildingsback in 2014 by promising their support, just a few days after a compromise agreement was signed by Yanukovich and the opposition (that included early elections), and they even had the cheek to admit as much.
I thought this "democracy" storyline was old after Yugoslavia and Iraq.
Sorry, this is quickly de-railing and I didn't mean to add to the flames.
its funny how there is nothing said about the violent takeover of governmental buildings in the part of the article you posted. It is said though that + Show Spoiler +
By late afternoon, hundreds of riot police officers guarding the presidential compound and nearby government buildings had vanished.[228] Polish foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski described the withdrawal of forces as "astonishing," noting it was not part of the agreement. ... After the riot police officers had vanished, Andriy Parubiy reported Euromaidan self-defence had peacefully gained control over Kiev and its Government buildings,[235] and that the military was standing with the opposition
Again, dozens of governmental buildings were left unguarded. The situation was turbulent and there were people with dubious motives on both sides, so the more organized part of Euromaidan had to respond by providing at least some protection to the institutions. Control over most of the governmental institutions at the time didn't matter at all since the only place where decisions were actually forged was the Parliament, and it was never taken by force. The only time through all Euromaidan that armed people got inside (and who were not supposed to be there) was when the MVD officers guarding it got in "to have a chat" with MPs after the latter ordered them out of the city, they left shortly after.
On March 02 2015 11:22 Slaughter wrote: Why is a strong Russia bad for the West? A strong Russia is good except when they decide to annex parts of other countries because the mood struck them.
You should read Brzezinski: USA has to keep Europe or else they are dead. Therefore they need a weak Russia so Europe doesn't ditch USA for Russia. Moreover, Ukraine is what he call a geopolitical "pivot" that should be pro American.
why do people always assume that russia is an alternative to the usa for europe? compared to europe russia is a piss poor borderline 3rd world country with a highly inefficent administration, a weak market, sub par capital and no relevant scientific advancement on a wider scale. there is literally nothing russia has to offer. if anything, its the other way around. russia should seek out closer relations with europe so they can benefit from europes superior technology, markets, administrations and capital.
Europe and Russia both feel superior to each other because they are competing in different categories. Europe wants to improve life for its citizens. Russia wants to project power. If both were going with the European model, both would be able to live peacefully. But projection of power means taking it from others.
EU has 500 million people to the US's 300 million, and their economies are about the same size. So Europe ought to have a military about as strong as the US, maybe a little stronger. But they don't. They're basically demilitarized. I mean, yeah, even without US involvement, Putin would have trouble pushing to Lisbon, but that's not actually how war works, or ever has. Putin has been using Ukraine as a testing ground to see how willing Europe is to fight him militarily (not at all) or with its comparative strength, economically (barely any more). It's basically only the threat of the US that keeps Putin off of the Baltics, or off of a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Europe cannot protect its own lunch money, and so either it has to give it to the bully or call for the teacher to help it. That is why Europe's alternatives are Russia or the US.
On March 02 2015 11:22 Slaughter wrote: Why is a strong Russia bad for the West? A strong Russia is good except when they decide to annex parts of other countries because the mood struck them.
You should read Brzezinski: USA has to keep Europe or else they are dead. Therefore they need a weak Russia so Europe doesn't ditch USA for Russia. Moreover, Ukraine is what he call a geopolitical "pivot" that should be pro American.
why do people always assume that russia is an alternative to the usa for europe? compared to europe russia is a piss poor borderline 3rd world country with a highly inefficent administration, a weak market, sub par capital and no relevant scientific advancement on a wider scale. there is literally nothing russia has to offer. if anything, its the other way around. russia should seek out closer relations with europe so they can benefit from europes superior technology, markets, administrations and capital.
Europe and Russia both feel superior to each other because they are competing in different categories. Europe wants to improve life for its citizens. Russia wants to project power. If both were going with the European model, both would be able to live peacefully. But projection of power means taking it from others.
EU has 500 million people to the US's 300 million, and their economies are about the same size. So Europe ought to have a military about as strong as the US, maybe a little stronger. But they don't. They're basically demilitarized. I mean, yeah, even without US involvement, Putin would have trouble pushing to Lisbon, but that's not actually how war works, or ever has. Putin has been using Ukraine as a testing ground to see how willing Europe is to fight him militarily (not at all) or with its comparative strength, economically (barely any more). It's basically only the threat of the US that keeps Putin off of the Baltics, or off of a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Europe cannot protect its own lunch money, and so either it has to give it to the bully or call for the teacher to help it. That is why Europe's alternatives are Russia or the US.
It's been that way since... 1930?
E: LOL europe has better technology than russia? what on earth
Putin alleges the assassination has all the trappings of CIA or MI6 planning, assumedly swallowed whole by his sheepish constituency. The balls of this man are very real. And very large.
In the same article, the author spoke of Putin's sky-high 86% approval rating, and even quoted a Russian civilian as saying the like of: "I wasn't aware of the situation until I watched the news, and found out the US is trying to steal half of Russia, so I support Putin's actions in Ukraine."
On March 03 2015 02:19 Yoav wrote: That is why Europe's alternatives are Russia or the US.
Yes, good point, but the choice you are describing has very little to do with what Saumure was having in mind by saying "therefore they need a weak Russia so Europe doesn't ditch USA for Russia".
On March 02 2015 11:22 Slaughter wrote: Why is a strong Russia bad for the West? A strong Russia is good except when they decide to annex parts of other countries because the mood struck them.
You should read Brzezinski: USA has to keep Europe or else they are dead. Therefore they need a weak Russia so Europe doesn't ditch USA for Russia. Moreover, Ukraine is what he call a geopolitical "pivot" that should be pro American.
why do people always assume that russia is an alternative to the usa for europe? compared to europe russia is a piss poor borderline 3rd world country with a highly inefficent administration, a weak market, sub par capital and no relevant scientific advancement on a wider scale. there is literally nothing russia has to offer. if anything, its the other way around. russia should seek out closer relations with europe so they can benefit from europes superior technology, markets, administrations and capital.
Europe and Russia both feel superior to each other because they are competing in different categories. Europe wants to improve life for its citizens. Russia wants to project power. If both were going with the European model, both would be able to live peacefully. But projection of power means taking it from others.
EU has 500 million people to the US's 300 million, and their economies are about the same size. So Europe ought to have a military about as strong as the US, maybe a little stronger. But they don't. They're basically demilitarized. I mean, yeah, even without US involvement, Putin would have trouble pushing to Lisbon, but that's not actually how war works, or ever has. Putin has been using Ukraine as a testing ground to see how willing Europe is to fight him militarily (not at all) or with its comparative strength, economically (barely any more). It's basically only the threat of the US that keeps Putin off of the Baltics, or off of a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Europe cannot protect its own lunch money, and so either it has to give it to the bully or call for the teacher to help it. That is why Europe's alternatives are Russia or the US.
It's been that way since... 1930?
No, it's more recent than that. Europe had a large number of powerful armies before WWII. The Nazis dismantled the French and Polish ones and got the German and Italian ones destroyed, leaving mostly just the UK, which always had a mediocre ground force. So it was after 1945 that the dependence on the US started. It's fluctuated since then a bit based on events, but the principle has remained the same since the creation of NATO.
On February 28 2015 18:04 lolfail9001 wrote: If you think about it, Putin would not really care about Nemtsov, unless he applies the following logic: kill Nemtsov, remove a good portion of his followers from the crowd (not really), accuse Ukraine/CIA/opposition itself via propaganda machine(it already does so, Ukraine girl that was not even hurt with that amount of shots totally helps),????,PROFIT.
Now, opposition has no actual reason for that either, even though he could act as a trigger.
And then here is the most likely case: some batshit crazy "patriot" that went ahead and shot the hated man. Why he would leave the girl alive is beyond me... actually never mind, leaving her alive would be perfect, considering that it was most likely planned.
Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Putin can kill Nemtsov just because he finds the guy to be annoying and wants to get rid of him. If you don't believe Putin can do whatever the hell he pleases to people who are in his way, look up Alexander Litvinenko and Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Nemtsov is just the latest of Putin's opponents to be removed from his way in extremely questionable circumstances.
On March 02 2015 10:06 LegalLord wrote: Putin's approval rating is very high because he made things better for people (and that's also why the West doesn't really like him). It went as low as 20% at some points, such as during the Georgian crisis (though he was PM during this specific point). His popularity spike after the Crimean referendum is very much legitimate, judging by all those I know who didn't really like him much before who approve of him now.
If foreign countries started heavily investing into political parties in your country, you would think of them as traitors as well. Some groups are seen as traitors for exactly this reason; foreign funding for opposition groups in Russia is all too common. Not always fair but this tendency didn't develop without good reason.
You really believe the West hates Putin because he made life better for the Russian people ? The West doesn't like Putin because Russia's course is incompatible with the self-determination of ex-Soviet nations and because minorities are becoming increasingly marginalized.
Russia's political atmosphere looks like post WW1 Germany. The two enemies are the liberals on the inside who only care about money and themselves and the evil foreign forces who allegedly want to see the people suffer. Then the glorious honest nationalists step in and bring the country back to glorious strength!
Oh man, do you really think the US cares about some random country's right to self-determination? Well I guess they do, as long as that self-determination directly benefits them. They wanted to have a pro-Western country next to Russia with the prospect of installing a military base there, they wanted to kick Russia out of Sevastopol and deny them access to the Black Sea. That's the only reason they gave the go-ahead for the violent takeover of governmental buildingsback in 2014 by promising their support, just a few days after a compromise agreement was signed by Yanukovich and the opposition (that included early elections), and they even had the cheek to admit as much.
I thought this "democracy" storyline was old after Yugoslavia and Iraq.
Sorry, this is quickly de-railing and I didn't mean to add to the flames.
its funny how there is nothing said about the violent takeover of governmental buildings in the part of the article you posted. It is said though that + Show Spoiler +
By late afternoon, hundreds of riot police officers guarding the presidential compound and nearby government buildings had vanished.[228] Polish foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski described the withdrawal of forces as "astonishing," noting it was not part of the agreement. ... After the riot police officers had vanished, Andriy Parubiy reported Euromaidan self-defence had peacefully gained control over Kiev and its Government buildings,[235] and that the military was standing with the opposition
Again, dozens of governmental buildings were left unguarded. The situation was turbulent and there were people with dubious motives on both sides, so the more organized part of Euromaidan had to respond by providing at least some protection to the institutions. Control over most of the governmental institutions at the time didn't matter at all since the only place where decisions were actually forged was the Parliament, and it was never taken by force. The only time through all Euromaidan that armed people got inside (and who were not supposed to be there) was when the MVD officers guarding it got in "to have a chat" with MPs after the latter ordered them out of the city, they left shortly after.
You're right, thanks for pointing that out. I didn't double-check the Wikipedia article that I linked because I was sure I saw reports of people storming the govt. buildings in Feb 2014. I didn't realise they were simply abandoned.
So Marshal of Polish Sejm, Borysewicz wanted to attend funeral of Niemcow just to learn from Russia officials that he is on list of people that are forbidden to enter Federation. Was also told that it doesn't have any relation to Niemcow funeral and it's Russia response to EU sanctions towards citizens of Russia. Inquires about since when he is on that list, who else is on that list met the response that Russia embassy officials do not know. I can only say, classy.
Russian Finance Minister released recenty information that 40% of the state budget will be spent on army and other power ministies ("siloviki"). Anyone knows how that compares to other countries?
On March 02 2015 11:22 Slaughter wrote: Why is a strong Russia bad for the West? A strong Russia is good except when they decide to annex parts of other countries because the mood struck them.
You should read Brzezinski: USA has to keep Europe or else they are dead. Therefore they need a weak Russia so Europe doesn't ditch USA for Russia. Moreover, Ukraine is what he call a geopolitical "pivot" that should be pro American.
why do people always assume that russia is an alternative to the usa for europe? compared to europe russia is a piss poor borderline 3rd world country with a highly inefficent administration, a weak market, sub par capital and no relevant scientific advancement on a wider scale. there is literally nothing russia has to offer. if anything, its the other way around. russia should seek out closer relations with europe so they can benefit from europes superior technology, markets, administrations and capital.
Because people like conspiracy theories and the theory that Europe -- all 500 million except for a few brave people who see 'the truth' -- is enthralled by evil imperialist Americans is appealing in some circles. For various lefties, Russia is just a convenient cutout for Soviet Union and they pay as little attention to the details to the internal situation in Russia as their predecessors in the 60s and 70s did to the USSR. It stands up to evil American pigs therefore it is good, or at least no worse than the US and because it stands up to the US that they hate its 'better'. For the right Putin's Russia is what they want, wise leader, 'collectivism', nationalism, scaring everyone with big military budgets, minorities who are 'taught their place', and 'disgusting homosexuals beaten into their place'. The fact that both the anti-EU far right and far left are tripping themselves over Putin is a sign that this isnt really about Russia at all, its about the internal dialectic of the fringe and its relationship to the EU/Liberal-Democracy/Capitalism.
On March 02 2015 10:38 LegalLord wrote: 1. There was an invasion of Ukraine. There were certainly volunteers, most of them from Russia, but even many European leaders say that there is no proof of an invasion. This is speculation paraded as fact by biased parties. 2. MH17. Frankly I see no reason why this would be blamed on Russia unless you just wanted to pin it on Russia. No evidence and it seems that the investigation has basically stopped? Until there is evidence that Russia played a hand in this, no reason to assume there is. 3. This shooting. Once again, no evidence, little reason to assume involvement unless that is the interpretation of events you find most suitable to hold.
The fact that all of these are pinned on Russia despite the lack of evidence is quite telling. The reasonable, though less interesting, thing to do would be to simply wait until reliable evidence appears before placing the blame on someone. Isn't that how the whole Syrian chemical weapons charade played out?
lol? There are people who still beleive that those "self defence forces" in Crimea weren't russian soldiers? I mean they revealed themselves months ago. It's not really debateable.
On February 28 2015 18:04 lolfail9001 wrote: If you think about it, Putin would not really care about Nemtsov, unless he applies the following logic: kill Nemtsov, remove a good portion of his followers from the crowd (not really), accuse Ukraine/CIA/opposition itself via propaganda machine(it already does so, Ukraine girl that was not even hurt with that amount of shots totally helps),????,PROFIT.
Now, opposition has no actual reason for that either, even though he could act as a trigger.
And then here is the most likely case: some batshit crazy "patriot" that went ahead and shot the hated man. Why he would leave the girl alive is beyond me... actually never mind, leaving her alive would be perfect, considering that it was most likely planned.
Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Putin can kill Nemtsov just because he finds the guy to be annoying and wants to get rid of him. If you don't believe Putin can do whatever the hell he pleases to people who are in his way, look up Alexander Litvinenko and Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Nemtsov is just the latest of Putin's opponents to be removed from his way in extremely questionable circumstances.
See, Nemtsov is not really that annoying, unless Putin could have guessed/knew something we don't about Nemtsov's actions. Granted, there should be plenty of stuff that Nemtsov had that could actually sever sancions on PutinCo, no wonder that the first thing done by police after his death was confiscation of anything that can potentially contain data, including the rumored report on Donbass. Also, there are rumors flying around of Nemtsov lobbying the sanctions, so that could be decent reason too. Hell, there have been a scan of Nemtsov sending a letter to FSB's director on bunch of Chechens violating quite a few Russian laws, abusing the official Putin statement on Russia not sending military into Donetsk (yes, we all know, that this is a lie, but hey, Nemtsov had to play nice to demand response). See, after a few days, i can totally be certain that whoever done this had a STRONG connection in Kremlin. Hell, with that Chechen stuff i would not even be surprised if those were Kadyrov (dunno how to spell ы in English) "boys".
From my PoV (I've been living in Russia all 28 years of my life), I understand that this message is likely to be lost under tens and hundreds of rage messages blaming either Russia or US (the former is most likely in socium of course), but still I feel I need to explain how I feel living in Russia. I didn't migrate to any country, you should keep in mind that migrating people sometimes may be a bit biased, and even though sometimes I really wanna get the hell outta here
Propaganda in Russia currently works really hard, but I wanna note that Anti-Russia propaganda also exists, and you can't consider any sort of propaganda as a information source whatsoever. I wanna note too, that I've never heard anything Anti-EU here, but Anti-US tide is really strong over here, and people are getting very-very aggressively "partiotic", and I can only hope that this is gonna stop at some point, because it's getting very nationalistic already.
Now I am certain that part of Russian propaganda is false and part of Anti-Russian propaganda is false too, events like this assassination can't just be explained using common sense. It's either some dumbass idiot, which I doubt, really, or someone who needs to keep tension between Russia and EU/US. And there were a lot of events like this throughout the whole Ukrainian crisis.
In given circumstances most sociaty members (those who like to pick first "truth" they like) is gonna take the side they like more for whatever reason, it doesn't require any explanation. While it's clear to me, that Russian Media doesn't tell the whole truth it might be 0% of truth as well as 90%. The point is that US historycally did a lot of shit on international arena (just like USSR/Russia did, no doubt), and broke quite some agreements such as post-cubian crisis agreement according to which they must've withdrawn their rockets from Turkey. It's not what I take from Russian history course, sure, a lot of facts are widely known in the whole world.
Anyone with common sense can't deny a possibility of both scenarios: Putin going crazy and CIA making him look like he is a madman. Events in Ukraine are the same case: 2 possible scenarios. In Ukranian version, believe me, just same (if not more) amount of stupid shit that couldn't happen. None of these is proven so far, and I doubt any will be proven and admitted in nearest future. In latter scenario Russian propaganda could be a "not-so-democratic-more-likely-authocratic-but-kinda-justified" move aimed to keep people loyalty when things go crazy.
This murder is clearly aimed to divide RU and EU further. Let's not blame any occusations and let history be the judge of us all. And I mean "History", not that piece of shit that every country feeds to its citizens.
EDIT: TL;DR;
Russian media hide a lot of facts regarding the conflict, but it's just as true as Anti-russian media hiding facts. And who's "more wrong", who's a true victim and who's a vermin - these are questions without answers. Pointing out false facts isn't bringing anywhere just because there are much more false then it's known at the moment.
That's all good, but those killings usually remain unsolved forever, for obvious reasons (by the time it takes to figure out the possible location of killers they could already be hanging out anywhere on Earth, so you have to figure out their identity and even that is not a problem to circumvent, should the need arise). Also, this event can actually be explained with common sense, if you rule out the Putin being the one who ordered the killing and remember about existence of a certain person who still applies the "honor" part in his motivation, that could treat recent Nemtsov actions (letter to FSB i mentioned) as a personal insult and has the connections to cover up the killing. Bang, you've already all figured out who did i mean, and that person does not really lose anything from killing him except for a rhetorical question about one's sanity.
Obviously, that speculation should be taken with a heavy grain of salt, since it's based on a scan, that could be very much faked.
wasilix, you seem to have fallen in exactly the trap that was discribed earlier in this thread:
On March 01 2015 02:12 Ghanburighan wrote: I think there's a fundamental misconception regarding how Russian propaganda works. It's not that they feed you a narrative that the Kremlin likes, that didn't even work in Soviet times, with the exception of inspiring countless jokes... Instead, they push out countless absurd theories (in this case, the different Kremlin controlled channels have used: Nemtsov's gf had an abortion, he was a CIA agent, muslims killed him because of Charlie Hebdo, the mafia killed him, Ukrainians killed him as a provocation). Each and every news piece is intentionally emotionally charged. This creates an atmosphere of mistrust, where you cannot trust anything you see in the media, you can't be sure of a single fact, or take any claim seriously. In the context of such mistrust, people are radicalized, the rational part of public discourse is diminished while emotional reactions are amplified. This makes it easier to rally people around an idea, such as an orthodox Russian war against Ukrainian nazis, and European homophiles. In the end, the facts don't matter, these are just emotionally unstable people reacting against a perceived injustice or threat, hoping to find a single stable point in a confusing world.
On March 01 2015 02:12 Ghanburighan wrote: I think there's a fundamental misconception regarding how Russian propaganda works. It's not that they feed you a narrative that the Kremlin likes, that didn't even work in Soviet times, with the exception of inspiring countless jokes... Instead, they push out countless absurd theories (in this case, the different Kremlin controlled channels have used: Nemtsov's gf had an abortion, he was a CIA agent, muslims killed him because of Charlie Hebdo, the mafia killed him, Ukrainians killed him as a provocation). Each and every news piece is intentionally emotionally charged. This creates an atmosphere of mistrust, where you cannot trust anything you see in the media, you can't be sure of a single fact, or take any claim seriously. In the context of such mistrust, people are radicalized, the rational part of public discourse is diminished while emotional reactions are amplified. This makes it easier to rally people around an idea, such as an orthodox Russian war against Ukrainian nazis, and European homophiles. In the end, the facts don't matter, these are just emotionally unstable people reacting against a perceived injustice or threat, hoping to find a single stable point in a confusing world.
I can't say you are wrong completely, as I'm living here and watching the TV. But you are wrong still, as I didn't radicalize. Doubting things is in my nature, so I can't say it's a product of emotional charge, but I see what it does to other people here. And it worries me hell of a lot. Now that I probably said it, but things aren't wonderful here in Russia, and media is going nuts really. My point is that if one source is known for telling false news it doesn't make other source true as well. Although I don't know the picture in Russia as I am not really socially active person and probably missing a lot of shit, and even good stuff (Russia isn't Devils home after all, it has its good sides), but just because I don't trust Russian media even a bit (and I really hate emotional charge in news), I can't blindly trust any other media.
On March 03 2015 05:01 wasilix wrote: Anyone with common sense can't deny a possibility of both scenarios: Putin going crazy and CIA making him look like he is a madman. Events in Ukraine are the same case: 2 possible scenarios. In Ukranian version, believe me, just same (if not more) amount of stupid shit that couldn't happen. None of these is proven so far, and I doubt any will be proven and admitted in nearest future. In latter scenario Russian propaganda could be a "not-so-democratic-more-likely-authocratic-but-kinda-justified" move aimed to keep people loyalty when things go crazy.
The problem with your argument is that it's Russia who is doing the craziest things right now, some of the most crazy that Europe has seen for the past 70 years, which escalate the situation, and then they blame the crazy situation for doing even more crazy things.
On March 03 2015 05:01 wasilix wrote: Anyone with common sense can't deny a possibility of both scenarios: Putin going crazy and CIA making him look like he is a madman. Events in Ukraine are the same case: 2 possible scenarios. In Ukranian version, believe me, just same (if not more) amount of stupid shit that couldn't happen. None of these is proven so far, and I doubt any will be proven and admitted in nearest future. In latter scenario Russian propaganda could be a "not-so-democratic-more-likely-authocratic-but-kinda-justified" move aimed to keep people loyalty when things go crazy.
The problem with your argument is that it's Russia who is doing the craziest things right now, some of the craziest the Europe has seen for the past 70 years, which escalate the situation, and then they blame the the crazy situation for doing even more crazy things.
That's what I don't understand, why people fall into fully accepting any point of view. Ok there is a version in Russia that Ukraine does all this shit, and there is a contre-version. They both are naturally born, and most likely both lying a lot. Like seriously blidnly trusting any version is wrong.
On February 28 2015 18:04 lolfail9001 wrote: If you think about it, Putin would not really care about Nemtsov, unless he applies the following logic: kill Nemtsov, remove a good portion of his followers from the crowd (not really), accuse Ukraine/CIA/opposition itself via propaganda machine(it already does so, Ukraine girl that was not even hurt with that amount of shots totally helps),????,PROFIT.
Now, opposition has no actual reason for that either, even though he could act as a trigger.
And then here is the most likely case: some batshit crazy "patriot" that went ahead and shot the hated man. Why he would leave the girl alive is beyond me... actually never mind, leaving her alive would be perfect, considering that it was most likely planned.
Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Putin can kill Nemtsov just because he finds the guy to be annoying and wants to get rid of him. If you don't believe Putin can do whatever the hell he pleases to people who are in his way, look up Alexander Litvinenko and Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Nemtsov is just the latest of Putin's opponents to be removed from his way in extremely questionable circumstances.
See, Nemtsov is not really that annoying, unless Putin could have guessed/knew something we don't about Nemtsov's actions. Granted, there should be plenty of stuff that Nemtsov had that could actually sever sancions on PutinCo, no wonder that the first thing done by police after his death was confiscation of anything that can potentially contain data, including the rumored report on Donbass. Also, there are rumors flying around of Nemtsov lobbying the sanctions, so that could be decent reason too. Hell, there have been a scan of Nemtsov sending a letter to FSB's director on bunch of Chechens violating quite a few Russian laws, abusing the official Putin statement on Russia not sending military into Donetsk (yes, we all know, that this is a lie, but hey, Nemtsov had to play nice to demand response). See, after a few days, i can totally be certain that whoever done this had a STRONG connection in Kremlin. Hell, with that Chechen stuff i would not even be surprised if those were Kadyrov (dunno how to spell ы in English) "boys".
I think a number posters addressed the issue that while Putin personally picking up the phone and saying kill him is unlikely, the location -- security cameras are off, police is off -- indicates that someone capable of influencing Kremlin security had a hand in it. Plus there was the general environment, where the media and hard line Putin supporters were on the hunt for 'fifth columnists.' The response from twitter in Russia after his death from the pro-Putin circles also indicates that was a pretty tremendous amount of hate generated against the liberals.
Not as a reply to you but to broadly to the idea that "Putin had nothing to gained, therefore its a setup!" it sounds a lot like this perspective, regarding another political murder that took place a while back: Stalin had no reason to kill Trotsky! He was a nobody in 1940! And he was exiled all the way to Mexico. So close to the American imperialists! It was a CIA plot to make Stalin look bad, for propaganda value!
I'd just like to say that I find the stories by wasilix and Nerfed and others absolutely fascinating to read. Thank you for posting them.
Cheerio asked about military spending. There's always debate about exact numbers, but Russia is generally considered to spend about 4% of GDP on its military with the number increasing every year. (See the world bank, for example) This is a very high amount, and a bit above even the US (which spends the most on its military of all Western countries with the exception of Israel (the middle east is generally the exception here anyway). For example, NATO has a well-known target of 2% military spending which only around 5 countries match out of 28 (US, Greece, Estonia and perhaps Poland and the UK, don't quite know the current stats).
Do some of you know of https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html ? It is from 2008 when Ukraine first wanted to join NATO and it is describing how Russia would react to what it is seeing as a threat to its security.
Russia is telling quite bluntly that in case of a scenario where Ukraine would become a NATO member there will be civil war in Ukraine and Russia could come to a point where it had to militarily intervene. They say Ukraine joining NATO would lead to repercussions through central to western Europe and to its withdrawal from the CFE and INF treaties.
On March 03 2015 05:01 wasilix wrote: Anyone with common sense can't deny a possibility of both scenarios: Putin going crazy and CIA making him look like he is a madman. Events in Ukraine are the same case: 2 possible scenarios. In Ukranian version, believe me, just same (if not more) amount of stupid shit that couldn't happen. None of these is proven so far, and I doubt any will be proven and admitted in nearest future. In latter scenario Russian propaganda could be a "not-so-democratic-more-likely-authocratic-but-kinda-justified" move aimed to keep people loyalty when things go crazy.
The problem with your argument is that it's Russia who is doing the craziest things right now, some of the craziest the Europe has seen for the past 70 years, which escalate the situation, and then they blame the the crazy situation for doing even more crazy things.
That's what I don't understand, why people fall into fully accepting any point of view. Ok there is a version in Russia that Ukraine does all this shit, and there is a contre-version. They both are naturally born, and most likely both lying a lot. Like seriously blidnly trusting any version is wrong.
This is why Ghanburighan post applies to you. You've been so confused by the events that you've given up trying to figure them out to the point you are confident a person with a strong opinion must be wrong.
On March 03 2015 05:48 Banaora wrote: Do some of you know of https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html ? It is from 2008 when Ukraine first wanted to join NATO and it is describing how Russia would react to what it is seeing as a threat to its security.
Russia is telling quite bluntly that in case of a scenario where Ukraine would become a NATO member there will be civil war in Ukraine and Russia could come to a point where it had to militarily intervene. They say Ukraine joining NATO would lead to repercussions through central to western Europe and to its withdrawal from the CFE and INF treaties.
I hadn't noticed this. It's a fascinating read (albeit inconsequential as the MAP was buried and it was moving closer to the EU that sparked the intervention, casting doubt on the veracity of Lavrov's claims in terms of their motivation).
On March 03 2015 05:48 Banaora wrote: Do some of you know of https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html ? It is from 2008 when Ukraine first wanted to join NATO and it is describing how Russia would react to what it is seeing as a threat to its security.
Russia is telling quite bluntly that in case of a scenario where Ukraine would become a NATO member there will be civil war in Ukraine and Russia could come to a point where it had to militarily intervene. They say Ukraine joining NATO would lead to repercussions through central to western Europe and to its withdrawal from the CFE and INF treaties.
I hadn't noticed this. It's a fascinating read (albeit inconsequential as the MAP was buried and it was moving closer to the EU that sparked the intervention, casting doubt on the veracity of Lavrov's claims in terms of their motivation).
By annexing Crimea Russia has already broken several treaties, including the one that had Ukraine dismantle it's nuclear power (setting a terrible precedent, now go get anyone to disarm lol) so w/e.
Everything is just sad, the society here is slowly collapsing upon itself and there isn't really a positive construct for a future. You just can't imagine a future for a 21'st century European country if you're an ex-KGB colonel, spent your whole life at a desk and openly admit you don't like/use the internet. You have to realize that Putin lives in a completely different world that just doesn't even have all those cool things you like and that constitute the modern Europe. You have Wikipedia and Coursera - he has old soviet history books. You seriously think about the availability of cybernetic augmentation in the following years, robotic space exploration, elimination of cancer and other amazing things that are just around the corner - he seriously thinks about "unfair" things that happened 50-100 years ago when no one at these forums was even alive. What kind of a future can that man envision? You can't imagine a complex system built of things you have no idea of.
It's wrong that Russia is returning to communism. Communism was, although flawed, an ideology. At the core of that ideology was an idea of the future with equality and scientific progress, which failed completely here but was kind of reborn into Scandinavian socialism. Today's Russia doesn't have any such idea so it desperately clings to anything that looks like one and is remotely accessible. The easiest things to access are expansionism and a twisted variation of patriotism with a mix of religious traditionalism, sadly. Yeah it's kinda our (citizen's) fault too, but now that all the power is truly in the hands of one man there's only so much one can do.
I support the idea that Nemtsov was a victim of the propaganda. Federal media commonly presents opposition leaders/supporters as supposed public enemies (quoting Putin himself, "national traitors"), so it doesn't take long for someone who is regularly fed with something like "these people's lives are harmful" to make that little step towards "these people's deaths are beneficial".
Now I don't want anyone to grow a hate on Russia, you just have to understand that things are a little bit more complicated here than they may seem, the country is in a dire need of a refreshment and we have no idea when it's coming. And god forbid you express sympathy towards "strong rulers", you have no idea. Part of Putin's power and the ability to seize the initiative in Crimea was that he had rather unexpected public support across the whole globe, including France, Germany and other developed countries.
On March 03 2015 05:01 wasilix wrote: Anyone with common sense can't deny a possibility of both scenarios: Putin going crazy and CIA making him look like he is a madman. Events in Ukraine are the same case: 2 possible scenarios. In Ukranian version, believe me, just same (if not more) amount of stupid shit that couldn't happen. None of these is proven so far, and I doubt any will be proven and admitted in nearest future. In latter scenario Russian propaganda could be a "not-so-democratic-more-likely-authocratic-but-kinda-justified" move aimed to keep people loyalty when things go crazy.
The problem with your argument is that it's Russia who is doing the craziest things right now, some of the craziest the Europe has seen for the past 70 years, which escalate the situation, and then they blame the the crazy situation for doing even more crazy things.
That's what I don't understand, why people fall into fully accepting any point of view. Ok there is a version in Russia that Ukraine does all this shit, and there is a contre-version. They both are naturally born, and most likely both lying a lot. Like seriously blidnly trusting any version is wrong.
Sure blind trust is wrong but at the same time you can't just equate the two and give up on understanding events. The Russian media seems very adept at creating bullshit alternate stories that breed doubt and when these aren't given equal coverage in the West it's called bias/propaganda. Just because there are two versions of an event doesn't mean they deserve equal consideration. We can't trust media completely but I'll still take the rest of the world over the Putin controlled press any day.
Nemtsov, as depressing as it is, is not the first and not the last when you think about. Even if Putin did not do it now, there were many that were eliminated on his behalf. There are many things about these evens that Russian media does not show in this assassination case.
When the mistrust atmosphere is created in Russia, and everyone doubts everything, its is nearly impossible for people there to believe outside media sources. However, from the perspective of the outsider (and having the ability to see and understand Russian media sources), you see clearly when Kremlin media is spouting BS, cause their statements are too far from reality when they speak about things that are happening outside Russia and every other possible source is just contradictory to that.
On March 03 2015 05:48 Banaora wrote: Do some of you know of https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html ? It is from 2008 when Ukraine first wanted to join NATO and it is describing how Russia would react to what it is seeing as a threat to its security.
Russia is telling quite bluntly that in case of a scenario where Ukraine would become a NATO member there will be civil war in Ukraine and Russia could come to a point where it had to militarily intervene. They say Ukraine joining NATO would lead to repercussions through central to western Europe and to its withdrawal from the CFE and INF treaties.
I hadn't noticed this. It's a fascinating read (albeit inconsequential as the MAP was buried and it was moving closer to the EU that sparked the intervention, casting doubt on the veracity of Lavrov's claims in terms of their motivation).
By annexing Crimea Russia has already broken several treaties, including the one that had Ukraine dismantle it's nuclear power (setting a terrible precedent, now go get anyone to disarm lol) so w/e.
Everything is just sad, the society here is slowly collapsing upon itself and there isn't really a positive construct for a future. You just can't imagine a future for a 21'st century European country if you're an ex-KGB colonel, spent your whole life at a desk and openly admit you don't like/use the internet. You have to realize that Putin lives in a completely different world that just doesn't even have all those cool things you like and that constitute the modern Europe. You have Wikipedia and Coursera - he has old soviet history books. You seriously think about the availability of cybernetic augmentation in the following years, robotic space exploration, elimination of cancer and other amazing things that are just around the corner - he seriously thinks about "unfair" things that happened 50-100 years ago when no one at these forums was even alive. What kind of a future can that man envision? You can't imagine a complex system built of things you have no idea of.
It's wrong that Russia is returning to communism. Communism was, although flawed, an ideology. At the core of that ideology was an idea of the future with equality and scientific progress, which failed completely here but was kind of reborn into Scandinavian socialism. Today's Russia doesn't have any such idea so it desperately clings to anything that looks like one and is remotely accessible. The easiest things to access are expansionism and a twisted variation of patriotism with a mix of religious traditionalism, sadly. Yeah it's kinda our (citizen's) fault too, but now that all the power is truly in the hands of one man there's only so much one can do.
I support the idea that Nemtsov was a victim of the propaganda. Federal media commonly presents opposition leaders/supporters as supposed public enemies (quoting Putin himself, "national traitors"), so it doesn't take long for someone who is regularly fed with something like "these people's lives are harmful" to make that little step towards "these people's deaths are beneficial".
Now I don't want anyone to grow a hate on Russia, you just have to understand that things are a little bit more complicated here than they may seem, the country is in a dire need of a refreshment and we have no idea when it's coming. And god forbid you express sympathy towards "strong rulers", you have no idea. Part of Putin's power and the ability to seize the initiative in Crimea was that he had rather unexpected public support across the whole globe, including France, Germany and other developed countries.
Thanks for this post. Nice to get an insider perspective.
On March 03 2015 05:01 wasilix wrote: Anyone with common sense can't deny a possibility of both scenarios: Putin going crazy and CIA making him look like he is a madman. Events in Ukraine are the same case: 2 possible scenarios. In Ukranian version, believe me, just same (if not more) amount of stupid shit that couldn't happen. None of these is proven so far, and I doubt any will be proven and admitted in nearest future. In latter scenario Russian propaganda could be a "not-so-democratic-more-likely-authocratic-but-kinda-justified" move aimed to keep people loyalty when things go crazy.
The problem with your argument is that it's Russia who is doing the craziest things right now, some of the craziest the Europe has seen for the past 70 years, which escalate the situation, and then they blame the the crazy situation for doing even more crazy things.
That's what I don't understand, why people fall into fully accepting any point of view. Ok there is a version in Russia that Ukraine does all this shit, and there is a contre-version. They both are naturally born, and most likely both lying a lot. Like seriously blidnly trusting any version is wrong.
This is the most important fallacy that Kremlin tries to promote I think. They want to you to separate the world in two huge spheres, the west and the east. Everything that comes from the "west" they can write off as propaganda and all the news sources in the "east" (read Russia) they can control - ultimatley with threats of violence.
Most of the countries in Europe have great freedom of the press. This doesn't mean news media are perfect of course - far from it! Rich people who own the media can use them as a means of pushing their own agenda (see Berlusconi) and in a capitalist market all actors must adhere to certain "rules" about what people want to read about. (As Raymond Williams puts it "all means of communication are means of production".) But to say that there are just two monolithic propaganda machines that confront each other is unacceptible and too relativistic.
On March 01 2015 02:12 Ghanburighan wrote: I think there's a fundamental misconception regarding how Russian propaganda works. It's not that they feed you a narrative that the Kremlin likes, that didn't even work in Soviet times, with the exception of inspiring countless jokes... Instead, they push out countless absurd theories (in this case, the different Kremlin controlled channels have used: Nemtsov's gf had an abortion, he was a CIA agent, muslims killed him because of Charlie Hebdo, the mafia killed him, Ukrainians killed him as a provocation). Each and every news piece is intentionally emotionally charged. This creates an atmosphere of mistrust, where you cannot trust anything you see in the media, you can't be sure of a single fact, or take any claim seriously. In the context of such mistrust, people are radicalized, the rational part of public discourse is diminished while emotional reactions are amplified. This makes it easier to rally people around an idea, such as an orthodox Russian war against Ukrainian nazis, and European homophiles. In the end, the facts don't matter, these are just emotionally unstable people reacting against a perceived injustice or threat, hoping to find a single stable point in a confusing world.
indeed, many people call the russian propaganda machine misinformation, when it is in fact disinformation. for example, during the mh17 disaster, for every piece of news that pointed at rebel/russian forces involvement in the downing of the plane, you had 20 others putting out wild theories.
On March 03 2015 11:06 QuantumTeleportation wrote: As much as Boris Nemtsov was part of Putin's opposition, we really can't be sure which group killed him.
Of course we can. EU/USA has more to gain by letting him be the leader of opposition, and there is no way anyone from islamic terrorist will go after him lol Only one with power left is Putin and has most to gain by both removing him from the picture and making other opposition members scared. Especially the part of making others scared. The right response to this would have been massive civil unrest, but that didn't happen. Now this means Putin can do whatever to the opposition and they now know it. You can now forget any change in Russia until Putin dies of old age or something. You got your own Gaddafi now.. congrats..
On March 03 2015 11:06 QuantumTeleportation wrote: As much as Boris Nemtsov was part of Putin's opposition, we really can't be sure which group killed him.
Of course we can. EU/USA has more to gain by letting him be the leader of opposition, and there is no way anyone from islamic terrorist will go after him lol Only one with power left is Putin and has most to gain by both removing him from the picture and making other opposition members scared. Especially the part of making others scared. The right response to this would have been massive civil unrest, but that didn't happen. Now this means Putin can do whatever to the opposition and they now know it. You can now forget any change in Russia until Putin dies of old age or something. You got your own Gaddafi now.. congrats..
what makes you so certain that it is that simple? we are talking about a man who invaded and annexed a part of another sovereign european nation in 21st century, which to top it all of, was also a brother-nation to Russia and got in the whole mess by negotiating with an alliance that is supposed to ensure exactly what happened, doesnt happen. and he got away with it. in the process he rigged the "independence" vote by 90+ percent and he also regularly does the same in his own country. i literally cant see why a such man would even twitch about his local opposition. if anything, this hurts him, because it turned an inconvenience into a problem.
also, what was so wrong with gaddafi? if russians are doomed to have dictators as leaders, gaddafi version of one is the best thing that can happen to them, honestly. but either way, you shouldn't be so comfortable when criticizing other nations governments when they are different than your own. its not like western world is some kind of utopia. id give up capitalism for scandinavian model in a heart beat. and on that note, i giggle every time someone says russia is returning to communism... wasnt it discussed in depth how current state of public thinking in russia is being shaped like 1930s germany? having a totalitarian ruler does not constitute comparisons to communism, in my opinion
Scandinavia is entirely `capitalist' you know. Honestly, the analysis in both posts leaves much to be desired but I don't want to derail the thread. Feel free to PM me and I'll be happily explain what I disagree with at length.
On March 03 2015 11:06 QuantumTeleportation wrote: As much as Boris Nemtsov was part of Putin's opposition, we really can't be sure which group killed him.
Of course we can. EU/USA has more to gain by letting him be the leader of opposition, and there is no way anyone from islamic terrorist will go after him lol Only one with power left is Putin and has most to gain by both removing him from the picture and making other opposition members scared. Especially the part of making others scared. The right response to this would have been massive civil unrest, but that didn't happen. Now this means Putin can do whatever to the opposition and they now know it. You can now forget any change in Russia until Putin dies of old age or something. You got your own Gaddafi now.. congrats..
what makes you so certain that it is that simple? we are talking about a man who invaded and annexed a part of another sovereign european nation in 21st century, which to top it all of, was also a brother-nation to Russia and got in the whole mess by negotiating with an alliance that is supposed to ensure exactly what happened, doesnt happen. and he got away with it. in the process he rigged the "independence" vote by 90+ percent and he also regularly does the same in his own country. i literally cant see why a such man would even twitch about his local opposition. if anything, this hurts him, because it turned an inconvenience into a problem.
Because it is. This is how he shows power. He was KGB afterall. No better way to finally shut your opposition up then to kill off their "leader" and show he can do that whenever he can without anyone being able to doing anything about it.
The rest, I will not comment. It is not about my point.
On March 03 2015 11:06 QuantumTeleportation wrote: As much as Boris Nemtsov was part of Putin's opposition, we really can't be sure which group killed him.
Of course we can. EU/USA has more to gain by letting him be the leader of opposition, and there is no way anyone from islamic terrorist will go after him lol Only one with power left is Putin and has most to gain by both removing him from the picture and making other opposition members scared. Especially the part of making others scared. The right response to this would have been massive civil unrest, but that didn't happen. Now this means Putin can do whatever to the opposition and they now know it. You can now forget any change in Russia until Putin dies of old age or something. You got your own Gaddafi now.. congrats..
what makes you so certain that it is that simple? we are talking about a man who invaded and annexed a part of another sovereign european nation in 21st century, which to top it all of, was also a brother-nation to Russia and got in the whole mess by negotiating with an alliance that is supposed to ensure exactly what happened, doesnt happen. and he got away with it. in the process he rigged the "independence" vote by 90+ percent and he also regularly does the same in his own country. i literally cant see why a such man would even twitch about his local opposition. if anything, this hurts him, because it turned an inconvenience into a problem.
Because it is. This is how he shows power. He was KGB afterall. No better way to finally shut your opposition up then to kill off their "leader" and show he can do that whenever he can without anyone being able to doing anything about it.
The rest, I will not comment. It is not about my point.
I don't want to sound rude, but it's completely unclear who did that even from within the country, so making such uncompromising claims from the outside seems plain foolish.
On March 03 2015 11:06 QuantumTeleportation wrote: As much as Boris Nemtsov was part of Putin's opposition, we really can't be sure which group killed him.
Of course we can. EU/USA has more to gain by letting him be the leader of opposition, and there is no way anyone from islamic terrorist will go after him lol Only one with power left is Putin and has most to gain by both removing him from the picture and making other opposition members scared. Especially the part of making others scared. The right response to this would have been massive civil unrest, but that didn't happen. Now this means Putin can do whatever to the opposition and they now know it. You can now forget any change in Russia until Putin dies of old age or something. You got your own Gaddafi now.. congrats..
what makes you so certain that it is that simple? we are talking about a man who invaded and annexed a part of another sovereign european nation in 21st century, which to top it all of, was also a brother-nation to Russia and got in the whole mess by negotiating with an alliance that is supposed to ensure exactly what happened, doesnt happen. and he got away with it. in the process he rigged the "independence" vote by 90+ percent and he also regularly does the same in his own country. i literally cant see why a such man would even twitch about his local opposition. if anything, this hurts him, because it turned an inconvenience into a problem.
Because it is. This is how he shows power. He was KGB afterall. No better way to finally shut your opposition up then to kill off their "leader" and show he can do that whenever he can without anyone being able to doing anything about it.
The rest, I will not comment. It is not about my point.
I think there is a misconception here as to how important he was. Don't let the outcry over his death (or the media headlines declaring him a "key" leader) fool you; he was a minor opposition figure of little significance. He is important enough for most people to know who he was, but by no means was he a key figure. Also, it really wouldn't make sense to kill someone so blatantly anyhow; if he really were important enough, it would be much simpler to put him in prison for crimes that he did actually commit.
Also, due process. Guilt is decided with evidence, not in the court of public opinion.
On March 03 2015 08:27 BluzMan wrote: Everything is just sad, the society here is slowly collapsing upon itself and there isn't really a positive construct for a future. You just can't imagine a future for a 21'st century European country if you're an ex-KGB colonel, spent your whole life at a desk and openly admit you don't like/use the internet. You have to realize that Putin lives in a completely different world that just doesn't even have all those cool things you like and that constitute the modern Europe. You have Wikipedia and Coursera - he has old soviet history books. You seriously think about the availability of cybernetic augmentation in the following years, robotic space exploration, elimination of cancer and other amazing things that are just around the corner - he seriously thinks about "unfair" things that happened 50-100 years ago when no one at these forums was even alive. What kind of a future can that man envision? You can't imagine a complex system built of things you have no idea of.
There is certainly some truth to what you say, although the idea to looking to Europe (or the US for that matter) as a beacon of progress turned out to be less real than many would believe it to be (for what it's worth, maybe 5 years ago I would have more or less agreed with your overall message, but not now). The problems with the Western countries are just as deep-seated as those of Russia, and the quality of life is better because they did not have one of the worst economic collapses in history just 15 years ago.
On March 03 2015 11:06 QuantumTeleportation wrote: As much as Boris Nemtsov was part of Putin's opposition, we really can't be sure which group killed him.
Of course we can. EU/USA has more to gain by letting him be the leader of opposition, and there is no way anyone from islamic terrorist will go after him lol Only one with power left is Putin and has most to gain by both removing him from the picture and making other opposition members scared. Especially the part of making others scared. The right response to this would have been massive civil unrest, but that didn't happen. Now this means Putin can do whatever to the opposition and they now know it. You can now forget any change in Russia until Putin dies of old age or something. You got your own Gaddafi now.. congrats..
what makes you so certain that it is that simple? we are talking about a man who invaded and annexed a part of another sovereign european nation in 21st century, which to top it all of, was also a brother-nation to Russia and got in the whole mess by negotiating with an alliance that is supposed to ensure exactly what happened, doesnt happen. and he got away with it. in the process he rigged the "independence" vote by 90+ percent and he also regularly does the same in his own country. i literally cant see why a such man would even twitch about his local opposition. if anything, this hurts him, because it turned an inconvenience into a problem.
Because it is. This is how he shows power. He was KGB afterall. No better way to finally shut your opposition up then to kill off their "leader" and show he can do that whenever he can without anyone being able to doing anything about it.
The rest, I will not comment. It is not about my point.
I don't want to sound rude, but it's completely unclear who did that even from within the country, so making such uncompromising claims from the outside seems plain foolish.
It is only unclear if you don't want to hear it. It is plain and simple to me. Of course I got no proof and probably never will but my voice means nothing outside this topic anyways.
On March 04 2015 00:23 LegalLord wrote: I think there is a misconception here as to how important he was. Don't let the outcry over his death (or the media headlines declaring him a "key" leader) fool you; he was a minor opposition figure of little significance. He is important enough for most people to know who he was, but by no means was he a key figure. Also, it really wouldn't make sense to kill someone so blatantly anyhow; if he really were important enough, it would be much simpler to put him in prison for crimes that he did actually commit.
Also, due process. Guilt is decided with evidence, not in the court of public opinion.
He was important enough that this will scare some people away. And it is a bigger message to kill someone just like that than to set up some fake trial. It tells others I am not afraid of anyone anymore so don't try anything. It is next step in dictatorship. You make your enemies fear you and then you make your allies (courts) fear you. Then you can do whatever you want like Josif Staljin.
Due process? In a corrupt country? Don't make me laugh. (I know, I live in corrupt country as well where criminals hide behind laws and due process..)
He wasn't minor opposition figure, him and Navalny were leaders of opposition, the true opposition not the clowns that are in Duma pretending. Just cause opposition in Russia have little to say doesn't mean he wasn't key figure there.
if he really were important enough, it would be much simpler to put him in prison for crimes that he did actually commit.
You almost got it right, it would be much simpler to put him in prison for crimes he would be accused of. Let's not be funny and pretend you actually need to be guilty in Russia to go to prison for political reasons.
The second part of your post is cringe worthy. You have problems with economy only thanks to yourself, for devoting to criminal political system that not only fucked your country, but also half of central Europe. And no, problems in the West are nowhere near the situation in Russia, tell the fairy tale somewhere else.
On March 03 2015 11:06 QuantumTeleportation wrote: As much as Boris Nemtsov was part of Putin's opposition, we really can't be sure which group killed him.
Of course we can. EU/USA has more to gain by letting him be the leader of opposition, and there is no way anyone from islamic terrorist will go after him lol Only one with power left is Putin and has most to gain by both removing him from the picture and making other opposition members scared. Especially the part of making others scared. The right response to this would have been massive civil unrest, but that didn't happen. Now this means Putin can do whatever to the opposition and they now know it. You can now forget any change in Russia until Putin dies of old age or something. You got your own Gaddafi now.. congrats..
what makes you so certain that it is that simple? we are talking about a man who invaded and annexed a part of another sovereign european nation in 21st century, which to top it all of, was also a brother-nation to Russia and got in the whole mess by negotiating with an alliance that is supposed to ensure exactly what happened, doesnt happen. and he got away with it. in the process he rigged the "independence" vote by 90+ percent and he also regularly does the same in his own country. i literally cant see why a such man would even twitch about his local opposition. if anything, this hurts him, because it turned an inconvenience into a problem.
Because it is. This is how he shows power. He was KGB afterall. No better way to finally shut your opposition up then to kill off their "leader" and show he can do that whenever he can without anyone being able to doing anything about it.
The rest, I will not comment. It is not about my point.
I don't want to sound rude, but it's completely unclear who did that even from within the country, so making such uncompromising claims from the outside seems plain foolish.
It is only unclear if you don't want to hear it. It is plain and simple to me. Of course I got no proof and probably never will but my voice means nothing outside this topic anyways.
There are so many things you can assert if you have no proof and never will. That's a slippery slope.
On March 04 2015 00:41 -Archangel- wrote: Due process? In a corrupt country? Don't make me laugh. (I know, I live in corrupt country as well where criminals hide behind laws and due process..)
I live in the US - there are plenty of criminals, white collar and otherwise, who hide behind the system of due process here as well. It's not limited to "corrupt" countries; it's just that it's better than the alternatives.
On March 04 2015 00:41 -Archangel- wrote: Due process? In a corrupt country? Don't make me laugh. (I know, I live in corrupt country as well where criminals hide behind laws and due process..)
I live in the US - there are plenty of criminals, white collar and otherwise, who hide behind the system of due process here as well. It's not limited to "corrupt" countries; it's just that it's better than the alternatives.
Ah lol you go no idea. In this country we like to say that instead of country having a Mafia , we have a Mafia that has a country. The "boss" was removed few years ago but his system and most of his people are still around and have enough power that not really much has changed. It is just less in the open now. And everyone still hides behind laws and due process. When is the time to say enough to people legally stealing?!
On March 04 2015 00:41 -Archangel- wrote: Due process? In a corrupt country? Don't make me laugh. (I know, I live in corrupt country as well where criminals hide behind laws and due process..)
I live in the US - there are plenty of criminals, white collar and otherwise, who hide behind the system of due process here as well. It's not limited to "corrupt" countries; it's just that it's better than the alternatives.
Ah lol you go no idea. In this country we like to say that instead of country having a Mafia , we have a Mafia that has a country. The "boss" was removed few years ago but his system and most of his people are still around and have enough power that not really much has changed. It is just less in the open now. And everyone still hides behind laws and due process. When is the time to say enough to people legally stealing?!
If they didn't have that to hide behind, they would hide behind something else. Do you think that if courts were to put people in prison without evidence, that that would somehow stop corruption?
Everyone knows that due process is heavily abused, corrupt country or not. That ideal is not the problem.
On March 03 2015 11:06 QuantumTeleportation wrote: As much as Boris Nemtsov was part of Putin's opposition, we really can't be sure which group killed him.
Of course we can. EU/USA has more to gain by letting him be the leader of opposition, and there is no way anyone from islamic terrorist will go after him lol Only one with power left is Putin and has most to gain by both removing him from the picture and making other opposition members scared. Especially the part of making others scared. The right response to this would have been massive civil unrest, but that didn't happen. Now this means Putin can do whatever to the opposition and they now know it. You can now forget any change in Russia until Putin dies of old age or something. You got your own Gaddafi now.. congrats..
what makes you so certain that it is that simple? we are talking about a man who invaded and annexed a part of another sovereign european nation in 21st century, which to top it all of, was also a brother-nation to Russia and got in the whole mess by negotiating with an alliance that is supposed to ensure exactly what happened, doesnt happen. and he got away with it. in the process he rigged the "independence" vote by 90+ percent and he also regularly does the same in his own country. i literally cant see why a such man would even twitch about his local opposition. if anything, this hurts him, because it turned an inconvenience into a problem.
Because it is. This is how he shows power. He was KGB afterall. No better way to finally shut your opposition up then to kill off their "leader" and show he can do that whenever he can without anyone being able to doing anything about it.
The rest, I will not comment. It is not about my point.
I think there is a misconception here as to how important he was. Don't let the outcry over his death (or the media headlines declaring him a "key" leader) fool you; he was a minor opposition figure of little significance. He is important enough for most people to know who he was, but by no means was he a key figure. Also, it really wouldn't make sense to kill someone so blatantly anyhow; if he really were important enough, it would be much simpler to put him in prison for crimes that he did actually commit.
What is minor is the oppositional scene overall, so it kinda makes everyone in it relatively minor too, but as far as the scene itself is concerned he was a very significant figure on it.
I have a hard time believing Putin was behind this. It seems that if Putin indeed wanted to get rid of him (all accounts I've heard say that Nemtsov was a minor threat at best) it seems to me there are far less suspicious and crude ways to do it. This seems to only cause potential civil unrest, and I think Putin is smarter than risking that.
On March 03 2015 11:06 QuantumTeleportation wrote: As much as Boris Nemtsov was part of Putin's opposition, we really can't be sure which group killed him.
Of course we can. EU/USA has more to gain by letting him be the leader of opposition, and there is no way anyone from islamic terrorist will go after him lol Only one with power left is Putin and has most to gain by both removing him from the picture and making other opposition members scared. Especially the part of making others scared. The right response to this would have been massive civil unrest, but that didn't happen. Now this means Putin can do whatever to the opposition and they now know it. You can now forget any change in Russia until Putin dies of old age or something. You got your own Gaddafi now.. congrats..
what makes you so certain that it is that simple? we are talking about a man who invaded and annexed a part of another sovereign european nation in 21st century, which to top it all of, was also a brother-nation to Russia and got in the whole mess by negotiating with an alliance that is supposed to ensure exactly what happened, doesnt happen. and he got away with it. in the process he rigged the "independence" vote by 90+ percent and he also regularly does the same in his own country. i literally cant see why a such man would even twitch about his local opposition. if anything, this hurts him, because it turned an inconvenience into a problem.
Because it is. This is how he shows power. He was KGB afterall. No better way to finally shut your opposition up then to kill off their "leader" and show he can do that whenever he can without anyone being able to doing anything about it.
The rest, I will not comment. It is not about my point.
I think there is a misconception here as to how important he was. Don't let the outcry over his death (or the media headlines declaring him a "key" leader) fool you; he was a minor opposition figure of little significance. He is important enough for most people to know who he was, but by no means was he a key figure. Also, it really wouldn't make sense to kill someone so blatantly anyhow; if he really were important enough, it would be much simpler to put him in prison for crimes that he did actually commit.
Also, due process. Guilt is decided with evidence, not in the court of public opinion.
On March 03 2015 08:27 BluzMan wrote: Everything is just sad, the society here is slowly collapsing upon itself and there isn't really a positive construct for a future. You just can't imagine a future for a 21'st century European country if you're an ex-KGB colonel, spent your whole life at a desk and openly admit you don't like/use the internet. You have to realize that Putin lives in a completely different world that just doesn't even have all those cool things you like and that constitute the modern Europe. You have Wikipedia and Coursera - he has old soviet history books. You seriously think about the availability of cybernetic augmentation in the following years, robotic space exploration, elimination of cancer and other amazing things that are just around the corner - he seriously thinks about "unfair" things that happened 50-100 years ago when no one at these forums was even alive. What kind of a future can that man envision? You can't imagine a complex system built of things you have no idea of.
There is certainly some truth to what you say, although the idea to looking to Europe (or the US for that matter) as a beacon of progress turned out to be less real than many would believe it to be (for what it's worth, maybe 5 years ago I would have more or less agreed with your overall message, but not now). The problems with the Western countries are just as deep-seated as those of Russia, and the quality of life is better because they did not have one of the worst economic collapses in history just 15 years ago.
No offense, but it only confirms what everyone is saying that you need to emphasize his un-importance. He was an opponent, one of the "14%". Your democracy is currently broken.
Don't say it's all relative and subjective. "They're all broken." It just isn't like that. We have a lot of vitriol in the States, and political candidates do get death threats. But it doesn't matter what their polls are, or what their projected "importance" is, any one of them gets shot in the street, and we all know straight-away that there is a problem. We wouldn't downplay it, we wouldn't excuse it, we wouldn't entertain theories of outside involvement without REAL proof. We would acknowledge it for what it is: an assault on our entire democracy.
Putin is so "loved", so aren't all his political opponents "un-important"? That's exactly what makes them EXTREMELY important and their assassination a complete damnation of your system.
You got a President for 15 years, he becomes the richest man in your country, he has no real political opponents, enjoys 80%+ approval ratings, and when one of his opponents does get killed in public, the public is content to let the President privately investigate it while they theorize that it was anyone and everyone responsible but the President? Do I have any of that wrong?
Anyone who wants democracy in Russia should be angry, scared, or be doing anything except making excuses for the state of things. I don't care if you think Putin is the second-coming of Christ, if you want your country to be able to democratically-elect his successor in any sort of fair process, you need to be less worried about what the "west" thinks (or what I think), and more concerned with the sorry-state of affairs that your country is actually in.
It's so easy to be relative, because of course none of us are infallible. But, facts are: the "West" doesn't annex countries anymore (that's very 17th century), the "West" doesn't let its leaders privately investigate the assassinations of their political opponents. Some things aren't subjective, some shades of gray are a whole lot darker than others. What's going on in Russia right now is disturbing.
On March 03 2015 11:06 QuantumTeleportation wrote: As much as Boris Nemtsov was part of Putin's opposition, we really can't be sure which group killed him.
Of course we can. EU/USA has more to gain by letting him be the leader of opposition, and there is no way anyone from islamic terrorist will go after him lol Only one with power left is Putin and has most to gain by both removing him from the picture and making other opposition members scared. Especially the part of making others scared. The right response to this would have been massive civil unrest, but that didn't happen. Now this means Putin can do whatever to the opposition and they now know it. You can now forget any change in Russia until Putin dies of old age or something. You got your own Gaddafi now.. congrats..
what makes you so certain that it is that simple? we are talking about a man who invaded and annexed a part of another sovereign european nation in 21st century, which to top it all of, was also a brother-nation to Russia and got in the whole mess by negotiating with an alliance that is supposed to ensure exactly what happened, doesnt happen. and he got away with it. in the process he rigged the "independence" vote by 90+ percent and he also regularly does the same in his own country. i literally cant see why a such man would even twitch about his local opposition. if anything, this hurts him, because it turned an inconvenience into a problem.
Because it is. This is how he shows power. He was KGB afterall. No better way to finally shut your opposition up then to kill off their "leader" and show he can do that whenever he can without anyone being able to doing anything about it.
The rest, I will not comment. It is not about my point.
I think there is a misconception here as to how important he was. Don't let the outcry over his death (or the media headlines declaring him a "key" leader) fool you; he was a minor opposition figure of little significance. He is important enough for most people to know who he was, but by no means was he a key figure. Also, it really wouldn't make sense to kill someone so blatantly anyhow; if he really were important enough, it would be much simpler to put him in prison for crimes that he did actually commit.
Also, due process. Guilt is decided with evidence, not in the court of public opinion.
On March 03 2015 08:27 BluzMan wrote: Everything is just sad, the society here is slowly collapsing upon itself and there isn't really a positive construct for a future. You just can't imagine a future for a 21'st century European country if you're an ex-KGB colonel, spent your whole life at a desk and openly admit you don't like/use the internet. You have to realize that Putin lives in a completely different world that just doesn't even have all those cool things you like and that constitute the modern Europe. You have Wikipedia and Coursera - he has old soviet history books. You seriously think about the availability of cybernetic augmentation in the following years, robotic space exploration, elimination of cancer and other amazing things that are just around the corner - he seriously thinks about "unfair" things that happened 50-100 years ago when no one at these forums was even alive. What kind of a future can that man envision? You can't imagine a complex system built of things you have no idea of.
There is certainly some truth to what you say, although the idea to looking to Europe (or the US for that matter) as a beacon of progress turned out to be less real than many would believe it to be (for what it's worth, maybe 5 years ago I would have more or less agreed with your overall message, but not now). The problems with the Western countries are just as deep-seated as those of Russia, and the quality of life is better because they did not have one of the worst economic collapses in history just 15 years ago.
Russia has and had resources, technical expertise and not to mention more space than any nation needs. There is no reason to complain about history, when there is hardly any nation having a better starting point for the future. And there is no reason to be happy about the current state of Russia, when there is so much potential left untapped.
On March 03 2015 11:06 QuantumTeleportation wrote: As much as Boris Nemtsov was part of Putin's opposition, we really can't be sure which group killed him.
Of course we can. EU/USA has more to gain by letting him be the leader of opposition, and there is no way anyone from islamic terrorist will go after him lol Only one with power left is Putin and has most to gain by both removing him from the picture and making other opposition members scared. Especially the part of making others scared. The right response to this would have been massive civil unrest, but that didn't happen. Now this means Putin can do whatever to the opposition and they now know it. You can now forget any change in Russia until Putin dies of old age or something. You got your own Gaddafi now.. congrats..
what makes you so certain that it is that simple? we are talking about a man who invaded and annexed a part of another sovereign european nation in 21st century, which to top it all of, was also a brother-nation to Russia and got in the whole mess by negotiating with an alliance that is supposed to ensure exactly what happened, doesnt happen. and he got away with it. in the process he rigged the "independence" vote by 90+ percent and he also regularly does the same in his own country. i literally cant see why a such man would even twitch about his local opposition. if anything, this hurts him, because it turned an inconvenience into a problem.
Because it is. This is how he shows power. He was KGB afterall. No better way to finally shut your opposition up then to kill off their "leader" and show he can do that whenever he can without anyone being able to doing anything about it.
The rest, I will not comment. It is not about my point.
I think there is a misconception here as to how important he was. Don't let the outcry over his death (or the media headlines declaring him a "key" leader) fool you; he was a minor opposition figure of little significance. He is important enough for most people to know who he was, but by no means was he a key figure. Also, it really wouldn't make sense to kill someone so blatantly anyhow; if he really were important enough, it would be much simpler to put him in prison for crimes that he did actually commit.
Also, due process. Guilt is decided with evidence, not in the court of public opinion.
On March 03 2015 08:27 BluzMan wrote: Everything is just sad, the society here is slowly collapsing upon itself and there isn't really a positive construct for a future. You just can't imagine a future for a 21'st century European country if you're an ex-KGB colonel, spent your whole life at a desk and openly admit you don't like/use the internet. You have to realize that Putin lives in a completely different world that just doesn't even have all those cool things you like and that constitute the modern Europe. You have Wikipedia and Coursera - he has old soviet history books. You seriously think about the availability of cybernetic augmentation in the following years, robotic space exploration, elimination of cancer and other amazing things that are just around the corner - he seriously thinks about "unfair" things that happened 50-100 years ago when no one at these forums was even alive. What kind of a future can that man envision? You can't imagine a complex system built of things you have no idea of.
There is certainly some truth to what you say, although the idea to looking to Europe (or the US for that matter) as a beacon of progress turned out to be less real than many would believe it to be (for what it's worth, maybe 5 years ago I would have more or less agreed with your overall message, but not now). The problems with the Western countries are just as deep-seated as those of Russia, and the quality of life is better because they did not have one of the worst economic collapses in history just 15 years ago.
No offense, but it only confirms what everyone is saying that you need to emphasize his un-importance. He was an opponent, one of the "14%". Your democracy is currently broken.
Don't say it's all relative and subjective. "They're all broken." It just isn't like that. We have a lot of vitriol in the States, and political candidates do get death threats. But it doesn't matter what their polls are, or what their projected "importance" is, any one of them gets shot in the street, and we all know straight-away that there is a problem. We wouldn't downplay it, we wouldn't excuse it, we wouldn't entertain theories of outside involvement without REAL proof. We would acknowledge it for what it is: an assault on our entire democracy.
Putin is so "loved", so aren't all his political opponents "un-important"? That's exactly what makes them EXTREMELY important and their assassination a complete damnation of your system.
Perhaps you misunderstood my point. He is unimportant in the sense that he is not an opposition leader whose influence is significant enough for anyone to consider getting rid of. A shooting is a momentous event in Russia as well if the large Nemtsov memorial march attendance didn't tip you off.
I suppose the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords is a decent US example. She was a relatively minor figure (a member of Congress, i.e. a minor national legislative figure), and of the opposing party in her state. There was a (justified) national response to that event, but in terms of political influence, nothing really changed one way or the other after she was forced to step down after the shooting. That's about the significance of Nemtsov - people know who he is, but he doesn't play a major role in his party, and the nation mourns his death.
I would like to remind you that accusing ANYONE of a shooting with nothing more than speculation is a very serious accusation. If you didn't notice, my position has essentially been to "wait for proof," the boring but reasonable approach to matters like this.
On February 28 2015 19:51 Random() wrote: I just love how all western media are like "Putin critic shot", even BBC who are usually reasonable and indeed started the story with a more neutral headline but then changed it. The man was known to be reckless and pig-headed, he was receiving death threats all his life because of his business interests, there are tons of reasons why someone could have want him dead, but no, it's obvious that it was Putin who had him shot because... we don't like him much right now.
I'm not a fan of Putin and the way he runs the country, but man, this anti Russian propaganda is so disgusting at times.
Of course the media will write "Putin critic shot". Do you think "Random business man shot" will sell any papers? Media usually have a certain narrative that they follow which makes them biased. But that does not automatically mean it is state propaganda. For example the British media is also often "unfair" when it writes about the EU or the catholic church or makes German nazi references wherever possible. That is simply what sells.
It is still very different from a clear state propaganda organ like RT.
You're right of course, it's just that I don't appreciate respectable media such as the BBC lowering themselves to tabloid-style headlines. Al Jazeera, Russian and Chinese newspapers mostly went with "Russian opposition politician shot dead". CNN and BBC: "Putin critic slain", "Putin critic shot dead", an obvious difference in tone and implications.
i think youre trying a little too hard m8. black person shot is racist no? why implicate his race in the title no? olitical correctness dont make yo dick bigger no? fuck u on about m8 no? pls dont ban me mods no?
On March 03 2015 11:06 QuantumTeleportation wrote: As much as Boris Nemtsov was part of Putin's opposition, we really can't be sure which group killed him.
Of course we can. EU/USA has more to gain by letting him be the leader of opposition, and there is no way anyone from islamic terrorist will go after him lol Only one with power left is Putin and has most to gain by both removing him from the picture and making other opposition members scared. Especially the part of making others scared. The right response to this would have been massive civil unrest, but that didn't happen. Now this means Putin can do whatever to the opposition and they now know it. You can now forget any change in Russia until Putin dies of old age or something. You got your own Gaddafi now.. congrats..
what makes you so certain that it is that simple? we are talking about a man who invaded and annexed a part of another sovereign european nation in 21st century, which to top it all of, was also a brother-nation to Russia and got in the whole mess by negotiating with an alliance that is supposed to ensure exactly what happened, doesnt happen. and he got away with it. in the process he rigged the "independence" vote by 90+ percent and he also regularly does the same in his own country. i literally cant see why a such man would even twitch about his local opposition. if anything, this hurts him, because it turned an inconvenience into a problem.
Because it is. This is how he shows power. He was KGB afterall. No better way to finally shut your opposition up then to kill off their "leader" and show he can do that whenever he can without anyone being able to doing anything about it.
The rest, I will not comment. It is not about my point.
I think there is a misconception here as to how important he was. Don't let the outcry over his death (or the media headlines declaring him a "key" leader) fool you; he was a minor opposition figure of little significance. He is important enough for most people to know who he was, but by no means was he a key figure. Also, it really wouldn't make sense to kill someone so blatantly anyhow; if he really were important enough, it would be much simpler to put him in prison for crimes that he did actually commit.
Also, due process. Guilt is decided with evidence, not in the court of public opinion.
On March 03 2015 08:27 BluzMan wrote: Everything is just sad, the society here is slowly collapsing upon itself and there isn't really a positive construct for a future. You just can't imagine a future for a 21'st century European country if you're an ex-KGB colonel, spent your whole life at a desk and openly admit you don't like/use the internet. You have to realize that Putin lives in a completely different world that just doesn't even have all those cool things you like and that constitute the modern Europe. You have Wikipedia and Coursera - he has old soviet history books. You seriously think about the availability of cybernetic augmentation in the following years, robotic space exploration, elimination of cancer and other amazing things that are just around the corner - he seriously thinks about "unfair" things that happened 50-100 years ago when no one at these forums was even alive. What kind of a future can that man envision? You can't imagine a complex system built of things you have no idea of.
There is certainly some truth to what you say, although the idea to looking to Europe (or the US for that matter) as a beacon of progress turned out to be less real than many would believe it to be (for what it's worth, maybe 5 years ago I would have more or less agreed with your overall message, but not now). The problems with the Western countries are just as deep-seated as those of Russia, and the quality of life is better because they did not have one of the worst economic collapses in history just 15 years ago.
Russia has and had resources, technical expertise and not to mention more space than any nation needs. There is no reason to complain about history, when there is hardly any nation having a better starting point for the future. And there is no reason to be happy about the current state of Russia, when there is so much potential left untapped.
No argument here, which is why I don't understand the reason for this post. Nothing I said contradicts your point.
On March 04 2015 02:12 Leporello wrote: You got a President for 15 years, he becomes the richest man in your country, he has no real political opponents, enjoys 80%+ approval ratings, and when one of his opponents does get killed in public, the public is content to let the President privately investigate it while they theorize that it was anyone and everyone responsible but the President? Do I have any of that wrong?
Anyone who wants democracy in Russia should be angry, scared, or be doing anything except making excuses for the state of things. I don't care if you think Putin is the second-coming of Christ, if you want your country to be able to democratically-elect his successor in any sort of fair process, you need to be less worried about what the "west" thinks (or what I think), and more concerned with the sorry-state of affairs that your country is actually in.
Oh wow, are you seriously conflating approval ratings with the size of the opposition? Perhaps that's where your "14% opposition" comes from.
They're not the same. Putin's party has about 55% control of the Russian government, which puts the opposition in the 40%'s. At this point the opposition is quite divided and offer very little in the way of a viable alternative for the future, a problem which many would argue also exists as of now in the US.
Putin's approval is in the 80%'s right now. That is, most people are happy with the job he has done in the recent past (which most people would confirm is the truth). It has been as low as 20%, and it is usually hovering around 50%.
On March 04 2015 02:12 Leporello wrote:It's so easy to be relative, because of course none of us are infallible. But, facts are: the "West" doesn't annex countries anymore (that's very 17th century), the "West" doesn't let its leaders privately investigate the assassinations of their political opponents. Some things aren't subjective, some shades of gray are a whole lot darker than others. What's going on in Russia right now is disturbing.
No foreign policy adventurism in the US? Really?
And you're right, let's investigate the killer in the court of public opinion instead of allowing the authorities to do that. That makes much more sense.
Navalny emerged and wrote a powerful piece that has now been translated by the Interpreter Magazine. Note that Navalny is currently the number one thorn in Putin's...
He does address several of the issues being discussed in the thread. While I don't think you shouldn't take a pinch of salt to everything he says, his role as Putin's `real' opposition makes the words a must read to understand the current situation.
Excerpt:
Today, Boris Nemtsov is being buried. I couldn’t pay him my respects as the Moscow courts informed me that there was nothing so extraordinary that had happened that would allow for the suspension of the serving of an administrative jail sentence.
Well, that means I’ll visit him at the Troyekurovsky Cemeterery — now he will have enough time for everybody.
I’ve thought about all this for several days and now I want to share my thoughts.
Without emotions, as far as this is possible.
1. I believe that Nemtsov was killed by members of a government (intelligence) or pro-government organization on orders from the political leadership of the country (including Vladimir Putin).
It is a question only of how this order was formulated:
- You must kill Nemtsov. - You must do a hugely sensational action.
...
5. Along with this, we find the reasoning, “Nemtsov was not popular and not influential, what was the point of murdering him?”
Well, go through in your mind the current system and non-system opposition members and try to make up a list of those who are more influential than Nemtsov. Who are actually more influential and create problems for the government not solvable by a phone call from the Kremlin to the “opposition member” and his boss.
You won’t even find five names.
I maintain, not as kind words for the deceased, but as a sober appraisal: Boris was one of the most problematic politicians for the Kremlin.
- He was one of a few who exposed the corruption of Putin and his close circle, citing concrete names. Are there a lot of people who do that? In our country, it is allowed only to speak of corruption “as a phenomenon.”
- He substantively understood topics that were sensitive for the Kremlin. Gazprom, the energy complex as a whole and so on. His reports (both co-authored and independently) were some of the most powerful promotional tools of recent years, they infuriated the leadership, I know for sure.
- He was a consistent liberal, open for dialogue with all political forces. He spoke normally with both nationalists and leftists.
- (Very important) He was prepared to run for election and was not afraid of losing. And he didn’t stand on the positions of “I’m touch and I will only run for president (or the State Duma).
- His campaigns in Sochi and Yaroslavl were rather humorous, he could be fought with only through falsification.
Do you know of an opposition faction in a regional legislature, which shook things up and forced everyone to take them into account and removed a vice governor from his post? I do. This is the faction of Boris Nemtsov in the Yaroslavl Region legislature.
- He was able to work with the media and knew how to master new information technology (show me an “influencer” with a large number of followers on Facebook). His video clips which he put together with Leonid Martynyuk have millions of views, by the way.
On the whole, I could go on listing things for a long time. Nemtsov did something, and didn’t wait for the moment of the “collapse of the regime,” unlike many others — that was his influence and his danger.
The sketchyness of the cameras being down pretty much ensures it was at minimum orchestrated by people who can control or are at least are intimately aware of the Kremlin and surrounding area's security.
I don't know a lot about Russian politics so I can't speak to the significance of the specific figures but it does look at least a little suspicious.
On March 03 2015 11:06 QuantumTeleportation wrote: As much as Boris Nemtsov was part of Putin's opposition, we really can't be sure which group killed him.
Of course we can. EU/USA has more to gain by letting him be the leader of opposition, and there is no way anyone from islamic terrorist will go after him lol Only one with power left is Putin and has most to gain by both removing him from the picture and making other opposition members scared. Especially the part of making others scared. The right response to this would have been massive civil unrest, but that didn't happen. Now this means Putin can do whatever to the opposition and they now know it. You can now forget any change in Russia until Putin dies of old age or something. You got your own Gaddafi now.. congrats..
what makes you so certain that it is that simple? we are talking about a man who invaded and annexed a part of another sovereign european nation in 21st century, which to top it all of, was also a brother-nation to Russia and got in the whole mess by negotiating with an alliance that is supposed to ensure exactly what happened, doesnt happen. and he got away with it. in the process he rigged the "independence" vote by 90+ percent and he also regularly does the same in his own country. i literally cant see why a such man would even twitch about his local opposition. if anything, this hurts him, because it turned an inconvenience into a problem.
Because it is. This is how he shows power. He was KGB afterall. No better way to finally shut your opposition up then to kill off their "leader" and show he can do that whenever he can without anyone being able to doing anything about it.
The rest, I will not comment. It is not about my point.
I think there is a misconception here as to how important he was. Don't let the outcry over his death (or the media headlines declaring him a "key" leader) fool you; he was a minor opposition figure of little significance. He is important enough for most people to know who he was, but by no means was he a key figure. Also, it really wouldn't make sense to kill someone so blatantly anyhow; if he really were important enough, it would be much simpler to put him in prison for crimes that he did actually commit.
Also, due process. Guilt is decided with evidence, not in the court of public opinion.
On March 03 2015 08:27 BluzMan wrote: Everything is just sad, the society here is slowly collapsing upon itself and there isn't really a positive construct for a future. You just can't imagine a future for a 21'st century European country if you're an ex-KGB colonel, spent your whole life at a desk and openly admit you don't like/use the internet. You have to realize that Putin lives in a completely different world that just doesn't even have all those cool things you like and that constitute the modern Europe. You have Wikipedia and Coursera - he has old soviet history books. You seriously think about the availability of cybernetic augmentation in the following years, robotic space exploration, elimination of cancer and other amazing things that are just around the corner - he seriously thinks about "unfair" things that happened 50-100 years ago when no one at these forums was even alive. What kind of a future can that man envision? You can't imagine a complex system built of things you have no idea of.
There is certainly some truth to what you say, although the idea to looking to Europe (or the US for that matter) as a beacon of progress turned out to be less real than many would believe it to be (for what it's worth, maybe 5 years ago I would have more or less agreed with your overall message, but not now). The problems with the Western countries are just as deep-seated as those of Russia, and the quality of life is better because they did not have one of the worst economic collapses in history just 15 years ago.
Russia has and had resources, technical expertise and not to mention more space than any nation needs. There is no reason to complain about history, when there is hardly any nation having a better starting point for the future. And there is no reason to be happy about the current state of Russia, when there is so much potential left untapped.
No argument here, which is why I don't understand the reason for this post. Nothing I said contradicts your point.
On March 04 2015 02:12 Leporello wrote: You got a President for 15 years, he becomes the richest man in your country, he has no real political opponents, enjoys 80%+ approval ratings, and when one of his opponents does get killed in public, the public is content to let the President privately investigate it while they theorize that it was anyone and everyone responsible but the President? Do I have any of that wrong?
Anyone who wants democracy in Russia should be angry, scared, or be doing anything except making excuses for the state of things. I don't care if you think Putin is the second-coming of Christ, if you want your country to be able to democratically-elect his successor in any sort of fair process, you need to be less worried about what the "west" thinks (or what I think), and more concerned with the sorry-state of affairs that your country is actually in.
Oh wow, are you seriously conflating approval ratings with the size of the opposition? Perhaps that's where your "14% opposition" comes from.
They're not the same. Putin's party has about 55% control of the Russian government, which puts the opposition in the 40%'s. At this point the opposition is quite divided and offer very little in the way of a viable alternative for the future, a problem which many would argue also exists as of now in the US.
Putin's approval is in the 80%'s right now. That is, most people are happy with the job he has done in the recent past (which most people would confirm is the truth). It has been as low as 20%, and it is usually hovering around 50%.
On March 04 2015 02:12 Leporello wrote:It's so easy to be relative, because of course none of us are infallible. But, facts are: the "West" doesn't annex countries anymore (that's very 17th century), the "West" doesn't let its leaders privately investigate the assassinations of their political opponents. Some things aren't subjective, some shades of gray are a whole lot darker than others. What's going on in Russia right now is disturbing.
No foreign policy adventurism in the US? Really?
And you're right, let's investigate the killer in the court of public opinion instead of allowing the authorities to do that. That makes much more sense.
Like I said, it's easy to be relative. Annexation is not the same as, uh, "adventurism".
You can look at America's wars in the 21st/20th centuries and have a lot to disapprove of.
But last I looked, Vietnam, for example, is still its own country. I can find it on the map, and it doesn't say "America", it says "Vietnam". There is no excuse, in the world, to annex a country anymore. There just isn't. That game ended centuries ago. Maybe we overthrow governments (and maybe we shouldn't sometimes) -- but we do not forever deny a people their right to once again govern themselves.
Why you make this comparison, I don't know. If annexation of Crimea or Ukraine has some justification (although I can't imagine there ever being one), then say what it is. Justify it on its own merits. Comparing it to the... Iraq War, or something, is hardly comforting. At least the Iraqi people will always be Iraqi people (unless they, themselves, decide to dissolve the country into separate entities).
And as for your second point: Yes. It does make more sense. Having your leader privately investigate the murders of his political opponents is comic-book material.
On March 03 2015 11:06 QuantumTeleportation wrote: As much as Boris Nemtsov was part of Putin's opposition, we really can't be sure which group killed him.
Of course we can. EU/USA has more to gain by letting him be the leader of opposition, and there is no way anyone from islamic terrorist will go after him lol Only one with power left is Putin and has most to gain by both removing him from the picture and making other opposition members scared. Especially the part of making others scared. The right response to this would have been massive civil unrest, but that didn't happen. Now this means Putin can do whatever to the opposition and they now know it. You can now forget any change in Russia until Putin dies of old age or something. You got your own Gaddafi now.. congrats..
what makes you so certain that it is that simple? we are talking about a man who invaded and annexed a part of another sovereign european nation in 21st century, which to top it all of, was also a brother-nation to Russia and got in the whole mess by negotiating with an alliance that is supposed to ensure exactly what happened, doesnt happen. and he got away with it. in the process he rigged the "independence" vote by 90+ percent and he also regularly does the same in his own country. i literally cant see why a such man would even twitch about his local opposition. if anything, this hurts him, because it turned an inconvenience into a problem.
Because it is. This is how he shows power. He was KGB afterall. No better way to finally shut your opposition up then to kill off their "leader" and show he can do that whenever he can without anyone being able to doing anything about it.
The rest, I will not comment. It is not about my point.
I think there is a misconception here as to how important he was. Don't let the outcry over his death (or the media headlines declaring him a "key" leader) fool you; he was a minor opposition figure of little significance. He is important enough for most people to know who he was, but by no means was he a key figure. Also, it really wouldn't make sense to kill someone so blatantly anyhow; if he really were important enough, it would be much simpler to put him in prison for crimes that he did actually commit.
Also, due process. Guilt is decided with evidence, not in the court of public opinion.
On March 03 2015 08:27 BluzMan wrote: Everything is just sad, the society here is slowly collapsing upon itself and there isn't really a positive construct for a future. You just can't imagine a future for a 21'st century European country if you're an ex-KGB colonel, spent your whole life at a desk and openly admit you don't like/use the internet. You have to realize that Putin lives in a completely different world that just doesn't even have all those cool things you like and that constitute the modern Europe. You have Wikipedia and Coursera - he has old soviet history books. You seriously think about the availability of cybernetic augmentation in the following years, robotic space exploration, elimination of cancer and other amazing things that are just around the corner - he seriously thinks about "unfair" things that happened 50-100 years ago when no one at these forums was even alive. What kind of a future can that man envision? You can't imagine a complex system built of things you have no idea of.
There is certainly some truth to what you say, although the idea to looking to Europe (or the US for that matter) as a beacon of progress turned out to be less real than many would believe it to be (for what it's worth, maybe 5 years ago I would have more or less agreed with your overall message, but not now). The problems with the Western countries are just as deep-seated as those of Russia, and the quality of life is better because they did not have one of the worst economic collapses in history just 15 years ago.
Maybe you're right and I'm overly idealistic with Europe, but the thesis still stands - the worst problem about Putin is that he is completely unable to present the nation with any realistic model of the future (it's actually the same with opposition - they often have trouble projecting beyond "after the dragon is slain", not in detail at least). It's okay for many people who just want a piece of bread on their tables - when your most pressing concern is keeping your family fed, you don't think much of what happens years after. But for the people who broke out of that it's a quagmire - social lifts are not working and the whole state apparatus is directed towards infinite preservation of the ugly internal status quo, even through cataclysmic external events. Any kind of real social and economic development requires free speech (to spread knowledge) and free court (to protect it) at least, those are both obviously missing and will be, because Putin has no idea how to rule a free society or even what it looks like.
On March 03 2015 11:06 QuantumTeleportation wrote: As much as Boris Nemtsov was part of Putin's opposition, we really can't be sure which group killed him.
Of course we can. EU/USA has more to gain by letting him be the leader of opposition, and there is no way anyone from islamic terrorist will go after him lol Only one with power left is Putin and has most to gain by both removing him from the picture and making other opposition members scared. Especially the part of making others scared. The right response to this would have been massive civil unrest, but that didn't happen. Now this means Putin can do whatever to the opposition and they now know it. You can now forget any change in Russia until Putin dies of old age or something. You got your own Gaddafi now.. congrats..
what makes you so certain that it is that simple? we are talking about a man who invaded and annexed a part of another sovereign european nation in 21st century, which to top it all of, was also a brother-nation to Russia and got in the whole mess by negotiating with an alliance that is supposed to ensure exactly what happened, doesnt happen. and he got away with it. in the process he rigged the "independence" vote by 90+ percent and he also regularly does the same in his own country. i literally cant see why a such man would even twitch about his local opposition. if anything, this hurts him, because it turned an inconvenience into a problem.
Because it is. This is how he shows power. He was KGB afterall. No better way to finally shut your opposition up then to kill off their "leader" and show he can do that whenever he can without anyone being able to doing anything about it.
The rest, I will not comment. It is not about my point.
I think there is a misconception here as to how important he was. Don't let the outcry over his death (or the media headlines declaring him a "key" leader) fool you; he was a minor opposition figure of little significance. He is important enough for most people to know who he was, but by no means was he a key figure. Also, it really wouldn't make sense to kill someone so blatantly anyhow; if he really were important enough, it would be much simpler to put him in prison for crimes that he did actually commit.
Also, due process. Guilt is decided with evidence, not in the court of public opinion.
On March 03 2015 08:27 BluzMan wrote: Everything is just sad, the society here is slowly collapsing upon itself and there isn't really a positive construct for a future. You just can't imagine a future for a 21'st century European country if you're an ex-KGB colonel, spent your whole life at a desk and openly admit you don't like/use the internet. You have to realize that Putin lives in a completely different world that just doesn't even have all those cool things you like and that constitute the modern Europe. You have Wikipedia and Coursera - he has old soviet history books. You seriously think about the availability of cybernetic augmentation in the following years, robotic space exploration, elimination of cancer and other amazing things that are just around the corner - he seriously thinks about "unfair" things that happened 50-100 years ago when no one at these forums was even alive. What kind of a future can that man envision? You can't imagine a complex system built of things you have no idea of.
There is certainly some truth to what you say, although the idea to looking to Europe (or the US for that matter) as a beacon of progress turned out to be less real than many would believe it to be (for what it's worth, maybe 5 years ago I would have more or less agreed with your overall message, but not now). The problems with the Western countries are just as deep-seated as those of Russia, and the quality of life is better because they did not have one of the worst economic collapses in history just 15 years ago.
Maybe you're right and I'm overly idealistic with Europe, but the thesis still stands - the worst problem about Putin is that he is completely unable to present the nation with any realistic model of the future (it's actually the same with opposition - they often have trouble projecting beyond "after the dragon is slain", not in detail at least). It's okay for many people who just want a piece of bread on their tables - when your most pressing concern is keeping your family fed, you don't think much of what happens years after. But for the people who broke out of that it's a quagmire - social lifts are not working and the whole state apparatus is directed towards infinite preservation of the ugly internal status quo, even through cataclysmic external events. Any kind of real social and economic development requires free speech (to spread knowledge) and free court (to protect it) at least, those are both obviously missing and will be, because Putin has no idea how to rule a free society or even what it looks like.
You can't expect democracy from ex-communists and ex-communist agents. I see it in Bulgaria as well.
Edit: One of the flaws of Eastern European nations is the lack of will to ban and prosecute communists for their criminal acts. On the other hand, Germany is doing really good job to reduce any nazi effect. A clean system is needed and nothing less. Otherwise, you get quasi-democracy from these people.
On March 04 2015 07:23 darkness wrote: One of the flaws of Eastern European nations is the lack of will to ban and prosecute communists for their criminal acts. On the other hand, Germany is really doing great job to do the same against nazis. A clean system is needed and nothing less. Otherwise, you get quasi-democracy from these people.
Yes, let's ban political ideologies and prosecute anyone who believes otherwise to promote our desired political system. See anything wrong with this idea?
Though I can sympathize with the problem you have (though I would dispute the causes), you must realize how ridiculous this solution is. Then again, I might be wrong since in some countries this actually happens.
On March 04 2015 07:23 darkness wrote: One of the flaws of Eastern European nations is the lack of will to ban and prosecute communists for their criminal acts. On the other hand, Germany is really doing great job to do the same against nazis. A clean system is needed and nothing less. Otherwise, you get quasi-democracy from these people.
Yes, let's ban political ideologies and prosecute anyone who believes otherwise to promote our desired political system. See anything wrong with this idea?
Though I can sympathize with the problem you have (though I would dispute the causes), you must realize how ridiculous this solution is. Then again, I might be wrong since in some countries this actually happens.
While it's not that simple anyway, darkness doesn't have to talk about communists as believers in an ideology but communists as previously high-ranking members of the communist party. Estonia and Poland are especially famous for breaking with our communist past by shunning people with communist party or KGB pasts, bringing in fresh faces (our PM just got reelected, he is 35...). We are also considered to have the most successful transitions since 91 (arguments can be made for Slovenia and the Czech Republic, though).
Yet, the picture becomes more complicated if you look closer. For example, the security service in Estonia drafted many ex-KGB officers with technical knowledge. Long story short, that's how we got the traitors Herman Simm, Vladimir Veitman and others. Also, our longest-serving PM, Andrus Ansip, was active in the communist party (not terribly high, but that clearly making a career there) and is now a EU commissioner on the digital market. His transformation has been quite remarkable, considering that he is quite famous for his pro-NATO and anti-Russia sentiment - positions which won him all those elections.
On March 04 2015 07:23 darkness wrote: One of the flaws of Eastern European nations is the lack of will to ban and prosecute communists for their criminal acts. On the other hand, Germany is really doing great job to do the same against nazis. A clean system is needed and nothing less. Otherwise, you get quasi-democracy from these people.
Yes, let's ban political ideologies and prosecute anyone who believes otherwise to promote our desired political system. See anything wrong with this idea?
Though I can sympathize with the problem you have (though I would dispute the causes), you must realize how ridiculous this solution is. Then again, I might be wrong since in some countries this actually happens.
Fascism and communism are not reasonable ideologies, you cannot allow them to grow as they're against everything democracy stands for. Speaking of communism which I know better, I think it's like a mini Holocaust. Why? Because whoever opposes regime, they simply go to jail and very likely die a few days later for "mysterious" reasons. Anyway, I'm not going into too much details, the main idea is true communists rarely transition to democracy or if they do, their interpretation is... well, like Putin's. Of course, you may not understand some of this if your country never had to go through this.
On March 04 2015 07:23 darkness wrote: One of the flaws of Eastern European nations is the lack of will to ban and prosecute communists for their criminal acts. On the other hand, Germany is really doing great job to do the same against nazis. A clean system is needed and nothing less. Otherwise, you get quasi-democracy from these people.
Yes, let's ban political ideologies and prosecute anyone who believes otherwise to promote our desired political system. See anything wrong with this idea?
Though I can sympathize with the problem you have (though I would dispute the causes), you must realize how ridiculous this solution is. Then again, I might be wrong since in some countries this actually happens.
Fascism and communism are not reasonable ideologies, you cannot allow them to grow as they're against everything democracy stands for. Speaking of communism which I know better, I think it's like a mini Holocaust. Why? Because whoever opposes regime, they simply go to jail and very likely die a few days later for "mysterious" reasons. Anyway, I'm not going into too much details, the main idea is true communists rarely transition to democracy or if they do, their interpretation is... well, like Putin's. Of course, you may not understand some of this if your country never had to go through this.
i mean this is just false. Trying to justify the idea that communism is a mini Holocaust is just totally misunderstanding communism
On March 04 2015 07:23 darkness wrote: One of the flaws of Eastern European nations is the lack of will to ban and prosecute communists for their criminal acts. On the other hand, Germany is really doing great job to do the same against nazis. A clean system is needed and nothing less. Otherwise, you get quasi-democracy from these people.
Yes, let's ban political ideologies and prosecute anyone who believes otherwise to promote our desired political system. See anything wrong with this idea?
Though I can sympathize with the problem you have (though I would dispute the causes), you must realize how ridiculous this solution is. Then again, I might be wrong since in some countries this actually happens.
Fascism and communism are not reasonable ideologies, you cannot allow them to grow as they're against everything democracy stands for. Speaking of communism which I know better, I think it's like a mini Holocaust. Why? Because whoever opposes regime, they simply go to jail and very likely die a few days later for "mysterious" reasons. Anyway, I'm not going into too much details, the main idea is true communists rarely transition to democracy or if they do, their interpretation is... well, like Putin's. Of course, you may not understand some of this if your country never had to go through this.
i mean this is just false. Trying to justify the idea that communism is a mini Holocaust is just totally misunderstanding communism
You're very welcome to go to North Korea and report your experience.
I do know of many people in the region who (in my mind fruitlessly) debate whether Communist crimes compare to the holocaust. I personally think that this is a pointless debate that will in the end needlessly devalue to the lessons of the holocaust and not succeed in its purported aims to avoid similar totalitarian crimes in the future.
To see the style of debate, see this Council of Europe resolution. While the fact that the Soviet Union committed human rights violations is beyond debate, it becomes destructive when people and countries start to compare Soviet crimes to the Holocaust. The case of Holodomor (hello Ukraine) comes up again and again, but there is no consensus on this among countries, and not even among academics.
I'd say it's much more instructive to look at these issues case by case, and so we should return to the case of Nemtsov.
On March 03 2015 11:06 QuantumTeleportation wrote: As much as Boris Nemtsov was part of Putin's opposition, we really can't be sure which group killed him.
Of course we can. EU/USA has more to gain by letting him be the leader of opposition, and there is no way anyone from islamic terrorist will go after him lol Only one with power left is Putin and has most to gain by both removing him from the picture and making other opposition members scared. Especially the part of making others scared. The right response to this would have been massive civil unrest, but that didn't happen. Now this means Putin can do whatever to the opposition and they now know it. You can now forget any change in Russia until Putin dies of old age or something. You got your own Gaddafi now.. congrats..
what makes you so certain that it is that simple? we are talking about a man who invaded and annexed a part of another sovereign european nation in 21st century, which to top it all of, was also a brother-nation to Russia and got in the whole mess by negotiating with an alliance that is supposed to ensure exactly what happened, doesnt happen. and he got away with it. in the process he rigged the "independence" vote by 90+ percent and he also regularly does the same in his own country. i literally cant see why a such man would even twitch about his local opposition. if anything, this hurts him, because it turned an inconvenience into a problem.
Because it is. This is how he shows power. He was KGB afterall. No better way to finally shut your opposition up then to kill off their "leader" and show he can do that whenever he can without anyone being able to doing anything about it.
The rest, I will not comment. It is not about my point.
I think there is a misconception here as to how important he was. Don't let the outcry over his death (or the media headlines declaring him a "key" leader) fool you; he was a minor opposition figure of little significance. He is important enough for most people to know who he was, but by no means was he a key figure. Also, it really wouldn't make sense to kill someone so blatantly anyhow; if he really were important enough, it would be much simpler to put him in prison for crimes that he did actually commit.
Also, due process. Guilt is decided with evidence, not in the court of public opinion.
On March 03 2015 08:27 BluzMan wrote: Everything is just sad, the society here is slowly collapsing upon itself and there isn't really a positive construct for a future. You just can't imagine a future for a 21'st century European country if you're an ex-KGB colonel, spent your whole life at a desk and openly admit you don't like/use the internet. You have to realize that Putin lives in a completely different world that just doesn't even have all those cool things you like and that constitute the modern Europe. You have Wikipedia and Coursera - he has old soviet history books. You seriously think about the availability of cybernetic augmentation in the following years, robotic space exploration, elimination of cancer and other amazing things that are just around the corner - he seriously thinks about "unfair" things that happened 50-100 years ago when no one at these forums was even alive. What kind of a future can that man envision? You can't imagine a complex system built of things you have no idea of.
There is certainly some truth to what you say, although the idea to looking to Europe (or the US for that matter) as a beacon of progress turned out to be less real than many would believe it to be (for what it's worth, maybe 5 years ago I would have more or less agreed with your overall message, but not now). The problems with the Western countries are just as deep-seated as those of Russia, and the quality of life is better because they did not have one of the worst economic collapses in history just 15 years ago.
Russia has and had resources, technical expertise and not to mention more space than any nation needs. There is no reason to complain about history, when there is hardly any nation having a better starting point for the future. And there is no reason to be happy about the current state of Russia, when there is so much potential left untapped.
No argument here, which is why I don't understand the reason for this post. Nothing I said contradicts your point.
On March 04 2015 02:12 Leporello wrote: You got a President for 15 years, he becomes the richest man in your country, he has no real political opponents, enjoys 80%+ approval ratings, and when one of his opponents does get killed in public, the public is content to let the President privately investigate it while they theorize that it was anyone and everyone responsible but the President? Do I have any of that wrong?
Anyone who wants democracy in Russia should be angry, scared, or be doing anything except making excuses for the state of things. I don't care if you think Putin is the second-coming of Christ, if you want your country to be able to democratically-elect his successor in any sort of fair process, you need to be less worried about what the "west" thinks (or what I think), and more concerned with the sorry-state of affairs that your country is actually in.
Oh wow, are you seriously conflating approval ratings with the size of the opposition? Perhaps that's where your "14% opposition" comes from.
They're not the same. Putin's party has about 55% control of the Russian government, which puts the opposition in the 40%'s. At this point the opposition is quite divided and offer very little in the way of a viable alternative for the future, a problem which many would argue also exists as of now in the US.
Putin's approval is in the 80%'s right now. That is, most people are happy with the job he has done in the recent past (which most people would confirm is the truth). It has been as low as 20%, and it is usually hovering around 50%.
On March 04 2015 02:12 Leporello wrote:It's so easy to be relative, because of course none of us are infallible. But, facts are: the "West" doesn't annex countries anymore (that's very 17th century), the "West" doesn't let its leaders privately investigate the assassinations of their political opponents. Some things aren't subjective, some shades of gray are a whole lot darker than others. What's going on in Russia right now is disturbing.
No foreign policy adventurism in the US? Really?
And you're right, let's investigate the killer in the court of public opinion instead of allowing the authorities to do that. That makes much more sense.
Like I said, it's easy to be relative. Annexation is not the same as, uh, "adventurism".
You can look at America's wars in the 21st/20th centuries and have a lot to disapprove of.
But last I looked, Vietnam, for example, is still its own country. I can find it on the map, and it doesn't say "America", it says "Vietnam". There is no excuse, in the world, to annex a country anymore. There just isn't. That game ended centuries ago. Maybe we overthrow governments (and maybe we shouldn't sometimes) -- but we do not forever deny a people their right to once again govern themselves.
Why you make this comparison, I don't know. If annexation of Crimea or Ukraine has some justification (although I can't imagine there ever being one), then say what it is. Justify it on its own merits. Comparing it to the... Iraq War, or something, is hardly comforting. At least the Iraqi people will always be Iraqi people (unless they, themselves, decide to dissolve the country into separate entities).
And as for your second point: Yes. It does make more sense. Having your leader privately investigate the murders of his political opponents is comic-book material.
I'm not pro Putin but the idea that annexation for the sake of annexation was a 17th Century thing is simply not historically true. The 17th Century is the century from 1600 to 1699, a century of wars of religion in Europe before the height of the colonial era. You'd have to go to the 19th Century, the rise of the nation state and the post Napoleonic exportation of conflict outside of Europe to get to the height of annexation, a geopolitical era which continued until the emergence of the bipolar world in 1945. The United States annexed most of its land mass in the 19th Century and continued into the early 20th, the colony of Ireland became a part of the United Kingdom in the 19th Century, Africa was colonised in the 19th Century, Korea was taken by Japan in the early 20th Century, in 1918 the maps of Europe were redrawn by men who thought it was perfectly acceptable to simply rearrange parcels of land and population into states with no regard for their population, in the 1930s maps were redrawn again both by Germany, with the assent of the great powers, in Africa, in the Middle East and in the Far East. This only really ends in 1945 because of the unique conditions following the Second World War.
I don't defend annexation but it is certainly not a 17th Century practice, it is far more recent than that and was a geopolitically dominant practice into living memory.
On March 04 2015 07:23 darkness wrote: One of the flaws of Eastern European nations is the lack of will to ban and prosecute communists for their criminal acts. On the other hand, Germany is really doing great job to do the same against nazis. A clean system is needed and nothing less. Otherwise, you get quasi-democracy from these people.
Yes, let's ban political ideologies and prosecute anyone who believes otherwise to promote our desired political system. See anything wrong with this idea?
Though I can sympathize with the problem you have (though I would dispute the causes), you must realize how ridiculous this solution is. Then again, I might be wrong since in some countries this actually happens.
Fascism and communism are not reasonable ideologies, you cannot allow them to grow as they're against everything democracy stands for. Speaking of communism which I know better, I think it's like a mini Holocaust. Why? Because whoever opposes regime, they simply go to jail and very likely die a few days later for "mysterious" reasons. Anyway, I'm not going into too much details, the main idea is true communists rarely transition to democracy or if they do, their interpretation is... well, like Putin's. Of course, you may not understand some of this if your country never had to go through this.
i mean this is just false. Trying to justify the idea that communism is a mini Holocaust is just totally misunderstanding communism
You're very welcome to go to North Korea and report your experience.
For anyone who is curious what they are actually saying: the video gives pretty generic "betrayed our country to the US" motivation and denounces Nemtsov's opposition to Novorossiya.
According to the internet, such a group does exist - some militia or other that really doesn't matter.
http://lifenews.ru/news/150688 - this article (not the most reliable but still a news source) says it's just a Ukranian-made parody of Novorossiyan news. Judging by the quality of that video, that seems reasonable.
For anyone who is curious what they are actually saying: the video gives pretty generic "betrayed our country to the US" motivation and denounces Nemtsov's opposition to Novorossiya.
According to the internet, such a group does exist - some militia or other that really doesn't matter.
http://lifenews.ru/news/150688 - this article (not the most reliable but still a news source) says it's just a Ukranian-made parody of Novorossiyan news. Judging by the quality of that video, that seems reasonable.
Yeah, I'd back up LegalLord here. Besides the group leader denying the authenticity (why release a video masking the faces and voice if they want to take credit?!), a speed-adjustment shows that the speaker is quite young:
On March 02 2015 11:22 Slaughter wrote: Why is a strong Russia bad for the West? A strong Russia is good except when they decide to annex parts of other countries because the mood struck them.
You should read Brzezinski: USA has to keep Europe or else they are dead. Therefore they need a weak Russia so Europe doesn't ditch USA for Russia. Moreover, Ukraine is what he call a geopolitical "pivot" that should be pro American.
why do people always assume that russia is an alternative to the usa for europe? compared to europe russia is a piss poor borderline 3rd world country with a highly inefficent administration, a weak market, sub par capital and no relevant scientific advancement on a wider scale. there is literally nothing russia has to offer. if anything, its the other way around. russia should seek out closer relations with europe so they can benefit from europes superior technology, markets, administrations and capital.
No, no you got it all wrong. Dmitry Rogozin (Russia vice Prime Minster) posted this gem on his twitter account. Sadly it's in Russian, but in short it's = what Russia annexed prospered, when Russians left all went to shit (and they give examples like Balts having factories and then when they got independence they just catch fish). This is quite extreme propaganda-nationalism video, most extreme i saw in quite some time.
EDIT: That video of some random group admitting they got Niemcow just looks... random.
This is a pretty bad situation to be a European now. Should war break loose, we can not adequately defend against Russia.
Since Putin considers us an ally to the USA, he won't think twice about attacking us. Since the USA doesn't consider us an ally, they won't even consider defending us.
So if Putin plays this smart, he won't attack the UK, so the USA won't be involved, and the rest of Europe will be easy pickings.
On March 05 2015 00:34 SixStrings wrote: This is a pretty bad situation to be a European now. Should war break loose, we can not adequately defend against Russia.
Since Putin considers us an ally to the USA, he won't think twice about attacking us. Since the USA doesn't consider us an ally, they won't even consider defending us.
So if Putin plays this smart, he won't attack the UK, so the USA won't be involved, and the rest of Europe will be easy pickings.
You are delusional, Putin might be a thugh but he is not a genocidal maniac trying to start WWIII.
On March 05 2015 00:34 SixStrings wrote: This is a pretty bad situation to be a European now. Should war break loose, we can not adequately defend against Russia.
Since Putin considers us an ally to the USA, he won't think twice about attacking us. Since the USA doesn't consider us an ally, they won't even consider defending us.
So if Putin plays this smart, he won't attack the UK, so the USA won't be involved, and the rest of Europe will be easy pickings.
It is a pretty bad situation in Europe right now, but should war break loose, not only could Europe easily defend itself against Russian aggression, but the United States would undoubtedly be part of a combined international coalition which would be in Moscow in less than thirty days. That is the difference in power between NATO-aligned nations and Russia.
Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty specifies an attack on any member-state requires the immediate aid of fellow member-states. This means an attack on Germany would require, by law, an immediate military response by the United States.
I'd also like to add that recent Russian provocations in allied air-space have been conducted by WW2-era bombers, which is a fairly accurate depiction of the modernity and readiness of the Russian military. The power disparity between Russia and the United States alone is massive, let alone the United States and her NATO allies.
That being said, the fact Putin is still going unchecked in Ukraine is absolutely mind-boggling. Quite honestly, it's a testament to how strong the US-German alliance is, as it was at the behest of Angela Merkel, along with his own advisors, that President Obama decided to allow the cease-fire talks to transpire prior to considering the delivery of lethal aid.
On March 05 2015 00:34 SixStrings wrote: This is a pretty bad situation to be a European now. Should war break loose, we can not adequately defend against Russia.
Since Putin considers us an ally to the USA, he won't think twice about attacking us. Since the USA doesn't consider us an ally, they won't even consider defending us.
So if Putin plays this smart, he won't attack the UK, so the USA won't be involved, and the rest of Europe will be easy pickings.
It is a pretty bad situation in Europe right now, but should war break loose, not only could Europe easily defend itself against Russian aggression, but the United States would undoubtedly be part of a combined international coalition which would be in Moscow in less than thirty days. That is the difference in power between NATO-aligned nations and Russia.
Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty specifies an attack on any member-state requires the immediate aid of fellow member-states. This means an attack on Germany would require, by law, an immediate military response by the United States.
I'd also like to add that recent Russian provocations in allied air-space have been conducted by WW2-era bombers, which is a fairly accurate depiction of the modernity and readiness of the Russian military. The power disparity between Russia and the United States alone is massive, let alone the United States and her NATO allies.
That being said, the fact Putin is still going unchecked in Ukraine is absolutely mind-boggling. Quite honestly, it's a testament to how strong the US-German alliance is, as it was at the behest of Angela Merkel, along with his own advisors, that President Obama decided to allow the cease-fire talks to transpire prior to considering the delivery of lethal aid.
I think you overestimate both the military capacities of Europe as well as the reach of the NATO.
The only real military force in mainland Europe is France. Germany's forces are pretty meager compared to the size of its population and the other countries simply don't have the population to support a large military. All Russia has to do is nuke key locations in France and Germany, where are large part of Europe's population and military are tightly bundled together, and the rest would be a cakewalk.
As to German-American relations: yes, Merkel is sucking up to Obama big time and until TTIP is done and dusted, Obama will make minor concessions. Once there are no more EU-roadblocks to get in the way of American companies dominating the European market, his successor will likely sing a different tune.
I'm aware of Article Five, and I have no doubt the US will adhere to it, as long as it's economically viable. Once the US see that costs more to defend Europe than to just pick up the pieces later, who is going to hold them accountable?
On March 05 2015 00:34 SixStrings wrote: This is a pretty bad situation to be a European now. Should war break loose, we can not adequately defend against Russia.
Since Putin considers us an ally to the USA, he won't think twice about attacking us. Since the USA doesn't consider us an ally, they won't even consider defending us.
So if Putin plays this smart, he won't attack the UK, so the USA won't be involved, and the rest of Europe will be easy pickings.
It is a pretty bad situation in Europe right now, but should war break loose, not only could Europe easily defend itself against Russian aggression, but the United States would undoubtedly be part of a combined international coalition which would be in Moscow in less than thirty days. That is the difference in power between NATO-aligned nations and Russia.
Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty specifies an attack on any member-state requires the immediate aid of fellow member-states. This means an attack on Germany would require, by law, an immediate military response by the United States.
I'd also like to add that recent Russian provocations in allied air-space have been conducted by WW2-era bombers, which is a fairly accurate depiction of the modernity and readiness of the Russian military. The power disparity between Russia and the United States alone is massive, let alone the United States and her NATO allies.
That being said, the fact Putin is still going unchecked in Ukraine is absolutely mind-boggling. Quite honestly, it's a testament to how strong the US-German alliance is, as it was at the behest of Angela Merkel, along with his own advisors, that President Obama decided to allow the cease-fire talks to transpire prior to considering the delivery of lethal aid.
I think you overestimate both the military capacities of Europe as well as the reach of the NATO.
The only real military force in mainland Europe is France. Germany's forces are pretty meager compared to the size of its population and the other countries simply don't have the population to support a large military. All Russia has to do is nuke key locations in France and Germany, where are large part of Europe's population and military are tightly bundled together, and the rest would be a cakewalk.
As to German-American relations: yes, Merkel is sucking up to Obama big time and until TTIP is done and dusted, Obama will make minor concessions. Once there are no more EU-roadblocks to get in the way of American companies dominating the European market, his successor will likely sing a different tune.
I'm aware of Article Five, and I have no doubt the US will adhere to it, as long as it's economically viable. Once the US see that costs more to defend Europe than to just pick up the pieces later, who is going to hold them accountable?
Yeah, if Germany or Poland got attacked we'd be at war without any controversy. If it was the Baltics, we'd probably still go to war but there would be arguing about it. And if Putin used nukes on anybody in real life we'd make him pay in a sea of blood.
America goes to war for ideological reasons, not economic. This has been broadly true throughout our history. We would make no calculation in Germany got attacked. We'd saddle up and defend you guys because you're our little brother and it's our job to stand up for you.
But yeah, if you guys wanted to meet NATO military spending targets so you could have a functioning army, that would be cool. :-P
On March 05 2015 00:34 SixStrings wrote: This is a pretty bad situation to be a European now. Should war break loose, we can not adequately defend against Russia.
Since Putin considers us an ally to the USA, he won't think twice about attacking us. Since the USA doesn't consider us an ally, they won't even consider defending us.
So if Putin plays this smart, he won't attack the UK, so the USA won't be involved, and the rest of Europe will be easy pickings.
It is a pretty bad situation in Europe right now, but should war break loose, not only could Europe easily defend itself against Russian aggression, but the United States would undoubtedly be part of a combined international coalition which would be in Moscow in less than thirty days. That is the difference in power between NATO-aligned nations and Russia.
Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty specifies an attack on any member-state requires the immediate aid of fellow member-states. This means an attack on Germany would require, by law, an immediate military response by the United States.
I'd also like to add that recent Russian provocations in allied air-space have been conducted by WW2-era bombers, which is a fairly accurate depiction of the modernity and readiness of the Russian military. The power disparity between Russia and the United States alone is massive, let alone the United States and her NATO allies.
That being said, the fact Putin is still going unchecked in Ukraine is absolutely mind-boggling. Quite honestly, it's a testament to how strong the US-German alliance is, as it was at the behest of Angela Merkel, along with his own advisors, that President Obama decided to allow the cease-fire talks to transpire prior to considering the delivery of lethal aid.
I think you overestimate both the military capacities of Europe as well as the reach of the NATO.
The only real military force in mainland Europe is France. Germany's forces are pretty meager compared to the size of its population and the other countries simply don't have the population to support a large military. All Russia has to do is nuke key locations in France and Germany, where are large part of Europe's population and military are tightly bundled together, and the rest would be a cakewalk.
As to German-American relations: yes, Merkel is sucking up to Obama big time and until TTIP is done and dusted, Obama will make minor concessions. Once there are no more EU-roadblocks to get in the way of American companies dominating the European market, his successor will likely sing a different tune.
I'm aware of Article Five, and I have no doubt the US will adhere to it, as long as it's economically viable. Once the US see that costs more to defend Europe than to just pick up the pieces later, who is going to hold them accountable?
[...] America goes to war for ideological reasons, not economic. This has been broadly true throughout our history. [...]
It really is a propaganda war. Edit: Or rather it appears as though Western propaganda is not without its results.
On March 05 2015 00:34 SixStrings wrote: This is a pretty bad situation to be a European now. Should war break loose, we can not adequately defend against Russia.
Since Putin considers us an ally to the USA, he won't think twice about attacking us. Since the USA doesn't consider us an ally, they won't even consider defending us.
So if Putin plays this smart, he won't attack the UK, so the USA won't be involved, and the rest of Europe will be easy pickings.
It is a pretty bad situation in Europe right now, but should war break loose, not only could Europe easily defend itself against Russian aggression, but the United States would undoubtedly be part of a combined international coalition which would be in Moscow in less than thirty days. That is the difference in power between NATO-aligned nations and Russia.
Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty specifies an attack on any member-state requires the immediate aid of fellow member-states. This means an attack on Germany would require, by law, an immediate military response by the United States.
I'd also like to add that recent Russian provocations in allied air-space have been conducted by WW2-era bombers, which is a fairly accurate depiction of the modernity and readiness of the Russian military. The power disparity between Russia and the United States alone is massive, let alone the United States and her NATO allies.
That being said, the fact Putin is still going unchecked in Ukraine is absolutely mind-boggling. Quite honestly, it's a testament to how strong the US-German alliance is, as it was at the behest of Angela Merkel, along with his own advisors, that President Obama decided to allow the cease-fire talks to transpire prior to considering the delivery of lethal aid.
I think you overestimate both the military capacities of Europe as well as the reach of the NATO.
The only real military force in mainland Europe is France. Germany's forces are pretty meager compared to the size of its population and the other countries simply don't have the population to support a large military. All Russia has to do is nuke key locations in France and Germany, where are large part of Europe's population and military are tightly bundled together, and the rest would be a cakewalk.
As to German-American relations: yes, Merkel is sucking up to Obama big time and until TTIP is done and dusted, Obama will make minor concessions. Once there are no more EU-roadblocks to get in the way of American companies dominating the European market, his successor will likely sing a different tune.
I'm aware of Article Five, and I have no doubt the US will adhere to it, as long as it's economically viable. Once the US see that costs more to defend Europe than to just pick up the pieces later, who is going to hold them accountable?
I just want to stress what a fellow poster said before me: You're delusional to an extent that is horrifying. 1. The US never ever would ignore article five. And the reason is not that there is someone to hold them accountable for not honoring it, there never was. The diplomatic ramifications alone would be mind blowing. That's not even touching on what an American president would have to face at home if he'd shied away from retaliating against Russian aggression against western allies. 2. Modern warfare is long past being about manpower. While still relevant in post war scenarios and asymmetrical warfare ("terrorism") actual conventional combat is about intelligence, logistics and technology. The "size" of a population doesn't matter. Luckily you went full retard with your post and included nukes in your scenario. Please wrap your head around the fact that you're arguing about diplomacy/politics in a post nuclear war Europe.
No, it's not just propaganda. Sometimes nations go to war for economic reasons, to secure interests, etc. Our support of Iraq in Iran/Iraq war was mostly about securing a security interest. So was the Iceland/UK conflict last century. Falklands war too.
Sometimes nations go to war over ideological matters. The US has historically been big on this, for good or for ill. Our support for coups against communists were ideological, not economic. The first Gulf War was mostly economic, but the second one was clearly ideological. Korea and Vietnam were hardly about US security, and the whole "domino effect" argument to justify it in those terms was always unconvincing.
On March 05 2015 00:34 SixStrings wrote: This is a pretty bad situation to be a European now. Should war break loose, we can not adequately defend against Russia.
Since Putin considers us an ally to the USA, he won't think twice about attacking us. Since the USA doesn't consider us an ally, they won't even consider defending us.
So if Putin plays this smart, he won't attack the UK, so the USA won't be involved, and the rest of Europe will be easy pickings.
That's wrong. Trust me, take it from someone close to defence policy (admittedly not too close but enough to have insider info), NATO is steadfast not only with regard to Germany but also regarding countries like the Baltic states. There is a huge difference in terms of the calculation with regard to any NATO member compared to let's say Ukraine or Finland or such countries. Being part of the EU also brings additional security as there's also a common EU security policy (which is underplayed by pretty much everyone, but it has like 90% of the hybrid warfare capacity in Europe).
Also, you can dislike Obama as much as you like (I know I have zero regard for his foreign policy capabilities), but protecting NATO allies is a no-brainer as even hesitation would destroy entire security architecture the US relies on. That's why some of the most capable units in Europe are US troops in various countries (including the Baltic states).
Russia clearly wants to upend the security arrangements in Europe, including driving wedges between NATO allies, but the calculation for attacking a NATO state has costs attached to it which aren't even in the same weight class as attacking a 50 million person country like Ukraine.
Does anybody recall the Cuba crisis? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis US/EU forcing Ukraine to become EU/NATO state is even worse than that. How would you react if Russia would have military bases in Mexico or Canada?
On March 05 2015 03:36 nothingmuch wrote: 1. The US never ever would ignore article five. And the reason is not that there is someone to hold them accountable for not honoring it, there never was. The diplomatic ramifications alone would be mind blowing. That's not even touching on what an American president would have to face at home if he'd shied away from retaliating against Russian aggression against western allies.
The ramifications of nuclear war are much worse than that of a diplomatic crisis - most sane people would understand that. That said, I am of the opinion that Article 5 is designed in such a way that it exists but that it would never have to be used. In other words, if there is a credible threat of a Russian invasion, that country won't be accepted into NATO. Invading the Baltics would be quite a pointless endeavor, security guarantees or not. There are easier and less controversial ways to deal with that kind of problem, if an invasion were even a serious consideration. It's more posturing than substance, really.
On March 05 2015 00:34 SixStrings wrote: This is a pretty bad situation to be a European now. Should war break loose, we can not adequately defend against Russia.
Since Putin considers us an ally to the USA, he won't think twice about attacking us. Since the USA doesn't consider us an ally, they won't even consider defending us.
So if Putin plays this smart, he won't attack the UK, so the USA won't be involved, and the rest of Europe will be easy pickings.
It is a pretty bad situation in Europe right now, but should war break loose, not only could Europe easily defend itself against Russian aggression, but the United States would undoubtedly be part of a combined international coalition which would be in Moscow in less than thirty days. That is the difference in power between NATO-aligned nations and Russia.
Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty specifies an attack on any member-state requires the immediate aid of fellow member-states. This means an attack on Germany would require, by law, an immediate military response by the United States.
I'd also like to add that recent Russian provocations in allied air-space have been conducted by WW2-era bombers, which is a fairly accurate depiction of the modernity and readiness of the Russian military. The power disparity between Russia and the United States alone is massive, let alone the United States and her NATO allies.
That being said, the fact Putin is still going unchecked in Ukraine is absolutely mind-boggling. Quite honestly, it's a testament to how strong the US-German alliance is, as it was at the behest of Angela Merkel, along with his own advisors, that President Obama decided to allow the cease-fire talks to transpire prior to considering the delivery of lethal aid.
I think you overestimate both the military capacities of Europe as well as the reach of the NATO.
The only real military force in mainland Europe is France. Germany's forces are pretty meager compared to the size of its population and the other countries simply don't have the population to support a large military. All Russia has to do is nuke key locations in France and Germany, where are large part of Europe's population and military are tightly bundled together, and the rest would be a cakewalk.
As to German-American relations: yes, Merkel is sucking up to Obama big time and until TTIP is done and dusted, Obama will make minor concessions. Once there are no more EU-roadblocks to get in the way of American companies dominating the European market, his successor will likely sing a different tune.
I'm aware of Article Five, and I have no doubt the US will adhere to it, as long as it's economically viable. Once the US see that costs more to defend Europe than to just pick up the pieces later, who is going to hold them accountable?
Luckily you went full retard with your post and included nukes in your scenario. Please wrap your head around the fact that you're arguing about diplomacy/politics in a post nuclear war Europe.
Never go full retard.
User was warned for this post
Calling me a retard a couple more times would help your argument.
And how silly of me to assume that Putin could ever use a nuke. Militant dictators have historically been so tame, so why assume the worst?
The Soviet Union using Cuba as a pawn during the Cold War has absolutely zero parallels to Ukrainian NATO membership. This is precisely the type of radical fear-mongering, fueled by the appeal of false controversy, which the Russian state media is using to spread misinformation among its own people.
Russia perceiving every nation to its West as a probable enemy is not rational behavior, and cannot be appeased to as such. It is an irrational fear that if Ukraine were to join NATO or the EU, Russia's security would be compromised. It is an irrational fear to assume the entire Western world is "out to get them," or that the US is trying to annex half of Russia (Russian civilians actually believe this).
The video you shared is nothing more than a press conference in which an American dignitary states the United States has provided 5 billion dollars in aid to Ukraine. The title puts the words "subvert Ukraine" in quotations even though these words are never spoken, and in stark contrast the dignitary explains the funds are used to help Ukraine transition to a more open, democratic society.
Educate yourself. Don't take any information at face value. Certainly don't buy into strange controversies.
On March 05 2015 04:16 Saumure wrote: Does anybody recall the Cuba crisis? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis US/EU forcing Ukraine to become EU/NATO state is even worse than that. How would you react if Russia would have military bases in Mexico or Canada?
You do realize though that hell broke lose over a simple trade agreement with the EU? NATO membership in Ukraine was never really popular in Ukraine until this war started and pretty much opposed by everyone who was not a hawkish Republican.
On March 05 2015 00:34 SixStrings wrote: This is a pretty bad situation to be a European now. Should war break loose, we can not adequately defend against Russia.
Since Putin considers us an ally to the USA, he won't think twice about attacking us. Since the USA doesn't consider us an ally, they won't even consider defending us.
So if Putin plays this smart, he won't attack the UK, so the USA won't be involved, and the rest of Europe will be easy pickings.
....... Please explain to me how a guy like you would know that the USA and EU is not allied and Putin, somehow wouldn't?
On March 05 2015 00:34 SixStrings wrote: This is a pretty bad situation to be a European now. Should war break loose, we can not adequately defend against Russia.
Since Putin considers us an ally to the USA, he won't think twice about attacking us. Since the USA doesn't consider us an ally, they won't even consider defending us.
So if Putin plays this smart, he won't attack the UK, so the USA won't be involved, and the rest of Europe will be easy pickings.
It is a pretty bad situation in Europe right now, but should war break loose, not only could Europe easily defend itself against Russian aggression, but the United States would undoubtedly be part of a combined international coalition which would be in Moscow in less than thirty days. That is the difference in power between NATO-aligned nations and Russia.
Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty specifies an attack on any member-state requires the immediate aid of fellow member-states. This means an attack on Germany would require, by law, an immediate military response by the United States.
I'd also like to add that recent Russian provocations in allied air-space have been conducted by WW2-era bombers, which is a fairly accurate depiction of the modernity and readiness of the Russian military. The power disparity between Russia and the United States alone is massive, let alone the United States and her NATO allies.
That being said, the fact Putin is still going unchecked in Ukraine is absolutely mind-boggling. Quite honestly, it's a testament to how strong the US-German alliance is, as it was at the behest of Angela Merkel, along with his own advisors, that President Obama decided to allow the cease-fire talks to transpire prior to considering the delivery of lethal aid.
I think you overestimate both the military capacities of Europe as well as the reach of the NATO.
The only real military force in mainland Europe is France. Germany's forces are pretty meager compared to the size of its population and the other countries simply don't have the population to support a large military. All Russia has to do is nuke key locations in France and Germany, where are large part of Europe's population and military are tightly bundled together, and the rest would be a cakewalk.
As to German-American relations: yes, Merkel is sucking up to Obama big time and until TTIP is done and dusted, Obama will make minor concessions. Once there are no more EU-roadblocks to get in the way of American companies dominating the European market, his successor will likely sing a different tune.
I'm aware of Article Five, and I have no doubt the US will adhere to it, as long as it's economically viable. Once the US see that costs more to defend Europe than to just pick up the pieces later, who is going to hold them accountable?
Luckily you went full retard with your post and included nukes in your scenario. Please wrap your head around the fact that you're arguing about diplomacy/politics in a post nuclear war Europe.
Never go full retard.
User was warned for this post
Calling me a retard a couple more times would help your argument.
And how silly of me to assume that Putin could ever use a nuke. Militant dictators have historically been so tame, so why assume the worst?
My apologies. I assumed that the expression "go full retard" was more common/ known, especially in the dota community than it apparently is. Or maybe I just misunderstand/use it. To me it's applicable when someone is being really silly. And to illustrate why I think you were just that with your line of reasoning: If nuclear weapons were used in a military conflict between "Europe" and Russia, civilisation as we know it would cease to exist. Arguing troop levels or foreign policy in the face of that fact just seems ridiculous to me.
On March 05 2015 00:34 SixStrings wrote: This is a pretty bad situation to be a European now. Should war break loose, we can not adequately defend against Russia.
Since Putin considers us an ally to the USA, he won't think twice about attacking us. Since the USA doesn't consider us an ally, they won't even consider defending us.
So if Putin plays this smart, he won't attack the UK, so the USA won't be involved, and the rest of Europe will be easy pickings.
Are you being deliberately inflammatory? There is this thing called NATO, and even though most European nations don't hit the required military spending levels by the treaty, its still among other things a mutual self defense treaty. The reason Putin is working so hard to make sure that Ukraine doesn't join NATO is that if they were in NATO the US and the rest of NATO would be obligated to defend them from both the rebels and the Russian troops in Ukraine.
On March 05 2015 04:16 Saumure wrote: Does anybody recall the Cuba crisis? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis US/EU forcing Ukraine to become EU/NATO state is even worse than that. How would you react if Russia would have military bases in Mexico or Canada?
Well the thing is that Ukraine wants to become a NATO nation, and is already a European Nation. And its much more like if Russia was arming and providing military support to rebels that they encouraged to begin the revolt or just stright up created them selves.
On March 05 2015 00:34 SixStrings wrote: This is a pretty bad situation to be a European now. Should war break loose, we can not adequately defend against Russia.
Since Putin considers us an ally to the USA, he won't think twice about attacking us. Since the USA doesn't consider us an ally, they won't even consider defending us.
So if Putin plays this smart, he won't attack the UK, so the USA won't be involved, and the rest of Europe will be easy pickings.
It is a pretty bad situation in Europe right now, but should war break loose, not only could Europe easily defend itself against Russian aggression, but the United States would undoubtedly be part of a combined international coalition which would be in Moscow in less than thirty days. That is the difference in power between NATO-aligned nations and Russia.
Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty specifies an attack on any member-state requires the immediate aid of fellow member-states. This means an attack on Germany would require, by law, an immediate military response by the United States.
I'd also like to add that recent Russian provocations in allied air-space have been conducted by WW2-era bombers, which is a fairly accurate depiction of the modernity and readiness of the Russian military. The power disparity between Russia and the United States alone is massive, let alone the United States and her NATO allies.
That being said, the fact Putin is still going unchecked in Ukraine is absolutely mind-boggling. Quite honestly, it's a testament to how strong the US-German alliance is, as it was at the behest of Angela Merkel, along with his own advisors, that President Obama decided to allow the cease-fire talks to transpire prior to considering the delivery of lethal aid.
I think you overestimate both the military capacities of Europe as well as the reach of the NATO.
The only real military force in mainland Europe is France. Germany's forces are pretty meager compared to the size of its population and the other countries simply don't have the population to support a large military. All Russia has to do is nuke key locations in France and Germany, where are large part of Europe's population and military are tightly bundled together, and the rest would be a cakewalk.
As to German-American relations: yes, Merkel is sucking up to Obama big time and until TTIP is done and dusted, Obama will make minor concessions. Once there are no more EU-roadblocks to get in the way of American companies dominating the European market, his successor will likely sing a different tune.
I'm aware of Article Five, and I have no doubt the US will adhere to it, as long as it's economically viable. Once the US see that costs more to defend Europe than to just pick up the pieces later, who is going to hold them accountable?
Luckily you went full retard with your post and included nukes in your scenario. Please wrap your head around the fact that you're arguing about diplomacy/politics in a post nuclear war Europe.
Never go full retard.
User was warned for this post
Calling me a retard a couple more times would help your argument.
And how silly of me to assume that Putin could ever use a nuke. Militant dictators have historically been so tame, so why assume the worst?
My apologies. I assumed that the expression "go full retard" was more common/ known, especially in the dota community than it apparently is. Or maybe I just misunderstand/use it. To me it's applicable when someone is being really silly. And to illustrate why I think you were just that with your line of reasoning: If nuclear weapons were used in a military conflict between "Europe" and Russia, civilisation as we know it would cease to exist. Arguing troop levels or foreign policy in the face of that fact just seems ridiculous to me.
I misunderstood, I thought you meant that it's unthinkable that nuclear weapons would be used.
On March 05 2015 00:34 SixStrings wrote: This is a pretty bad situation to be a European now. Should war break loose, we can not adequately defend against Russia.
Since Putin considers us an ally to the USA, he won't think twice about attacking us. Since the USA doesn't consider us an ally, they won't even consider defending us.
So if Putin plays this smart, he won't attack the UK, so the USA won't be involved, and the rest of Europe will be easy pickings.
It is a pretty bad situation in Europe right now, but should war break loose, not only could Europe easily defend itself against Russian aggression, but the United States would undoubtedly be part of a combined international coalition which would be in Moscow in less than thirty days. That is the difference in power between NATO-aligned nations and Russia.
Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty specifies an attack on any member-state requires the immediate aid of fellow member-states. This means an attack on Germany would require, by law, an immediate military response by the United States.
I'd also like to add that recent Russian provocations in allied air-space have been conducted by WW2-era bombers, which is a fairly accurate depiction of the modernity and readiness of the Russian military. The power disparity between Russia and the United States alone is massive, let alone the United States and her NATO allies.
That being said, the fact Putin is still going unchecked in Ukraine is absolutely mind-boggling. Quite honestly, it's a testament to how strong the US-German alliance is, as it was at the behest of Angela Merkel, along with his own advisors, that President Obama decided to allow the cease-fire talks to transpire prior to considering the delivery of lethal aid.
I think you overestimate both the military capacities of Europe as well as the reach of the NATO.
The only real military force in mainland Europe is France. Germany's forces are pretty meager compared to the size of its population and the other countries simply don't have the population to support a large military. All Russia has to do is nuke key locations in France and Germany, where are large part of Europe's population and military are tightly bundled together, and the rest would be a cakewalk.
As to German-American relations: yes, Merkel is sucking up to Obama big time and until TTIP is done and dusted, Obama will make minor concessions. Once there are no more EU-roadblocks to get in the way of American companies dominating the European market, his successor will likely sing a different tune.
I'm aware of Article Five, and I have no doubt the US will adhere to it, as long as it's economically viable. Once the US see that costs more to defend Europe than to just pick up the pieces later, who is going to hold them accountable?
Luckily you went full retard with your post and included nukes in your scenario. Please wrap your head around the fact that you're arguing about diplomacy/politics in a post nuclear war Europe.
Never go full retard.
User was warned for this post
Calling me a retard a couple more times would help your argument.
And how silly of me to assume that Putin could ever use a nuke. Militant dictators have historically been so tame, so why assume the worst?
My apologies. I assumed that the expression "go full retard" was more common/ known, especially in the dota community than it apparently is. Or maybe I just misunderstand/use it. To me it's applicable when someone is being really silly. And to illustrate why I think you were just that with your line of reasoning: If nuclear weapons were used in a military conflict between "Europe" and Russia, civilisation as we know it would cease to exist. Arguing troop levels or foreign policy in the face of that fact just seems ridiculous to me.
Its an ad hominem, a meme, and offensive to people with some mental disabilities, which puts it against forum rules three ways. Personal attacks have no place in civilized discourse; argue against people's ideas; don't insult those people.
Not that I disagree with you on the point that SixString's position that Putin might use nukes is very far-fetched.
On March 05 2015 00:34 SixStrings wrote: This is a pretty bad situation to be a European now. Should war break loose, we can not adequately defend against Russia.
Since Putin considers us an ally to the USA, he won't think twice about attacking us. Since the USA doesn't consider us an ally, they won't even consider defending us.
So if Putin plays this smart, he won't attack the UK, so the USA won't be involved, and the rest of Europe will be easy pickings.
It is a pretty bad situation in Europe right now, but should war break loose, not only could Europe easily defend itself against Russian aggression, but the United States would undoubtedly be part of a combined international coalition which would be in Moscow in less than thirty days. That is the difference in power between NATO-aligned nations and Russia.
Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty specifies an attack on any member-state requires the immediate aid of fellow member-states. This means an attack on Germany would require, by law, an immediate military response by the United States.
I'd also like to add that recent Russian provocations in allied air-space have been conducted by WW2-era bombers, which is a fairly accurate depiction of the modernity and readiness of the Russian military. The power disparity between Russia and the United States alone is massive, let alone the United States and her NATO allies.
That being said, the fact Putin is still going unchecked in Ukraine is absolutely mind-boggling. Quite honestly, it's a testament to how strong the US-German alliance is, as it was at the behest of Angela Merkel, along with his own advisors, that President Obama decided to allow the cease-fire talks to transpire prior to considering the delivery of lethal aid.
I think you overestimate both the military capacities of Europe as well as the reach of the NATO.
The only real military force in mainland Europe is France. Germany's forces are pretty meager compared to the size of its population and the other countries simply don't have the population to support a large military. All Russia has to do is nuke key locations in France and Germany, where are large part of Europe's population and military are tightly bundled together, and the rest would be a cakewalk.
As to German-American relations: yes, Merkel is sucking up to Obama big time and until TTIP is done and dusted, Obama will make minor concessions. Once there are no more EU-roadblocks to get in the way of American companies dominating the European market, his successor will likely sing a different tune.
I'm aware of Article Five, and I have no doubt the US will adhere to it, as long as it's economically viable. Once the US see that costs more to defend Europe than to just pick up the pieces later, who is going to hold them accountable?
Letting the biggest economic bloc in the world fall apart and then picking up the pieces is hardly economically viable. Fact is that without Europe the economy would collapse everywhere.
You're also way overestimating Russia. Their economy is as big as Italy even taking into account the increasing military budgets they still can't compete. Their only advantage would be that they have more nukes but there are European countries with nukes as well...
On March 05 2015 04:31 always_winter wrote: Russia perceiving every nation to its West as a probable enemy
It really doesn't. The United States and the NATO security alliance are seen as national security issues though.
Any country would react strongly to security threats on its border. Why do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis was such a big deal?
The two are not analogous. This is my point.
An openly democratic Ukraine is not a threat to Russia's national security. Nuclear warheads in the possession of a Soviet puppet regime one hundred miles from the American coastline during the Cold War was a very real threat to American national security. These scenarios are not related.
To suggest Ukraine aligning with NATO or the EU would thereby undermine Russia's national security is a false dichotomy. There is a third choice. It is Russia entering the twenty-first century.
EDIT: The irrational security interests of a tyrannical dictator currently living in the Cold War, and currently embarked on a 19th-century land-grabbing campaign, are not equal to actual security concerns of a rational state actor. What Putin perceives to be contrary to Russia's national interests are not equal to reality.
On March 05 2015 04:31 always_winter wrote: Russia perceiving every nation to its West as a probable enemy
It really doesn't. The United States and the NATO security alliance are seen as national security issues though.
Any country would react strongly to security threats on its border. Why do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis was such a big deal?
At best it's a chicken-egg problem. Russia sees NATO as a threat, threatening its neighbors (generally with soft power, like gas disputes), these then see Russia as a thread, flocking to NATO, Russia sees NATO as a bigger threat... etc.
Realistically, the Estonian security doctrine has foreseen the Georgian and Ukrainian situations as possible since the beginning of the 90s when we saw what happened to Transnistria. (Not many listened to us until MH17.) Hence we rushed into NATO before Russia could recover enough to start pushing its weight about after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It's not like NATO wanted us to join, in fact, they created various obstacles (the ones for Georgia and Ukraine were impossible to overcome). Even to this day we aren't defended as well as other members because Germany is blocking the deployment of permanent bases in the Baltic states, creating significant logistical nightmares for our defense plans.
On March 05 2015 04:31 always_winter wrote: Russia perceiving every nation to its West as a probable enemy
It really doesn't. The United States and the NATO security alliance are seen as national security issues though.
Any country would react strongly to security threats on its border. Why do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis was such a big deal?
The two are not analogous. This is my point.
An openly democratic Ukraine is not a threat to Russia's national security. Nuclear warheads in the possession of a Soviet puppet regime one hundred miles from the American coastline during the Cold War was a very real threat to American national security. These scenarios are not related.
To suggest Ukraine aligning with NATO or the EU would thereby undermine Russia's national security is a false dichotomy. There is a third choice. It is Russia entering the twenty-first century.
EDIT: The irrational security interests of a tyrannical dictator currently living in the Cold War, and currently embarked on a 19th-century land-grabbing campaign, are not equal to actual security concerns of a rational state actor. What Putin perceives to be contrary to Russia's national interests are not equal to reality.
Your conclusions are very naive; things are certainly more complicated than that. Only a small fraction of what's going on appears on the news, so please don't advance such strong claims because you would like for things to retain their fairy-tale simplicity. The issues of Russia's national security or potential hindrance of logistical capabilities are a matter of viewpoint, particularly from a second-person perspective, but also not without their pretexts.
To be honest, much of the propaganda here is specifically anti-US and it's constantly reminding people of american military interventions in the last 20 or so years. Some (if not many) people in Russia live in fear of american bomber planes literally coming and killing them (honestly, do they really have totally nothing to fear?). The guys in the TV tell you that Yugoslavia doesn't even exist as a state anymore, Iraq and Afghanistan are suffering an unprecedented rise of radical, almost unhuman fundamentalism and Libya is a failed state, it's social institutions gone. They also never seem to forget those WMDs that were never found, abused men in Iraqi prisons and national leaders being simply shot dead without court and trial.
Well, I must say that kind of propaganda wouldn't be so goddamn efficient if it wasn't so true. There's not one sole villain and not one sole cause to the state of the world of today.
On March 05 2015 03:36 Yoav wrote: No, it's not just propaganda. Sometimes nations go to war for economic reasons, to secure interests, etc. Our support of Iraq in Iran/Iraq war was mostly about securing a security interest. So was the Iceland/UK conflict last century. Falklands war too.
Sometimes nations go to war over ideological matters. The US has historically been big on this, for good or for ill. Our support for coups against communists were ideological, not economic. The first Gulf War was mostly economic, but the second one was clearly ideological. Korea and Vietnam were hardly about US security, and the whole "domino effect" argument to justify it in those terms was always unconvincing.
Falklands war was in no way economic. The Argentine invasion was motivated chiefly by the nationalistic desire for a victory to present to the people and the British defence of British soil was motivated for the exact same reasons you'd be motivated for if Russia invaded Alaska.
On March 05 2015 06:28 BluzMan wrote: To be honest, much of the propaganda here is specifically anti-US and it's constantly reminding people of american military interventions in the last 20 or so years. Some (if not many) people in Russia live in fear of american bomber planes literally coming and killing them (honestly, do they really have totally nothing to fear?). The guys in the TV tell you that Yugoslavia doesn't even exist as a state anymore, Iraq and Afghanistan are suffering an unprecedented rise of radical, almost unhuman fundamentalism and Libya is a failed state, it's social institutions gone. They also never seem to forget those WMDs that were never found, abused men in Iraqi prisons and national leaders being simply shot dead without court and trial.
Well, I must say that kind of propaganda wouldn't be so goddamn efficient if it wasn't so true. There's not one sole villain and not one sole cause to the state of the world of today.
yes, they really totally have nothing to fear. and that's coming from someone who jumps on any chance to criticize usa imperialism
also, i dont understand your references to yugoslavia, libya, and even iraq/afghanistan stuff is not local but rather widespread in middle east... WMDs and bullshit invasion of iraq is the only point that can resonate with general public so hard because its based in truth, everything else is much more complicated, in my opinion...
On March 05 2015 04:31 always_winter wrote: Russia perceiving every nation to its West as a probable enemy
It really doesn't. The United States and the NATO security alliance are seen as national security issues though.
Any country would react strongly to security threats on its border. Why do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis was such a big deal?
The two are not analogous. This is my point.
An openly democratic Ukraine is not a threat to Russia's national security. Nuclear warheads in the possession of a Soviet puppet regime one hundred miles from the American coastline during the Cold War was a very real threat to American national security. These scenarios are not related.
To suggest Ukraine aligning with NATO or the EU would thereby undermine Russia's national security is a false dichotomy. There is a third choice. It is Russia entering the twenty-first century.
EDIT: The irrational security interests of a tyrannical dictator currently living in the Cold War, and currently embarked on a 19th-century land-grabbing campaign, are not equal to actual security concerns of a rational state actor. What Putin perceives to be contrary to Russia's national interests are not equal to reality.
Your conclusions are very naive; things are certainly more complicated than that. Only a small fraction of what's going on appears on the news, so please don't advance such strong claims because you would like for things to retain their fairy-tale simplicity. The issues of Russia's national security or potential hindrance of logistical capabilities are a matter of viewpoint, particularly from a second-person perspective, but also not without their pretexts.
Russia's national security interests are absolutely a matter of viewpoint; this does not mean every viewpoint is right, or that since there are opposing viewpoints we can simply write them all off as a wash. Vladimir Putin's perceived national security interests are irrational. His viewpoint is wrong.
Respecting the sovereignty of a democratic nation in the twenty-first century isn't a fairy-tale, it's expected. By any measure of basic human decency it's demanded.
On March 05 2015 22:57 Kupon3ss wrote: but respect for the sovereignty of a non-democratic nation is not to be expected?
what about a quasi-democratic one?
I mentioned earlier the concept of a false dichotomy: that if one scenario is true, the other must be false; that the two cannot mutually coexist. This is a fallacious argument, although likely your intent was not logical soundness but rather anti-imperialist baiting.
If you have a real argument to present I'd be more than happy to discuss it.
EDIT: Which Middle Eastern policy are you referring to?
you've stated before that you don't believe that the sovereignty of non-democratic nations should be respected
my question has nothing to do with a false dichotomy since yours is a very real one, my question is simply where you draw the line, is say Venezuela a democracy - what about modern Iraq, or Russia?
On March 05 2015 23:07 Kupon3ss wrote: you've stated before that you don't believe that the sovereignty of non-democratic nations should be respected
my question has nothing to do with a false dichotomy since yours is a very real one, my question is simply where you draw the line, is say Venezuela a democracy - what about modern Iraq, or Russia?
The loss of national sovereignty in Foreign Policy and Defense is de facto domination. Postwar, the United States worked to diminish the global roles of her European allies, and roll them up into a continental defense unit. The establishment of NATO was not merely a traditional alliance, it was the permanent integration of Western military command structures under American leadership, thereby eroding national military commands. For a while, American domination of SACEUR and SACLANT was tolerated by the British and French, because their global military apparatus gave them opt-outs to American control, and the structure was accepted to place restraints on German remilitarisation. As their roles in the World diminished under American pressure however, they found themselves playing the role of military auxiliaries to European defense. The British accepted this loss of sovereignty, whereas De Gaulle withdrew France from NATO's command structure, and saved French independence, at least for four decades.
Your conclusion is based on an irrational assumption: state actors are forced to renounce sovereignty upon adhering to an international system. This is categorically false and has been disproven throughout the annals of history. There's a reason the Iraq War was fought by a "coalition of the willing" and not "America and the Superfriends."
The loss of national sovereignty in Foreign Policy and Defense is de facto domination. Postwar, the United States worked to diminish the global roles of her European allies, and roll them up into a continental defense unit. The establishment of NATO was not merely a traditional alliance, it was the permanent integration of Western military command structures under American leadership, thereby eroding national military commands. For a while, American domination of SACEUR and SACLANT was tolerated by the British and French, because their global military apparatus gave them opt-outs to American control, and the structure was accepted to place restraints on German remilitarisation. As their roles in the World diminished under American pressure however, they found themselves playing the role of military auxiliaries to European defense. The British accepted this loss of sovereignty, whereas De Gaulle withdrew France from NATO's command structure, and saved French independence, at least for four decades.
Your conclusion is based on an irrational assumption: state actors are forced to renounce sovereignty upon adhering to an international system. This is categorically false and has been disproven throughout the annals of history. There's a reason the Iraq War was fought by a "coalition of the willing" and not "America and the Superfriends."
The loss of national sovereignty in Foreign Policy and Defense is de facto domination. Postwar, the United States worked to diminish the global roles of her European allies, and roll them up into a continental defense unit. The establishment of NATO was not merely a traditional alliance, it was the permanent integration of Western military command structures under American leadership, thereby eroding national military commands. For a while, American domination of SACEUR and SACLANT was tolerated by the British and French, because their global military apparatus gave them opt-outs to American control, and the structure was accepted to place restraints on German remilitarisation. As their roles in the World diminished under American pressure however, they found themselves playing the role of military auxiliaries to European defense. The British accepted this loss of sovereignty, whereas De Gaulle withdrew France from NATO's command structure, and saved French independence, at least for four decades.
Your conclusion is based on an irrational assumption: state actors are forced to renounce sovereignty upon adhering to an international system. This is categorically false and has been disproven throughout the annals of history. There's a reason the Iraq War was fought by a "coalition of the willing" and not "America and the Superfriends."
First suspects in Nemtsov murder identified — Federal Security Service
Car tied to Nemtsov killing belongs to enterprise serving government bodies The car sought in connection with the murder of Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov belongs to a federal state unitary enterprise (FSUE) providing services to the Finance Ministry, Goznak, the Russian state body that prints banknotes, and other agencies, the Finance Ministry said earlier on Wednesday. "The Ford car we are talking about does not belong to the Finance Ministry," the ministry’s press service told TASS. "This is a vehicle of an in-house security service, an independent FSUE providing services to the Finance Ministry, Goznak and other bodies."
"At the moment the FSUE car was crossing the bridge, a patrol vehicle and police officers were already there," the ministry noted.
A number of media outlets reported that the police were looking for the car, which fled the scene and which allegedly belonged to the Russian Finance Ministry.
Nuland actually mentioned that the proprotionate sum of $15 billion was spent since 1991 on Russia. Yet nobody is crying about that.
And to make it funnier, it's actually an available information and not some sacred knowledge.
Now, back on topic: at this rate i am convinced that the actual info on the subject won't be provided at least until actual organizer/scapegoat is caught.
This will be some sort of offtopic, but i feel like I need to touch upon it, so here it goes.
Different levels of how a person sees how the society works:
1) The most primitive level. I do what I want and it will make me happy. There are enough resources and opportunities to everyone. Conflicts should be avoided.
2) A person understands that there are opportunities for people to take advantage of others and walk away with it. So they would better be those people. The main priority becomes getting power, physically and socially. He is right who is stronger. They don't want to hurt others, but would not hesitate to do it if the goal requires it.
3) A person understands what 2nd stage is about. But on the other side they see that if anyone will think and act that way the whole society will degenerage into petty conflicts, violence, struggle for power to the point when noone is actually better off from that sort of thinking and acting: because of both the conflicts and violence that it brings, and because you need to spend too much resorces on that kind of stuff, which you could spent much more wisely. So it's actually beneficial to effectively downgrade to something that looks like 1st stage. The resources are still scarce though, but violently fighting for them is not the answer. What needs to be done though is to create some sort of system that would disencourage the behavior of the 2nd type.
The thing is, the same line of thinking applies to societies of societies as well, i.e. to the international scene. The 2nd stage looks damn beneficial if you don't see what stage 3 is about and instead see stage 1. You might even think you are smarter and superior to others, that you actually deserve that power and everything it brings. It's also very adventuristic, a welcome change from the grey days of stage 1 that you've probably experienced not so long ago. Thus the quest for power begins. This is what happened to Germany and Japan before WW2.
Developed democratic countries are at stage 3. A country can be stronger by consolidating resorces to fight others at the international scene, but will its people be happier because of that? No. Democracy is basically giving up much of your strength for peoples happiness. If you wonna do it you'd better make sure others do that as well. After WW2 it became pretty clear that you can't just leave others alone to their own business. The consequences can be devastating to them and to you as well. That's the line of thinking that justifies the quest for democracy and personal freedoms in other countries that developed countries often embark on. If there is free press and democratic process of elections, there is much less chance that the country will start warmongering, since it has such a devastating effect on the population. Also a healthy society is less likely to view other nations as inferior, or deserving some sort of violent actions towards them. But unfortunately the means some times defeat the purposes, and while trying to prevent warmongering one can actually start doing it themselves. Which defenders of the 2nd stage will use to protect their views.
Russia is clearly at stage 2 right now. They are not afraid to get violent, they are not afraid to have the relationships broken, and they are fine with spending huge resources on conflicts or preparations to them. Their reasoning at the internation stage often involves the idea that stage 2 thinking is some sort of cultural difference that must be respected. You can also see why NATO expansion is such a threat: if you plan on being strong and pushing others around there is no way you would want them to be protected, even if they agree not to expand military bases and missiles on their territory. Also note how "not viewing other nations as inferior" was overcome by propaganda by labling Ukrainians as "nazis, and hunta supporters".
Guardian piece on Nemtsov (or is it?) by Kasparov (the loudest opposition member in exile):
When the Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov was assassinated in sight of the Kremlin last Friday night, it shocked even those of us who thought we had lost the ability to be shocked by events in Vladimir Putin’s Russia. When Russian forces moved into Ukraine and Putin annexed Crimea a year ago, it was also a terrible shock to a world that had grown too comfortable with the belief that the days of changing Europe’s borders by force were long over. But we must cease to be surprised by the violence and hatred emanating from Russia today if we are to combat it successfully.
When the shock subsides and the evidence is examined, it is clear no one should truly have been surprised by either horrific event. Boris, with whom I worked closely for many years, often talked of the violent ends faced by those who spoke out against Putin. We all knew what could happen to any of us at any time, and a few months after I last left Russia, in February 2013, I decided I would not return.
Police states are very good at keeping a monopoly on violence, and Putin’s Russia is no exception. When the victim is a former Russian deputy prime minister and a prominent critic of the regime, and his murder takes place in a wide open area right next to the Kremlin, the chance that it occurred without the involvement of Russia’s security services is vanishingly small. Boris was always under personal and electronic surveillance, but we are supposed to believe that his escort had the night off, and all nearby CCTV cameras happened to be down for repairs that day.
“But this is Mr Kasparov’s personal interpretation!” shouted one alarmed BBC presenter when I shared those observations in a live interview this week. “But the Russian government has categorically denied any involvement!” cried another. I accept that the things I say are my personal interpretation, but why is the BBC positioning itself as Putin’s defence attorney?
The man has a record; my insinuations are hardly far-fetched. Why cite the official statements of a dictatorship that lies and spreads propaganda at every turn without challenging them? It’s a good example of how the conventions of an open society are exploited by less scrupulous regimes. It represents the culture of engagement and appeasement that has come to replace the harder line of the cold war. But the time for unreciprocated fair play is over. ... The opposition movement that Boris and I believed in, and that Boris died for, should be openly supported, the way the west once championed the Soviet dissidents. Ronald Reagan told those of us behind the iron curtain that he knew it was our leaders, not us, who were his adversaries. We listened and it mattered, and it should matter again. More than 100,000 people rallied to mourn Boris in Moscow last Sunday, a number that gives the lie to Putin’s meaningless approval numbers. Tell these people, and the millions too afraid to march, that they have a choice.
With all due respect, it wasn't 100.000. Official estimates are about 20.000. Opposition estimates are about 50.000 (and that pretty much tops it). Unofficial info from city government confirms 50.000.
50k is good enough, I don't understand why he has to lie on this, losing credibility due to stupid number mistakes is the opposite of what one would want if he wanted to convince anyone on something.
Citing contrary estimates does not disprove him, nor would the inaccuracy of such a minute point discredit him. The underlying argument is far more compelling.
I'd also take any "official" estimates by Russian state media with a mountain of salt (forgive the idiom).
On March 07 2015 04:17 BluzMan wrote: With all due respect, it wasn't 100.000. Official estimates are about 20.000. Opposition estimates are about 50.000 (and that pretty much tops it). Unofficial info from city government confirms 50.000.
50k is good enough, I don't understand why he has to lie on this, losing credibility due to stupid number mistakes is the opposite of what one would want if he wanted to convince anyone on something.
Not sure if he really had any credibility in the first place. Mostly he and Khodorkovsky are just token sources of anti-Putin sentiment for Western media to latch onto.
On March 07 2015 04:17 BluzMan wrote: With all due respect, it wasn't 100.000. Official estimates are about 20.000. Opposition estimates are about 50.000 (and that pretty much tops it). Unofficial info from city government confirms 50.000.
50k is good enough, I don't understand why he has to lie on this, losing credibility due to stupid number mistakes is the opposite of what one would want if he wanted to convince anyone on something.
I also found it weird. Although I also see the point that the actual number doesn't matter as long as he gets the ballpark right.
On March 07 2015 04:47 always_winter wrote: Citing contrary estimates does not disprove him, nor would the inaccuracy of such a minute point discredit him. The underlying argument is far more compelling.
I'd also take any "official" estimates by Russian state media with a mountain of salt (forgive the idiom).
They don't disprove him as a whole, but the numbers he's citing are taken out of nowhere, no one ever estimated it to be that big, neither domestic affairs ministry (officials), nor the "white counter" (volunteer opposition organisation, counting more is within their interests). It honestly doesn't look like an accidental mistake, much more like intentional exaggeration. I'm very curious why, being crystal honest is one of the opposition virtues, widespread lies is kind of the main thing they are fighting against.
It does seem unlikely this was not goverment sanctioned. A man that was under surveillance killed close to the Kremlin with nobody seeing anything. Possible but not very likely.
If the political elite in Russia want to plunder the country that's one thing but I highly dislike that they play chicken with Europe over sovereign nations to drum up nationalistic support.
Russian media has already been full of speculations that it was done by Chechens hired by Ukrainian Intelligence ordered from USA to destabilize Russia. Chechens, Ukrainians, Americans conspiring against Russians, only Jews are missing from the picture. On the second thought. In his letter to Nemtsov's mother Putin reffered to her by her maiden surname Eidman (Эйдман), while she has been Nemtsova for 63 years now for anyone besides Putin.
Although it's a conspiracy, how likely is it that Russian government paid/bribed some random people (or criminals) to claim responsibility for Nemtsov? Before you say bullshit, what if a criminal is sentenced to 10 years but is offered less years if he/she does that favour?
On March 07 2015 21:08 Cheerio wrote: Russian media has already been full of speculations that it was done by Chechens hired by Ukrainian Intelligence ordered from USA to destabilize Russia. Chechens, Ukrainians, Americans conspiring against Russians, only Jews are missing from the picture. On the second thought. In his letter to Nemtsov's mother Putin reffered to her by her maiden surname Eidman (Эйдман), while she has been Nemtsova for 63 years now for anyone besides Putin.
Shocker, Russian media blames everyone except Russia for something. American media is awful in its own ways, but at least its never afraid to call out the US or the West when they have (or may have and claiming they have will score political points) done something.
On March 07 2015 21:08 Cheerio wrote: Russian media has already been full of speculations that it was done by Chechens hired by Ukrainian Intelligence ordered from USA to destabilize Russia. Chechens, Ukrainians, Americans conspiring against Russians, only Jews are missing from the picture. On the second thought. In his letter to Nemtsov's mother Putin reffered to her by her maiden surname Eidman (Эйдман), while she has been Nemtsova for 63 years now for anyone besides Putin.
Shocker, Russian media blames everyone except Russia for something. American media is awful in its own ways, but at least its never afraid to call out the US or the West when they have (or may have and claiming they have will score political points) done something.
Do you know this for a fact (as in: do you read Russian news) or are you just saying this because you want it to be true?
On March 07 2015 21:08 Cheerio wrote: Russian media has already been full of speculations that it was done by Chechens hired by Ukrainian Intelligence ordered from USA to destabilize Russia. Chechens, Ukrainians, Americans conspiring against Russians, only Jews are missing from the picture. On the second thought. In his letter to Nemtsov's mother Putin reffered to her by her maiden surname Eidman (Эйдман), while she has been Nemtsova for 63 years now for anyone besides Putin.
Shocker, Russian media blames everyone except Russia for something. American media is awful in its own ways, but at least its never afraid to call out the US or the West when they have (or may have and claiming they have will score political points) done something.
Do you know this for a fact (as in: do you read Russian news) or are you just saying this because you want it to be true?
Well did you read what I just quoted when I said that?
As far as I can tell, the Kommersant reports that some policemen (or security service?) witnessed the murder and gave a description of the suspects. Anyone with better Russian want to expand on this?
Garry Kasparov is an interesting person to follow about this topic. He is the former world chess champion, turned russian political/democracy activist. He's been living abroad out of concern that this would have happened to him too :p
On March 07 2015 21:08 Cheerio wrote: Russian media has already been full of speculations that it was done by Chechens hired by Ukrainian Intelligence ordered from USA to destabilize Russia. Chechens, Ukrainians, Americans conspiring against Russians, only Jews are missing from the picture. On the second thought. In his letter to Nemtsov's mother Putin reffered to her by her maiden surname Eidman (Эйдман), while she has been Nemtsova for 63 years now for anyone besides Putin.
Shocker, Russian media blames everyone except Russia for something. American media is awful in its own ways, but at least its never afraid to call out the US or the West when they have (or may have and claiming they have will score political points) done something.
Do you know this for a fact (as in: do you read Russian news) or are you just saying this because you want it to be true?
Well did you read what I just quoted when I said that?
Yes. But do you have any actual support for your viewpoint? Do you read Russian news enough to make the kind of assertion you made?
On March 08 2015 04:19 Ghanburighan wrote: As far as I can tell, the Kommersant reports that some policemen (or security service?) witnessed the murder and gave a description of the suspects. Anyone with better Russian want to expand on this?
Two suspects are in FSB custody. The suspects were found by tracing the vehicles involved a few days back until they found a clear picture of the drivers. They identified said drivers and that is the suspects we currently have.
It hits close to some aspects which make me, personally, sad. But I would not take this simplified story too seriously. It's meant to elicit chuckles among teenagers, and it cuts corners. While there are clearly Vatniks in Russia (and in the surrounding countries, like Estonia), and there are also people with only a few Vatnik traits (such as wanting other countries to think of Russia as great, i.e., fear-worthy), there are phenomena that are not explained, such as the need for, and effect of the propaganda from the Kremlin.
Well... i would say that Vatniks totally do exist, i've actually met a kind of vatniks that have all properties of true vatnik yet despise Putin. And they are sincere about it, as incredible as that is.
On March 08 2015 04:19 Ghanburighan wrote: As far as I can tell, the Kommersant reports that some policemen (or security service?) witnessed the murder and gave a description of the suspects. Anyone with better Russian want to expand on this?
From the story it looks like the current suspects would be hard to fit into the conspiracy theories I mentioned. The Chechens from the theories were believed to be hating Russia, presumably they took part in wars in Chechnya on the rebels side, but were forced to leave the country when their forces were broken. Dadaev is a high-ranked police officer from Chechnya, and Gubashev lived in Moskow and worked in a security company. As far as I know random people don't get to be high-ranked police officers in Chechnya, this is a position of power and high loyalty towards Kadyrov should be expected.
On March 08 2015 04:19 Ghanburighan wrote: As far as I can tell, the Kommersant reports that some policemen (or security service?) witnessed the murder and gave a description of the suspects. Anyone with better Russian want to expand on this?
From the story it looks like the current suspects would be hard to fit into the conspiracy theories I mentioned. The Chechens from the theories were believed to be hating Russia, presumably they took part in wars in Chechnya on the rebels side, but were forced to leave the country when their forced were broken. Dadaev is a high-ranked police officer from Chechnya, and Gubashev lived in Moskow and worked in a security company. As far as I know random people don't get to be high-ranked police officers in Chechnya, this is a position of power and high loyalty towards Kadyrov should be expected.
I mean, some more digging leads to knowledge of one of suspect's commanders being uhem.... Kadyrov's personal murderer, involved/rumored to be involved in multiple of killings like Nemtsov's one.
the verdict is in on nemtsov: a politically bankrupt, authoritarian, and corrupt dr. frankenstein.
Boris Nemtsov: Death of a Russian Liberal - Mark Ames
...
Nemtsov was a very different kind of liberal or “ultra-liberal” than what we think of as liberals. In the best sense, that means he was never a mealy-mouthed coward. But as one of the leaders of the 1990s liberalization catastrophe, Nemtsov was much more the problem than the solution to that problem. And even when he was in power in the late Yeltsin Era, serving as the half-dead boozer’s first deputy prime minister and heir-apparent, Nemtsov represented the very worst and shallowest in liberal Russia’s “virtual politics,” a kind of precursor to the manufactured PR-as-politics that was perfected under Nemtsov’s choice for Russia’s president in 2000: Vladimir Putin.
...
Nemtsov joined the Kremlin as the anti-corruption “young reformer” who promised Russia a fair, clean, “western” capitalism. The first thing he did was push a law forcing government bureaucrats to ditch foreign cars for Russian Volgas — which just happened to be produced in Nemtsov’s Nizhny Novgorod region. Then he lobbied through anti-corruption decrees that, upon closer reading, featured “loopholes through which an entire fleet of Volgas could be driven.” The decrees were supposed to end one of the worst examples of Yeltsin era corruption: rigged tenders for state contracts. Nemtsov’s reform decreed that in future, government tenders had to be open, transparent and competitive — except in cases when a closed non-competitive tender was deemed “the best method.” In other words, not only was nothing changed, but rigging tenders now were given legal gloss, thanks to Nemtsov.
A few months later, Nemtsov pushed for a new law forcing bureaucrats to disclose their incomes (but not their assets or their families’ assets) — but then was caught on tape arranging a bribe in the form of an obscene book advance, $90,000, with a Yeltsin family bagman/entrepreneur named Sergei Lisovsky.
...
The problem with Nemtsov’s politics wasn’t so much his adherence to radical neoliberalism, but his shallowness, his grotesque elitism, and his authoritarianism. Nemtsov is one of the top-down Russian liberals, cut from the same authoritarian cloth as Chubais, though not as wily as “Bonecracker” (so nick-named because in 1996, when Chubais summoned a meeting of top Russian newspaper editors to the Kremlin, he told the uppity editor of the then-independent Izvestiya newspaper, “You will write what we tell you to write or bones will crack”; a few months later, after Izvestiya broke the story on Chubais taking a $3 million interest-free loan from a banker who rigged an auction, that editor was out on the streets, and today Izvestiya is a wholly owned propaganda organ of the FSB.)
After the financial collapse, it looked like the entire rotten Yeltsin-era liberal elite was heading for exile or jail, until their savior on the white horse — Vladimir Putin — rode in from Lubyanka to save Russia’s liberals. The Nemtsov of our fantasies would say that it was somehow out of character for him to support an authoritarian spook like Putin in 2000, well after Putin launched the second bloody war in Chechnya.
In fact, the liberals thought Putin was their Pinochet savior, and that they would essentially control him, that Putin was one of them. Which he largely was, and in many ways still is — cut from similar liberal authoritarian cloth.
Here are some choice quotes from Nemtsov’s op-ed, co-authored with Ian Bremmer, in the New York Times published in early 2000, after Putin was named Yeltsin’s successor:
" Some critics have questioned Mr. Putin’s commitment to democracy. True, he is no liberal democrat, domestically or internationally. Under his leadership Russia will not become France. The government will, however, reflect the Russian people’s desire for a strong state, a functioning economy, and an end to tolerance for robber barons — in short, a ”ruble stops here” attitude. Russia could do considerably worse than have a leader with an unwavering commitment to the national interest…
And it is difficult to see how to do better.
… Mr. Putin’s vocal support for a free-market economy boosted the prospects of reform candidates in the parliamentary elections last month and provided a firm footing for meaningful economic reform to be passed this year.
The reformers are back… "
Deep down Nemtsov had no problem with Putin’s authoritarianism. His problem with Putin came after being ignored for too long.
Russia's Best Bet By Boris Nemtsov and Ian Bremmer
Vladimir Putin has seamlessly replaced Boris Yeltsin as leader of Russia, moving quickly to take advantage of his high approval ratings and his party's bolstered support in parliament. This is quite an accomplishment for a government that lacked a popular mandate only a month ago.
Yet many in the United States have expressed doubts about Russia's new acting president.
For one, it has been widely noted that Mr. Putin, a former K.G.B. officer, was a virtual unknown until Mr. Yeltsin made him his prime minister in August and that his Unity Party did not even exist then. The truth is, being an unknown is not only a distinct political advantage in Russia, it was a necessity for Mr. Putin, who had to amass credible popular support in a political culture tarred by cynicism and disillusionment. He neither made nor carried out government policies in the last few years, so he wasn't responsible for any of the mistakes.
Some critics have questioned Mr. Putin's commitment to democracy. True, he is no liberal democrat, domestically or internationally. Under his leadership Russia will not become France. The government will, however, reflect the Russian people's desire for a strong state, a functioning economy, and an end to tolerance for robber barons -- in short, a ''ruble stops here'' attitude. Russia could do considerably worse than have a leader with an unwavering commitment to the national interest.
And it is difficult to see how to do better.
Russia's neighbors grasp the importance of this point. The other former Soviet republics lauded Mr. Putin's appointment, mostly because of the pragmatism he demonstrated when serving as secretary of Russia's security council. His reaction to the formation of the ''counter-Russia'' alliance of Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldova was to state that Russia should craft a regional policy palatable to its neighbors.
In addition, Mr. Putin's vocal support for a free-market economy boosted the prospects of reform candidates in the parliamentary elections last month and provided a firm footing for meaningful economic reform to be passed this year.
The reformers are back. Given that the Communists' support comes overwhelmingly from those over the age of 50, the party's clout will diminish with each passing year. December's elections were undoubtedly the last in which the Communists will receive a plurality.
At the same time, a new middle class led by small- and medium-sized business owners is beginning to assert itself. And Russia is finally developing a political system that can begin to shape the direction of change instead of simply damming its tide.
A framework for real market democracy -- property rights especially -- can now be put in place, making entrepreneurialism less expensive and therefore less beholden to the oligarchs who held far too much sway under Mr. Yeltsin.
This maturation should gradually continue, eventually leading to stable parties with consistent platforms, a system of checks and balances and a real separation of powers.
Details of the report on Ukraine that Nemtsov was working on are starting to emerge. The crucial point is cooperation with 'soldiers' mothers'
After Nemtsov was killed, Ilya Yashin, a colleague of Nemtsov’s, said he would be publishing the report on Russian troops that his murdered colleague had prepared, and yesterday, the Reuters news agency, citing Olga Shorina, another Nemtsov co-worker, published several portions of that study concerning the participation of Russian troops in the fighting in Ukraine. Both Shorina and Yashin confirmed that Nemtsov was preparing to include in his report details of his conversations with the mothers and other family members of Russian soldiers who had fought and in some cases died while fighting in Ukraine and thus demonstrate that Putin is lying when he says there are no Russian troops there. Samoylova suggests that it is highly unlikely that the publication of yet another piece of evidence that Moscow has sent troops into Ukraine would unnerve the Kremlin given how many news outlets in the Russian Federation have already reported that fact. “However,” she adds, “in this situation, there is one ‘but.’ And that is this: “Nemtsov was not simply collecting information and preparing an information bomb,” the commentator says. “He was trying to work directly with mothers and with the soldiers themselves and thus creating a completely real threat of the socialization of the problem,” a far more serious development from Putin’s point of view. “In other words,” Samoylova argues, the accusation could acquire a face, that of the soldiers’ mothers, and that face “could elicit sympathy in society and a sense of injustice” because it would become obvious to all that the Putin regime was not prepared to show honor and respect to those who had died in its behalf.
On March 08 2015 16:48 Ghanburighan wrote: Thank you for posting Kremlin propaganda. It's useful to see an illustration.
It's not Kremlin propaganda tho : a ministry for Elstine, with close ties to corrupted big business boss. Not really the hero all the western free marketist media wants him to be.
Didn't think nunez would fall so low. Kind of showing what kind of people we are dealing with here. Even russian media cancelled anti-Nemtsov propaganda after his death.
On March 08 2015 22:36 Cheerio wrote: Didn't think nunez would fall so low. Kind of showing what kind of people we are dealing with here. Even russian media cancelled anti-Nemtsov propaganda after his death.
Posting an article the deceased had written is a really despicable act. Really brought the quality of the thread down from the amazing heights achieved with borderline schizophrenic 'the government wants to kill us' conspiracy theories and russophobic rants.
Logic and rational thought are the final stage of commie whataboutism after all.
Seems a bit unnecessary to revive Nemtsov's "corruption" history, when it doesn't seem to have any connection to his death. Unless of course the goal is ad hominem.
The sad truth is, while Nemtsov is very certainly guilty of foul play, so is just about everyone else who has been around for more than 20 years (the 1990s were a time of much plundering, and there's more than enough dirt there to force those involved to serve many years in prison). That's why I said that he could be put in prison for crimes that he did commit - because those that had the power to do so, did steal.
The reason that they aren't all in prison? Simply put, the deal is, they keep out of politics, pay their taxes, and work for the good of Russia, and they get to keep what they stole. The problem is that if you get rid of all of these people, there won't be anyone left who is capable of running the country's businesses. So what we're left with is a Russia that strongly resembles the world during the early years of the Industrial Revolution.
On March 08 2015 18:03 Ghanburighan wrote: Details of the report on Ukraine that Nemtsov was working on are starting to emerge. The crucial point is cooperation with 'soldiers' mothers'
After Nemtsov was killed, Ilya Yashin, a colleague of Nemtsov’s, said he would be publishing the report on Russian troops that his murdered colleague had prepared, and yesterday, the Reuters news agency, citing Olga Shorina, another Nemtsov co-worker, published several portions of that study concerning the participation of Russian troops in the fighting in Ukraine. Both Shorina and Yashin confirmed that Nemtsov was preparing to include in his report details of his conversations with the mothers and other family members of Russian soldiers who had fought and in some cases died while fighting in Ukraine and thus demonstrate that Putin is lying when he says there are no Russian troops there. Samoylova suggests that it is highly unlikely that the publication of yet another piece of evidence that Moscow has sent troops into Ukraine would unnerve the Kremlin given how many news outlets in the Russian Federation have already reported that fact. “However,” she adds, “in this situation, there is one ‘but.’ And that is this: “Nemtsov was not simply collecting information and preparing an information bomb,” the commentator says. “He was trying to work directly with mothers and with the soldiers themselves and thus creating a completely real threat of the socialization of the problem,” a far more serious development from Putin’s point of view. “In other words,” Samoylova argues, the accusation could acquire a face, that of the soldiers’ mothers, and that face “could elicit sympathy in society and a sense of injustice” because it would become obvious to all that the Putin regime was not prepared to show honor and respect to those who had died in its behalf.
I don't buy it. The common sentiment is that Russia's military is for the defense of the country from foreign security threats, not to take more land from others. This would change nothing. I think he was killed for something that had very little to do with Ukraine.
On March 09 2015 00:27 zlefin wrote: An interesting question, if all the Russians who committed crimes were jailed appropriately, how much of the politicians/leadership would remain?
Little enough that there would be no one left to stop another plundering of the country's assets.
On March 09 2015 00:35 zlefin wrote: Sounds like you need to import some non-corrupt people. Any allies with a good record you could import talent from?
Uhm.... I am afraid there are no countries that have available non-corrupt people to export.
On March 09 2015 00:35 zlefin wrote: Sounds like you need to import some non-corrupt people. Any allies with a good record you could import talent from?
Uhm.... I am afraid there are no countries that have available non-corrupt people to export.
Pretty much. Those with power in any country would do, and to the extent that they could have done, what those in Russia did if the opportunity presented itself. The question now is how to deal with such a situation to best benefit the country after the fact.
A large-scale changing hands of money/resources is always a corrupt affair. The history of every country in the world is a testament to that fact.
Ok, now I understand LegalLord. I broadly agree, military involvement in Ukraine is clearly something Putin is comfortable with, especially as he personally unveiled the fact that Crimea was taken with Russian troops. But that's not what the article said, it suggested that the problem was with the organisation of Soldiers' Mothers in Russia, which the Kremlin might think can gather enough anti-war sentiment. That's why one of their leaders was remarkably accused of treason (See the article). This is surprising for two reasons, being accused of treason is rare for even people like Nemtsov, Navalny, Khodorkovsky and others. Secondly, no-one knew the name `Davydova' before the treason charges. This was clearly a local and Russian politics centered act.
On March 09 2015 00:07 LegalLord wrote: I don't buy it. The common sentiment is that Russia's military is for the defense of the country from foreign security threats, not to take more land from others.
Funny thing to say literally one year after Russia annexed Crimea.
On March 09 2015 01:36 Ghanburighan wrote: Ok, now I understand LegalLord. I broadly agree, military involvement in Ukraine is clearly something Putin is comfortable with, especially as he personally unveiled the fact that Crimea was taken with Russian troops. But that's not what the article said, it suggested that the problem was with the organisation of Soldiers' Mothers in Russia, which the Kremlin might think can gather enough anti-war sentiment. That's why one of their leaders was remarkably accused of treason (See the article). This is surprising for two reasons, being accused of treason is rare for even people like Nemtsov, Navalny, Khodorkovsky and others. Secondly, no-one knew the name `Davydova' before the treason charges. This was clearly a local and Russian politics centered act.
The organization was founded in 1989. Before 1998, it was known as the Committee of Soldiers' Mothers of Russia. It is a member of the human rights organization Human Rights House.[1] Among the activities the organization is involved in is educating Russian civil society on the rule of law in relation to service in the military, as well as informing society about what the armed forces should look like in a democratic society.
Wait, so its an NGO? B-b-but why would a NGO make up lies?
Kostroma Regional Public Organization "Soldiers' Mothers Committee" - $26,201 Pskov Regional Public Organization "Council of Soldiers' Mothers" - $25,395 St. Petersburg Regional Public Human Rights Organization "Soldiers' Mothers of St. Petersburg" - $84,966
It's like receiving money directly from state department and making up lies about Russia is somehow connected.
He is not actually a police officer, though he is employed under "MVD" (Ministry of Internal Affairs), but rather a member of the "North" battalion created by Kadyrov, which is often reffered by as "Kadyrovcy" (Kadyrov's people).
On March 09 2015 01:36 Ghanburighan wrote: Ok, now I understand LegalLord. I broadly agree, military involvement in Ukraine is clearly something Putin is comfortable with, especially as he personally unveiled the fact that Crimea was taken with Russian troops. But that's not what the article said, it suggested that the problem was with the organisation of Soldiers' Mothers in Russia, which the Kremlin might think can gather enough anti-war sentiment. That's why one of their leaders was remarkably accused of treason (See the article). This is surprising for two reasons, being accused of treason is rare for even people like Nemtsov, Navalny, Khodorkovsky and others. Secondly, no-one knew the name `Davydova' before the treason charges. This was clearly a local and Russian politics centered act.
The organization was founded in 1989. Before 1998, it was known as the Committee of Soldiers' Mothers of Russia. It is a member of the human rights organization Human Rights House.[1] Among the activities the organization is involved in is educating Russian civil society on the rule of law in relation to service in the military, as well as informing society about what the armed forces should look like in a democratic society.
Wait, so its an NGO? B-b-but why would a NGO make up lies?
Kostroma Regional Public Organization "Soldiers' Mothers Committee" - $26,201 Pskov Regional Public Organization "Council of Soldiers' Mothers" - $25,395 St. Petersburg Regional Public Human Rights Organization "Soldiers' Mothers of St. Petersburg" - $84,966
It's like receiving money directly from state department and making up lies about Russia is somehow connected.
Woa! I found 22 other "NGO's/Pawns of Western Imperialism!" How can Russia just allow these foriegn agent provocateurs to remain unchecked! Especially the gay rights groups! I wonder how many other of the 277,000 NGOs in Russia are Imperialists as well! /sarcasm
I guess I am far less intelligent than I thought, because I am not seeing the conspiracy here. Where is the hard hitting investigative documents you found linking all this, all I could see was 2 links to websites stating an organization received X amount of money.
On March 08 2015 22:36 Cheerio wrote: Didn't think nunez would fall so low. Kind of showing what kind of people we are dealing with here. Even russian media cancelled anti-Nemtsov propaganda after his death.
Posting an article the deceased had written is a really despicable act. Really brought the quality of the thread down from the amazing heights achieved with borderline schizophrenic 'the government wants to kill us' conspiracy theories and russophobic rants.
Logic and rational thought are the final stage of commie whataboutism after all.
It's not that so much as:
On March 08 2015 17:26 Ghanburighan wrote: It would be nice to state that this article was written in 2000. How the times have changed...
It makes little sense to say "here's a little glimpse into what actually was:" and then quote an article that Nemtsov wrote 15 years ago as though nothing had changed in the intervening years. Nemtsov might be a little forgiven for thinking highly of Putin the early years. I just finished teaching a History 12 class and noted the publishing year of the text book as it waxed eloquently on the upward trajectory with Putin coming in. Democratization and freedom of the press is on the rise. Publishing year: early 2000's before Putin started swapping in and out of Presidential and Prime-Minister positions to stay in power.
An early assessment of one's career can often be wrong- Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize before he started his drone warfare. Various political leaders have received Time's Person of the Year, which in retrospect seems like a cruel joke in very poor taste. If someone remains in power, one is allowed to evaluate their entire body of work. And one is allowed to reassess those new actions. To present an old assessment as "a glimpse of what actually was" without any commentary as to Putin's policies since then and Nemtsov's ongoing assessment of said policies seems of limited value at best if not downright misleading.
On March 08 2015 23:40 DonKey_ wrote: Seems a bit unnecessary to revive Nemtsov's "corruption" history, when it doesn't seem to have any connection to his death. Unless of course the goal is ad hominem.
Have you met Nunez before? That completely was the goal. Hes one of those guys who assume that America is so evil that anyone opposed to them must be the good guy.
It looks like the authorities are taking the Charlie Hebdo/Chechnya story as the primary one, with a purported confession to back it up. This is not yet official, though. Interpreter Magazine is doubtful of the story, but has listed everything Nemtsov said on Charlie Hebdo in a long article. Here's an excerpt.
RosBalt reported late March 8 that a source close to the investigation in the murder of opposition leader Boris Nemtsov says Zaur Dadayev, former deputy commander of the Sever Battalion in the Interior Ministry forces of Chechnya, has "admitted that he killed Nemtsov due to his negative statements about Muslims."
He claimed Nemtsov had "repeatedly" made negative statements about Musims and religion. ...
The claim seems contrived, as the issue of Islam was not one that was central for Nemtsov, who was focused on Russian government corruption, such as in the Sochi Olympics, the economic crisis, the oil and gas industry, and the war in Ukraine. At best it seems tenuously linked to a number of blog posts made by Nemtsov in January on his Facebook page after the murder of 12 Charlie Hebdo journalists in Paris by Islamist terrorists, and then a post on Ekho Moskvy.
Most of the posts concerned not Islam, but the right of a lone picketer to demonstration with a "Je Suis Charlie" sign near the Kremlin.
Did the Chechen murder suspect Dadayev read Facebook or Ekho Moskvy? Did he make a special effort to follow what Nemtsov said nearly two months before his murder, even though there were others far more visible and controversial on this topic?
He or other suspects might have more readily noticed Nemtsov's post on Ekho Moskvy, but it was overshadowed by the more publicized action of Ekho's publication of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons that could be deemed offensive to Christians and Jews as well as Muslims. (The page shows 529 comments and only 66 views, possibly because it was reset. The Russian censor did not take any action against Ekho over the page of cartoons or Nemtsov's post, both of which remain in view.)
I wouldn't take a confession too seriously - obviously they can lie to hide their tracks. Though if that's the case, it's interesting that they even would lie; if they were hired killers, I see no reason why they would cover their employers after getting caught.
On March 09 2015 23:45 LegalLord wrote: I wouldn't take a confession too seriously - obviously they can lie to hide their tracks. Though if that's the case, it's interesting that they even would lie; if they were hired killers, I see no reason why they would cover their employers after getting caught.
Without having any evidence for this kind of speculation, my thoughts head towards the man called Kadyrov who has a record of threatening not only people themselves but also their families (LINK). I might consider confessing to murder (knowing I'd be taken care of as best they can in prison) if I knew my family won't get burned to death thanks to it.
On March 09 2015 23:45 LegalLord wrote: I wouldn't take a confession too seriously - obviously they can lie to hide their tracks. Though if that's the case, it's interesting that they even would lie; if they were hired killers, I see no reason why they would cover their employers after getting caught.
Dutch nationals were killed at the hands of pro-Russian rebels, their guilt confirmed by several external investigations and yet the downing of MH17 has been all but forgotten as the Russian government continues to act with impunity in Ukraine. To think the assassination of a Russian civilian, investigated internally by Russian officials, could possibly bring forth justice is nothing short of a fantasy.
On March 09 2015 23:45 LegalLord wrote: I wouldn't take a confession too seriously - obviously they can lie to hide their tracks. Though if that's the case, it's interesting that they even would lie; if they were hired killers, I see no reason why they would cover their employers after getting caught.
Well if your employers catch you, you might.
If the FSB is clever enough (and they are), no one has to know. More likely than not, this story was released with the knowledge that it is almost certainly a false reason.
On March 09 2015 23:45 LegalLord wrote: I wouldn't take a confession too seriously - obviously they can lie to hide their tracks. Though if that's the case, it's interesting that they even would lie; if they were hired killers, I see no reason why they would cover their employers after getting caught.
Without having any evidence for this kind of speculation, my thoughts head towards the man called Kadyrov who has a record of threatening not only people themselves but also their families (LINK). I might consider confessing to murder (knowing I'd be taken care of as best they can in prison) if I knew my family won't get burned to death thanks to it.
I think "warlord" would be a good word to describe Kadyrov. Not exactly an upstanding figure, but he is kept around because he keeps the peace in Chechnya. High-profile murder would end him pretty quickly and he knows that. The motivation just isn't there.
On March 10 2015 01:14 always_winter wrote: Dutch nationals were killed at the hands of pro-Russian rebels, their guilt confirmed by several external investigations and yet the downing of MH17 has been all but forgotten as the Russian government continues to act with impunity in Ukraine. To think the assassination of a Russian civilian, investigated internally by Russian officials, could possibly bring forth justice is nothing short of a fantasy.
No, you've got it all wrong. The truth is that 30,000 martians came to Earth and landed in Donetsk, disguised as Russians disguised as pro-Russian rebels, and they are the ones leading the rebellion. This has been confirmed by several external investigations (the proof of which I will not provide) but has been entirely forgotten by the mainstream media.
Were this the MH17 thread, I would go into more detail. Since that topic is more of an aside, I suggest you take the following advice from your own sources:
Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said it was still too early to assign blame: "We need to be careful not to draw conclusions too quickly," he told journalists. "Step-by-step, the experts are working to reach irrefutable conclusions."
On March 10 2015 02:45 silynxer wrote: Uhm LegalLord there are plenty of sources for Russian involvement it's just that you choose to not believe them or see them as propaganda (for example the Bellingcat reports or even the Vice stuff). Furthermore, it's just a bit silly to believe that a ragtag group of rebels would hold themselves against the Ukrainian army and would be able to use artillery and heavy weaponry for a prolonged time. Then there is the timeline where the rebels were pushed back quite fast by the Ukrainian army and then suddenly and magically were able to go on the offensive.
But it's probably pointless to argue this with you and that's actually alright by me. What I am interested in, however, is what would your perspective be if Russia was sending troups and weapons?!
That is a significant derail. While I do have answers for all of these points, the Ukraine crisis has little to nothing to do with Boris Nemtsov's death and so this is not the place for that discussion. I'd rather not see yet another thread closed because it became a Ukraine Crisis flame war.
Uhm LegalLord there are plenty of sources for Russian involvement it's just that you choose to not believe them or see them as propaganda (for example the Bellingcat reports or even the Vice stuff). Furthermore, it's just a bit silly to believe that a ragtag group of rebels would hold themselves against the Ukrainian army and would be able to use artillery and heavy weaponry for a prolonged time. Then there is the timeline where the rebels were pushed back quite fast by the Ukrainian army and then suddenly and magically were able to go on the offensive.
But it's probably pointless to argue this with you and that's actually alright by me. What I am interested in, however, is what would your perspective be if Russia was sending troups and weapons?!
[EDIT]: To your answer above: Like I said what I want to know is what you would think if it turns out that Russia is sending regular troups to fight in Ukraine. This is relevant to Boris Nemtsovs death. You said:
I don't buy it. The common sentiment is that Russia's military is for the defense of the country from foreign security threats, not to take more land from others. This would change nothing. I think he was killed for something that had very little to do with Ukraine.
Now if Russian troups are fighting in Ukraine and Boris Nemtsov was working on exposing that within Russia that would be highly relevant exactly because many Russians don't believe this at the moment (you can see how challenging that belief might be a problem in that situation).
It's always going to be hard to discuss something when one person has a different version of reality. Afterall, legal lord still believe that those crimean "self defense militias" weren't russian soldiers despite Putin himself going right out and admitting it, that it wasn't the russian seperatists in ukraine that shot down MH17, that russia hasn't both been sending armaments and troops to Ukraine to prop up pro russian rebels areas. Whatever happened to the 10 Russian paratroopers captured in Ukraine? Why are there secret funerals of soldiers killed in Ukraine? How can this be denied? There's no basis for having a conversation with legal lord as either he is so far out from reality that no discussion can be had.
I think Legallord is quite sensible about this. No-one has perfect information, that's why we exchange it here, and he has demonstrated a perfectly reasonable approach to synthesizing new information, and has brought plenty of useful information to the table himself. Remember, you don't have to agree on every single conclusion, as long as there's a fruitful discussion going on.
Also, we should not be talking about MH17, even if there has been some snippets revealed in the last months. It's really beside the point here.
I doubt continuing to deny that Russian troops have invaded Crimea, when Vladimir Putin has acknowledged doing so, as a demonstration of a reasonable approach to synthesizing new information.
I don't recall saying that. I believe what I said was that this really isn't the right place to talk about it since: 1. It's a derail. 2. That topic isn't productive and tends to lead to Russia bashing and not discussion.
I think this is one of the simplest yet most poisonous posts in the entire thread. One of the major tenets of Western democracy is supposed to be due process, and more specifically the idea of "innocent until proven guilty." There are at least three major assertions in this short post:
1. There was an invasion of Ukraine. There were certainly volunteers, most of them from Russia, but even many European leaders say that there is no proof of an invasion. This is speculation paraded as fact by biased parties.
But yeah, total derail. Lets not discuss this because it's "russia bashing". I hope you can keep true to your own wish to not talk about it.
If you'd like to create a memorial page for Boris Nemtsov, then by all means please do so and I'd be happy to read it. By all accounts I believe this is a discussion into the rapidly-deteriorating political atmosphere in Eastern Europe, of which the Nemtsov assassination is but the next iteration in a series of irrational moves conducted by Vladimir Putin. The invasion of Ukraine was of course the antecedent and to suggest the two are unrelated, that the mere drawing of parallels between the two could derail this thread, is certainly not based in reality.
Furthermore it is unrealistic to assume you cannot evaluate a dictator or his regime without simultaneously denigrating an entire people. Putin deserves a good bashing.
Looks like the official investigators are going to want to wrap this up quick and neat: according to Rosbalt they are saying that it was the personal initiative of Dadayev (Kadyrov's man who is alleged to have confessed) and Shavanova (who allegedly blew himself up on arrest). Investigators explicitly mention that they don't think the hit was ordered by anyone else.
On March 10 2015 17:08 Ghanburighan wrote: Looks like the official investigators are going to want to wrap this up quick and neat: according to Rosbalt they are saying that it was the personal initiative of Dadayev (Kadyrov's man who is alleged to have confessed) and Shavanova (who allegedly blew himself up on arrest). Investigators explicitly mention that they don't think the hit was ordered by anyone else.
I think it's safe to say that this is code for "we are not telling the media anything else and the rest of this investigation will be conducted privately." The FSB/KGB is/was much less talkative than Western intelligence organizations.
Chechnya's leader Kadyrov posts on his Instagram account that Dadayev was a "great warrior and true patriot" and receives a government award on the same day alongside with Lugovoy (one of the suspects on Litvinenko's polonium poisoning).
The message seems crystal clear.
Also, take "blew himself up on arrest" with a grain of salt. There's plenty of ways to arrest someone without him blowing himself up.
The rollercoaster continues, Dadayev says he confessed to get his friend Yusupov out of trouble. Once again, someone with better Russian might be able to unravel the sequence of events. Especially concerning beatings in the infamous Lefortovo prison.
Actually, just read the Interpreter Magazine version:
Zaur Dadayev, chief suspect in the murder of opposition leader Boris Nemtsov has essentially disavowed his previous confession to the murder of Nemtsov after a visit from the Public Monitoring Commission, Moskovsky Komsomolets (MK) reports.
...
Zaur: I was kept two days like this (shows how he was chained--author) and with a bag on my head. I kept it. It's in my personal belongings, it's yellow, it was made of fabric (the prison employees did not find the bag in order to show us--Author). The kept shouting, "Did you kill Nemtsov?" I answered that I had not. At the moment I was detained, I was with an acquaintance, with my former subordinate Ruslan Yusupov. And he said that if I confess, they will let him go. I agreed. I thought I will save him, and they will bring me to Moscow alive. Otherwise, what would happen to me would be what happened to Shavanov. He supposedly blew himself up with a grenade.
Commission: How do you know?
Zaur: There is a radio here. I listen to it. They say terrible things about us from morning til night. So I thought they will bring me to Moscow, and here I will say the truth in court. That I am not guilty. But the judge didn't let me speak.
Commission: You have to write a petition to the court. Study the Code of Criminal Procedures (UPK).
Zaur: For 11 years, I have fought criminals, I have defended the interests of Russia, and I am not allowed to speak because I didn't manage to study some UPK? Where's the justice? Why don't they put behind bars the people who are against Russia, why don't they suspect them, and not me? What should I do with the medals I received? I don't fear anything now. I have been treated humanely in Lefortovo, respectfully. I am grateful to them for that. For now I feel safe. But who will prove my non-involvement? By the way, Ali Matiyev was also with me. He can vouch for this. Where is he?
Commission: We don't know anything about the investigation, that's not within our competency. Ask your lawyers. To be sure, you rejected the one your parents chose for you.
Zaur: Who refused? I'm hearing about this for the first time. I asked my relatives to find me lawyers, but so far there's been silence. On February 28, an order was given to dismiss me, and within a week, I turned from a hero into a dangerous criminal.
This account differs from the statement of an official who said Dadayev submitted his resignation on January 27 and took leave for 30 days, at the end of which his resignation would go into effect.
The infamous St. Petersburg troll-farm has been breached by the Novaya Gazeta (anyone else think this newspaper will disappear in a few weeks under mysterious circumstances? They've been breaking so many Nemtsov related stories lately). One part is a list of troll accounts, the second is an enumerated list of orders:
1) Make it clear that the murder of Nemtsov wasn't useful for the authorities, it was clearly a provocation.
2) Form a negative opinion of the opposition.
3) Allege that Ukrainian officials might be connected to Nemtsov's murder.
4) Accuse the West of interfering in Russian internal affairs.
On March 10 2015 06:55 zatic wrote: This is not a Crimea, Ukraine, or MH17 thread. Please stay on topic.
as if these topics are not related at all...in fact they are overlapping quite a bit and you prolly need to discuss them all to even understand them individually. just saying.
On March 11 2015 22:19 Ghanburighan wrote: The infamous St. Petersburg troll-farm has been breached by the Novaya Gazeta (anyone else think this newspaper will disappear in a few weeks under mysterious circumstances? They've been breaking so many Nemtsov related stories lately). One part is a list of troll accounts, the second is an enumerated list of orders:
1) Make it clear that the murder of Nemtsov wasn't useful for the authorities, it was clearly a provocation.
2) Form a negative opinion of the opposition.
3) Allege that Ukrainian officials might be connected to Nemtsov's murder.
4) Accuse the West of interfering in Russian internal affairs.
In the mean time, in Russia, everyone is afraid Putin has died and the country will soon be thrown into chaos. Reason: he hasn't appeared in eight days. Kremlin has responded to the rumors, but still no Putin.
Possible that Putin tries to lure out his opponents, talk about different factions in the Putin camp being polarized, talk about FSB and Kadyrov or a possible coup?
On March 14 2015 08:05 Alcathous wrote: In the mean time, in Russia, everyone is afraid Putin has died and the country will soon be thrown into chaos. Reason: he hasn't appeared in eight days. Kremlin has responded to the rumors, but still no Putin.
Possible that Putin tries to lure out his opponents, talk about different factions in the Putin camp being polarized, talk about FSB and Kadyrov or a possible coup?
Wet dreams of fascists from west, Putin can never die, Putin isn't just a man, he is an idea. There is like thousands of Putin's in Russia, ready to stand up against globalistic capitalists who would rather create world of chaos then lose their profits.
On March 14 2015 08:05 Alcathous wrote: In the mean time, in Russia, everyone is afraid Putin has died and the country will soon be thrown into chaos. Reason: he hasn't appeared in eight days. Kremlin has responded to the rumors, but still no Putin.
Possible that Putin tries to lure out his opponents, talk about different factions in the Putin camp being polarized, talk about FSB and Kadyrov or a possible coup?
Wet dreams of fascists from west, Putin can never die, Putin isn't just a man, he is an idea. There is like thousands of Putin's in Russia, ready to stand up against globalistic capitalists who would rather create world of chaos then lose their profits.
People sure love to project themselves to authority figures in conquest, oppression and mass murder.
On March 14 2015 08:05 Alcathous wrote: In the mean time, in Russia, everyone is afraid Putin has died and the country will soon be thrown into chaos. Reason: he hasn't appeared in eight days. Kremlin has responded to the rumors, but still no Putin.
Possible that Putin tries to lure out his opponents, talk about different factions in the Putin camp being polarized, talk about FSB and Kadyrov or a possible coup?
Wet dreams of fascists from west, Putin can never die, Putin isn't just a man, he is an idea. There is like thousands of Putin's in Russia, ready to stand up against globalistic capitalists who would rather create world of chaos then lose their profits.
People sure love to project themselves to authority figures in conquest, oppression and mass murder.
First look in your own yard, what NATO did to many other countries.
On March 14 2015 08:05 Alcathous wrote: In the mean time, in Russia, everyone is afraid Putin has died and the country will soon be thrown into chaos. Reason: he hasn't appeared in eight days. Kremlin has responded to the rumors, but still no Putin.
Possible that Putin tries to lure out his opponents, talk about different factions in the Putin camp being polarized, talk about FSB and Kadyrov or a possible coup?
Wet dreams of fascists from west, Putin can never die, Putin isn't just a man, he is an idea. There is like thousands of Putin's in Russia, ready to stand up against globalistic capitalists who would rather create world of chaos then lose their profits.
Where have you been all my life? Tell me more about this idea of a man.
Wet dreams of fascists from west, Putin can never die, Putin isn't just a man, he is an idea. There is like thousands of Putin's in Russia, ready to stand up against globalistic capitalists who would rather create world of chaos then lose their profits.
More like, ready to kill their Russian brother for a dime the moment authority is gone. Better not miss out on becoming an oligarch.
On March 14 2015 08:05 Alcathous wrote: In the mean time, in Russia, everyone is afraid Putin has died and the country will soon be thrown into chaos. Reason: he hasn't appeared in eight days. Kremlin has responded to the rumors, but still no Putin.
Possible that Putin tries to lure out his opponents, talk about different factions in the Putin camp being polarized, talk about FSB and Kadyrov or a possible coup?
Wet dreams of fascists from west, Putin can never die, Putin isn't just a man, he is an idea. There is like thousands of Putin's in Russia, ready to stand up against globalistic capitalists who would rather create world of chaos then lose their profits.
People sure love to project themselves to authority figures in conquest, oppression and mass murder.
First look in your own yard, what NATO did to many other countries.
Yeah they stopped serbia from committing genocide, the horror.
On March 14 2015 08:05 Alcathous wrote: In the mean time, in Russia, everyone is afraid Putin has died and the country will soon be thrown into chaos. Reason: he hasn't appeared in eight days. Kremlin has responded to the rumors, but still no Putin.
Possible that Putin tries to lure out his opponents, talk about different factions in the Putin camp being polarized, talk about FSB and Kadyrov or a possible coup?
Wet dreams of fascists from west, Putin can never die, Putin isn't just a man, he is an idea. There is like thousands of Putin's in Russia, ready to stand up against globalistic capitalists who would rather create world of chaos then lose their profits.
People sure love to project themselves to authority figures in conquest, oppression and mass murder.
First look in your own yard, what NATO did to many other countries.
Yeah they stopped serbia from committing genocide, the horror.
I never expected that average Joe can understand geopolithics. Only genocide here was throwing thousands of tons of deepleted uranium and plutonium. I really dont wanna offtopic more then this but its clear people on this thread cannot accept that there is other opinion other then theirs.its perfectly fine when USA invade numbers of sovereign countries, take their resources, seceed their territory, but its outrageous when legal president of Ukraine take Russian side, I guess NATO couldnt expand its rockets as near to Russia as they wanted so its logical that Putin is authocrat. I guess you all prayed for USA to intervene when Turkey is bombing Kurds villages every day for years or that you are against S.Arabian dictature. Oh wait, no, its ok as long as Turkey can play its role and Arabia is delivering oil so u all can drive as much as u want for 1$.
On March 14 2015 08:05 Alcathous wrote: In the mean time, in Russia, everyone is afraid Putin has died and the country will soon be thrown into chaos. Reason: he hasn't appeared in eight days. Kremlin has responded to the rumors, but still no Putin.
Possible that Putin tries to lure out his opponents, talk about different factions in the Putin camp being polarized, talk about FSB and Kadyrov or a possible coup?
Wet dreams of fascists from west, Putin can never die, Putin isn't just a man, he is an idea. There is like thousands of Putin's in Russia, ready to stand up against globalistic capitalists who would rather create world of chaos then lose their profits.
People sure love to project themselves to authority figures in conquest, oppression and mass murder.
First look in your own yard, what NATO did to many other countries.
Yeah they stopped serbia from committing genocide, the horror.
;D if it said u were from UK so i could subconsciously read it in british accent, that line would be pure gold :D
now, can we please stop derailing the thread further, guy is strawman-ing so hard its not even funny...
also, Alcathous, nato helped. maybe not on time, and the issue is complex, but they helped.
On March 14 2015 08:33 LegalLord wrote: An alternative interpretation is that yellow press news sources blew a fairly common event out of proportion.
I mean, disappearance of Putin for eight days is actually fairly rare event, if that ever happened in 15 years of his reign, especially right in the middle of the season. Not to mention that all press releases from Kremlin looked at best unconvincing so far.
On March 14 2015 08:05 Alcathous wrote: In the mean time, in Russia, everyone is afraid Putin has died and the country will soon be thrown into chaos. Reason: he hasn't appeared in eight days. Kremlin has responded to the rumors, but still no Putin.
Possible that Putin tries to lure out his opponents, talk about different factions in the Putin camp being polarized, talk about FSB and Kadyrov or a possible coup?
Wet dreams of fascists from west, Putin can never die, Putin isn't just a man, he is an idea. There is like thousands of Putin's in Russia, ready to stand up against globalistic capitalists who would rather create world of chaos then lose their profits.
The same could have been said about Hitler in 1939 if you changed "globalistic capitalists" to "international bolshevism." But Hitler died and the "idea" did as well. Hitler possessed the same cult of personality that Putin attempts to foster and look how well that turned out.
OT: Putin is probably sick and can't be seen in public looking unhealthy/weak. I've been sick for the last couple weeks and I do not look like I should be running an authoritarian government in a time of war.
Here's an insightful blog post connecting Putin's disappearance with Nemtsov's murder.
Boris Nemtsov had to be killed, but not only because he was going to lead an anti-war parade -- that would have had at the most 16,000 people in my view, given the remote location, the problems in preparing it, the arrest of Nemtsov for the two weeks before it, etc. And not only because he was going to release a report on the war -- lots of people have done that, and more can always be done, but his contribution would have been to make it interesting, viral in Russia, and compelling to foreigners. He had already done a video with a million views about MH17, with Leonid Martynyuk.
I think the reason Boris would have to be killed was because he would have easily gotten the 100,000 signatures that any candidate for president in emergency elections after the demise/withdrawal/death/overthrow of the existing president needs to have. This is what Robert Coalson helpfully explained at RFE/RL. It's actually easier to run for president after a death/overthrow like that then in the normal course of things (it seems to me). Why did they have to do this? Because they had nothing to imprison him on.
Navalny couldn't run because he had a suspended sentence -- and at any time they could make that real, and now asked to on Friday.
Prokhorov would have been a possibility as he was a safe choice to run against Putin in the past, but just last Friday, another thing happened seemingly on schedule, he was forced to resign his own party, which he had funded and founded, because it was hijacked by hardliners who backed the "anti-Maidan" parade February 21. That basically put him out of politics.
Ilya Ponomarev is a possible candidate but he went abroad because there, too, authorities were trying to pin some fabricated case on him and he had numerous threats and provocations.
So really, there was only one threat -- Nemtsov -- and the coup-plotter had to remove him so that he wouldn't mess up the successio
There's a great deal more to read in the blog post, including about the Kremlin security forces and their possible connection to Nemtsov's murder. Read the rest here.
Putin has an 86% approval rating. He's not being ousted. If he was on his deathbed he'd simply name ("endorse") a successor and that person would be elected.
On March 14 2015 08:05 Alcathous wrote: In the mean time, in Russia, everyone is afraid Putin has died and the country will soon be thrown into chaos. Reason: he hasn't appeared in eight days. Kremlin has responded to the rumors, but still no Putin.
Possible that Putin tries to lure out his opponents, talk about different factions in the Putin camp being polarized, talk about FSB and Kadyrov or a possible coup?
Wet dreams of fascists from west, Putin can never die, Putin isn't just a man, he is an idea. There is like thousands of Putin's in Russia, ready to stand up against globalistic capitalists who would rather create world of chaos then lose their profits.
People sure love to project themselves to authority figures in conquest, oppression and mass murder.
First look in your own yard, what NATO did to many other countries.
Yeah they stopped serbia from committing genocide, the horror.
I never expected that average Joe can understand geopolithics. Only genocide here was throwing thousands of tons of deepleted uranium and plutonium. I really dont wanna offtopic more then this but its clear people on this thread cannot accept that there is other opinion other then theirs.its perfectly fine when USA invade numbers of sovereign countries, take their resources, seceed their territory, but its outrageous when legal president of Ukraine take Russian side, I guess NATO couldnt expand its rockets as near to Russia as they wanted so its logical that Putin is authocrat. I guess you all prayed for USA to intervene when Turkey is bombing Kurds villages every day for years or that you are against S.Arabian dictature. Oh wait, no, its ok as long as Turkey can play its role and Arabia is delivering oil so u all can drive as much as u want for 1$.
Disguisting double standards.
Thats not what really happened. First of all NATO already has borders with Russia, so they could have plenty of rockets there if they wanted, somehow they don't. And somehow they weren't really welcomed there, something important that Ghanburighan took care to point out. Secondly the situation in Ukraine was far more complicated than that. Putin was pushing for Ukraine to become a part of his USSR recreation. That was not really what Yanukovich wanted mostly due to two factors: 1) fears of giving up influence in Ukraine to Putin, to the point when he would eventually be forced to step down, 2) political backlash. The main weapon Putin had was gas prices. Ukrainian economy was very dependent on low gas prices for its outdated and ineffecient metallurgy, which brought in most of the foreign currency. When oil prices rebounded after the 2008 fall the gas prices became unsustainable. So the idea for Putin was either you integrate or we squeeze blood out of your economy. Yanukovich replied by starting EU integration process. It was a bluff, because the integration itself could not bring the fast money. As the talks about the association agreement were drawing to the end, instead of giving up Putin started "trade wars", showing what kind of troubles are awaiting Yanukovich if he signs the treaty. With no cards on his hands Yanukovich tried a last minute attempt to monetize the agreement and get the loan from EU. A miracle didn't happen, but at least they could blame the braking down in talks at the EU for refusing to give the needed loan. Then Euromaidan started. It was a minor event until a few hundreds of students got violently kicked from the square. It was that spark that exploded all the problems Ukrainians had with Yanukovich: worsening economy, incredible level of corruption, deteriorating justice and abuse of power. But the disaffection with Yanukovich was dissolved over the years. The new events brought the situation to the point when Yanukovich had to make concessions, or he would not be tolerated for much longer. The funny thing is that Euromaidan helped Yanukovich to secure the deal from Putin, who got scared he is losing Ukraine right here right now. Had he then made concessions required from him it would all have went down. But that didn't happen. What happened was further violence, attempts to clear out Maidan, gangs of titushkys roaming Kyiv streets and abducting activists, sometimes killing them, refusal to bring police officers who were responsible for violence to justice. Being unable to stop the violence and see their demands met activists started discenting to violence themselves. Eventually the situation got so violent and intense that the allies of Yanukovich started to abandon him. The troops were ordered out of Kyiv and the high-ranked officers of the governmental power institutions fearing they might be sacrificed by Yanukovich pledged their support to Euromaidan, and Yanukovich regime just fell apart, despite western officials even helping Yanukovich secure the deal to keep him in power.
If you look at the big picture, it was Yanukovich who started it, who made it worse, and who eventually got to be the victim of it as well. Not some evil NATO conspiring against him.
On March 14 2015 08:05 Alcathous wrote: In the mean time, in Russia, everyone is afraid Putin has died and the country will soon be thrown into chaos. Reason: he hasn't appeared in eight days. Kremlin has responded to the rumors, but still no Putin.
Possible that Putin tries to lure out his opponents, talk about different factions in the Putin camp being polarized, talk about FSB and Kadyrov or a possible coup?
Wet dreams of fascists from west, Putin can never die, Putin isn't just a man, he is an idea. There is like thousands of Putin's in Russia, ready to stand up against globalistic capitalists who would rather create world of chaos then lose their profits.
People sure love to project themselves to authority figures in conquest, oppression and mass murder.
First look in your own yard, what NATO did to many other countries.
I'm from Canada. Worst thing my government is doing is neglecting environmentalism and aboriginals (women in particular), and curtailing to American corporatism. I'm not going around spouting nonsense about how Stephen Harper will never die and embodies some ethereal human value, in fact I think he's a terrible prime minister.
Not much but it's an article: http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2697606 The gist of it is that apparently Dadaev (the main suspect in custody) mentioned that he was promised 5 million RUB to kill Nemtsov by a man with codename "Ruslik".
On March 17 2015 07:56 Cheerio wrote: Thats not what really happened. First of all NATO already has borders with Russia, so they could have plenty of rockets there if they wanted, somehow they don't. And somehow they weren't really welcomed there, something important that Ghanburighan took care to point out. Secondly the situation in Ukraine was far more complicated than that. Putin was pushing for Ukraine to become a part of his USSR recreation. That was not really what Yanukovich wanted mostly due to two factors: 1) fears of giving up influence in Ukraine to Putin, to the point when he would eventually be forced to step down, 2) political backlash. The main weapon Putin had was gas prices. Ukrainian economy was very dependent on low gas prices for its outdated and ineffecient metallurgy, which brought in most of the foreign currency. When oil prices rebounded after the 2008 fall the gas prices became unsustainable. So the idea for Putin was either you integrate or we squeeze blood out of your economy. Yanukovich replied by starting EU integration process. It was a bluff, because the integration itself could not bring the fast money. As the talks about the association agreement were drawing to the end, instead of giving up Putin started "trade wars", showing what kind of troubles are awaiting Yanukovich if he signs the treaty. With no cards on his hands Yanukovich tried a last minute attempt to monetize the agreement and get the loan from EU. A miracle didn't happen, but at least they could blame the braking down in talks at the EU for refusing to give the needed loan. Then Euromaidan started. It was a minor event until a few hundreds of students got violently kicked from the square. It was that spark that exploded all the problems Ukrainians had with Yanukovich: worsening economy, incredible level of corruption, deteriorating justice and abuse of power. But the disaffection with Yanukovich was dissolved over the years. The new events brought the situation to the point when Yanukovich had to make concessions, or he would not be tolerated for much longer. The funny thing is that Euromaidan helped Yanukovich to secure the deal from Putin, who got scared he is losing Ukraine right here right now. Had he then made concessions required from him it would all have went down. But that didn't happen. What happened was further violence, attempts to clear out Maidan, gangs of titushkys roaming Kyiv streets and abducting activists, sometimes killing them, refusal to bring police officers who were responsible for violence to justice. Being unable to stop the violence and see their demands met activists started discenting to violence themselves. Eventually the situation got so violent and intense that the allies of Yanukovich started to abandon him. The troops were ordered out of Kyiv and the high-ranked officers of the governmental power institutions fearing they might be sacrificed by Yanukovich pledged their support to Euromaidan, and Yanukovich regime just fell apart, despite western officials even helping Yanukovich secure the deal to keep him in power.
If you look at the big picture, it was Yanukovich who started it, who made it worse, and who eventually got to be the victim of it as well. Not some evil NATO conspiring against him.
User was banned for this post.
Thank you for your post. Always interesting to hear how actual Ukrainians view and experience things.
On March 31 2015 03:15 LegalLord wrote: Not much but it's an article: http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2697606 The gist of it is that apparently Dadaev (the main suspect in custody) mentioned that he was promised 5 million RUB to kill Nemtsov by a man with codename "Ruslik".
Not much more than that.
Taking into account that the guy said that he confessed to protect his friends...
On March 31 2015 03:15 LegalLord wrote: Not much but it's an article: http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2697606 The gist of it is that apparently Dadaev (the main suspect in custody) mentioned that he was promised 5 million RUB to kill Nemtsov by a man with codename "Ruslik".
Not much more than that.
Taking into account that the guy said that he confessed to protect his friends...
Not to mention it's not an official statement but rather a rumor. FSB don't talk much. Expect silence until they find who is responsible.
In case anyone is still interested in this story, there hasn't really been much, but a few tidbits from the past two months:
1. A few witnesses were called, mostly politicians who knew Nemtsov and officers from Chechnya. Nemtsov's family wanted Kadyrov to be investigated, but that's unlikely. Source 1 and Source 2 2. Supposedly the weapon that killed him has been found, and it seems to belong to the main suspect (Dadaev). Still no word on co-conspirators. Doubt they'd tell even if they do know who did it. Source
Nothing interesting written in English. Just speculative BS about a magical report that will undermine the government that he was about to publish.
On March 31 2015 03:15 LegalLord wrote: Not much but it's an article: http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2697606 The gist of it is that apparently Dadaev (the main suspect in custody) mentioned that he was promised 5 million RUB to kill Nemtsov by a man with codename "Ruslik".
Not much more than that.
Taking into account that the guy said that he confessed to protect his friends...
Not to mention it's not an official statement but rather a rumor. FSB don't talk much. Expect silence until they find who is responsible.
I laugh at the idea of 'who is actually responsible.' That will never happen with who's in power there. It's sad because it's true. :/
On March 14 2015 08:05 Alcathous wrote: In the mean time, in Russia, everyone is afraid Putin has died and the country will soon be thrown into chaos. Reason: he hasn't appeared in eight days. Kremlin has responded to the rumors, but still no Putin.
Possible that Putin tries to lure out his opponents, talk about different factions in the Putin camp being polarized, talk about FSB and Kadyrov or a possible coup?
Wet dreams of fascists from west, Putin can never die, Putin isn't just a man, he is an idea. There is like thousands of Putin's in Russia, ready to stand up against globalistic capitalists who would rather create world of chaos then lose their profits.
People sure love to project themselves to authority figures in conquest, oppression and mass murder.
First look in your own yard, what NATO did to many other countries.
Yeah they stopped serbia from committing genocide, the horror.
I never expected that average Joe can understand geopolithics. Only genocide here was throwing thousands of tons of deepleted uranium and plutonium. I really dont wanna offtopic more then this but its clear people on this thread cannot accept that there is other opinion other then theirs.its perfectly fine when USA invade numbers of sovereign countries, take their resources, seceed their territory, but its outrageous when legal president of Ukraine take Russian side, I guess NATO couldnt expand its rockets as near to Russia as they wanted so its logical that Putin is authocrat. I guess you all prayed for USA to intervene when Turkey is bombing Kurds villages every day for years or that you are against S.Arabian dictature. Oh wait, no, its ok as long as Turkey can play its role and Arabia is delivering oil so u all can drive as much as u want for 1$.
Disguisting double standards.
Thats not what really happened. First of all NATO already has borders with Russia, so they could have plenty of rockets there if they wanted, somehow they don't. And somehow they weren't really welcomed there, something important that Ghanburighan took care to point out. Secondly the situation in Ukraine was far more complicated than that. Putin was pushing for Ukraine to become a part of his USSR recreation. That was not really what Yanukovich wanted mostly due to two factors: 1) fears of giving up influence in Ukraine to Putin, to the point when he would eventually be forced to step down, 2) political backlash. The main weapon Putin had was gas prices. Ukrainian economy was very dependent on low gas prices for its outdated and ineffecient metallurgy, which brought in most of the foreign currency. When oil prices rebounded after the 2008 fall the gas prices became unsustainable. So the idea for Putin was either you integrate or we squeeze blood out of your economy. Yanukovich replied by starting EU integration process. It was a bluff, because the integration itself could not bring the fast money. As the talks about the association agreement were drawing to the end, instead of giving up Putin started "trade wars", showing what kind of troubles are awaiting Yanukovich if he signs the treaty. With no cards on his hands Yanukovich tried a last minute attempt to monetize the agreement and get the loan from EU. A miracle didn't happen, but at least they could blame the braking down in talks at the EU for refusing to give the needed loan. Then Euromaidan started. It was a minor event until a few hundreds of students got violently kicked from the square. It was that spark that exploded all the problems Ukrainians had with Yanukovich: worsening economy, incredible level of corruption, deteriorating justice and abuse of power. But the disaffection with Yanukovich was dissolved over the years. The new events brought the situation to the point when Yanukovich had to make concessions, or he would not be tolerated for much longer. The funny thing is that Euromaidan helped Yanukovich to secure the deal from Putin, who got scared he is losing Ukraine right here right now. Had he then made concessions required from him it would all have went down. But that didn't happen. What happened was further violence, attempts to clear out Maidan, gangs of titushkys roaming Kyiv streets and abducting activists, sometimes killing them, refusal to bring police officers who were responsible for violence to justice. Being unable to stop the violence and see their demands met activists started discenting to violence themselves. Eventually the situation got so violent and intense that the allies of Yanukovich started to abandon him. The troops were ordered out of Kyiv and the high-ranked officers of the governmental power institutions fearing they might be sacrificed by Yanukovich pledged their support to Euromaidan, and Yanukovich regime just fell apart, despite western officials even helping Yanukovich secure the deal to keep him in power.
If you look at the big picture, it was Yanukovich who started it, who made it worse, and who eventually got to be the victim of it as well. Not some evil NATO conspiring against him.
User was banned for this post.
just out of curiosity,why was this guy banned? And also ty for your post,its always nice to hear first hand reports even when they are favoring one side or the other.
I am not well versed in Russian politics, but everyone talking about Putin's approval rating and polls etc seems ironic after reading this article yesterday about "Troll Farms" and misinformation/public opinion control campaigns.
On March 14 2015 08:05 Alcathous wrote: In the mean time, in Russia, everyone is afraid Putin has died and the country will soon be thrown into chaos. Reason: he hasn't appeared in eight days. Kremlin has responded to the rumors, but still no Putin.
Possible that Putin tries to lure out his opponents, talk about different factions in the Putin camp being polarized, talk about FSB and Kadyrov or a possible coup?
Wet dreams of fascists from west, Putin can never die, Putin isn't just a man, he is an idea. There is like thousands of Putin's in Russia, ready to stand up against globalistic capitalists who would rather create world of chaos then lose their profits.
People sure love to project themselves to authority figures in conquest, oppression and mass murder.
First look in your own yard, what NATO did to many other countries.
Yeah they stopped serbia from committing genocide, the horror.
I never expected that average Joe can understand geopolithics. Only genocide here was throwing thousands of tons of deepleted uranium and plutonium. I really dont wanna offtopic more then this but its clear people on this thread cannot accept that there is other opinion other then theirs.its perfectly fine when USA invade numbers of sovereign countries, take their resources, seceed their territory, but its outrageous when legal president of Ukraine take Russian side, I guess NATO couldnt expand its rockets as near to Russia as they wanted so its logical that Putin is authocrat. I guess you all prayed for USA to intervene when Turkey is bombing Kurds villages every day for years or that you are against S.Arabian dictature. Oh wait, no, its ok as long as Turkey can play its role and Arabia is delivering oil so u all can drive as much as u want for 1$.
Disguisting double standards.
Thats not what really happened. First of all NATO already has borders with Russia, so they could have plenty of rockets there if they wanted, somehow they don't. And somehow they weren't really welcomed there, something important that Ghanburighan took care to point out. Secondly the situation in Ukraine was far more complicated than that. Putin was pushing for Ukraine to become a part of his USSR recreation. That was not really what Yanukovich wanted mostly due to two factors: 1) fears of giving up influence in Ukraine to Putin, to the point when he would eventually be forced to step down, 2) political backlash. The main weapon Putin had was gas prices. Ukrainian economy was very dependent on low gas prices for its outdated and ineffecient metallurgy, which brought in most of the foreign currency. When oil prices rebounded after the 2008 fall the gas prices became unsustainable. So the idea for Putin was either you integrate or we squeeze blood out of your economy. Yanukovich replied by starting EU integration process. It was a bluff, because the integration itself could not bring the fast money. As the talks about the association agreement were drawing to the end, instead of giving up Putin started "trade wars", showing what kind of troubles are awaiting Yanukovich if he signs the treaty. With no cards on his hands Yanukovich tried a last minute attempt to monetize the agreement and get the loan from EU. A miracle didn't happen, but at least they could blame the braking down in talks at the EU for refusing to give the needed loan. Then Euromaidan started. It was a minor event until a few hundreds of students got violently kicked from the square. It was that spark that exploded all the problems Ukrainians had with Yanukovich: worsening economy, incredible level of corruption, deteriorating justice and abuse of power. But the disaffection with Yanukovich was dissolved over the years. The new events brought the situation to the point when Yanukovich had to make concessions, or he would not be tolerated for much longer. The funny thing is that Euromaidan helped Yanukovich to secure the deal from Putin, who got scared he is losing Ukraine right here right now. Had he then made concessions required from him it would all have went down. But that didn't happen. What happened was further violence, attempts to clear out Maidan, gangs of titushkys roaming Kyiv streets and abducting activists, sometimes killing them, refusal to bring police officers who were responsible for violence to justice. Being unable to stop the violence and see their demands met activists started discenting to violence themselves. Eventually the situation got so violent and intense that the allies of Yanukovich started to abandon him. The troops were ordered out of Kyiv and the high-ranked officers of the governmental power institutions fearing they might be sacrificed by Yanukovich pledged their support to Euromaidan, and Yanukovich regime just fell apart, despite western officials even helping Yanukovich secure the deal to keep him in power.
If you look at the big picture, it was Yanukovich who started it, who made it worse, and who eventually got to be the victim of it as well. Not some evil NATO conspiring against him.
User was banned for this post.
just out of curiosity,why was this guy banned? And also ty for your post,its always nice to hear first hand reports even when they are favoring one side or the other.
I was curious too, I found the page where he was banned: Link. Kadaver wrote:
Reason: You've made enough threads in the General forum worse with your posting.
You are hereby banned from posting in the General forum ever again since you just won't stop getting into arguments with the same people over and over again.
But then he apparently defied Kadaver's order and posted in general forums again. Its not even that what he posted was bad, its just the fact that he posted it - I think this refers to the post you see on this page, which is actually pretty decent as far as I can see. But anyway after that he was permanently banned. Here's the second ban page: Link 2 (its near the end). Kadaver wrote:
I didn't think you would be the first one to post in general again, my money was on nunez. Maybe this will show the others that I was actually being serious.
Oh well. I guess that's it for Cheerio. At least we know that his last post didn't go against any forum rules or etiquette problems, it was just a specific mod request that he defied. FYI the same general forums ban applies to Zeo and Nunez.
On June 04 2015 02:18 screamingpalm wrote: I am not well versed in Russian politics,
But you still feel that you have enough knowledge to make uninformed, accusatory statements such as the one below.
On June 04 2015 02:18 screamingpalm wrote:but everyone talking about Putin's approval rating and polls etc seems ironic after reading this article yesterday about "Troll Farms" and misinformation/public opinion control campaigns.
Ugh, what a terrible article. Not going to bother addressing the article itself because it really isn't worthy of any serious reply, but I will say this much: Social media disinformation campaigns are quite common in every country. I see plenty of pro-Russia, pro-US, etc. propaganda in both English and Russian. Frankly I see more people spamming "Russian troll" on any form of criticism of pro-US articles, legitimate or not, than actual suspicious comments. It's really quite a convenient technique to be able to label anyone a Russian troll if they hold an opposing opinion. And yes, Putin's approval rating right now really is quite high. I've seen quite a few people I know who were quite critical of him become quite a bit more approving of the work he's done after the events of 2014.
On Nemtsov: no new news. Some debate over whether or not the murder weapon is legitimate. He is briefly mentioned in a recap of information about upcoming regional elections. Also, a few rather quietly put together memorials honoring him. He has been a rather minor player in the political scene in recent years, so it's not really unusual that that's the case.
Every country does not (sic!) have troll farms, as evident from the lack of stories regarding them. + Show Spoiler [Own experience] +
In fact, only the two parties supported by Russia in Estonia utilize this technique as evident from the very small social media sphere here.
. The very existence of troll farms brings about more distrust. One the one hand, it spreads a pro-Russia view that spreads a great deal of misinformation from purported pro-Western sources + Show Spoiler +
Read this article on how the standard modus operandi is working in groups of three, each person taking a different point of view.
, on the other, pro-Russia views are labeled as troll-produced. A part of this is that those who actually hold pro-Russia views often sound less like real people if they purport to support views also expressed by bots/paid commentators. But it's exactly this distrust of all of social media that these troll farms aim to accomplish. If you can't trust that the people you interact with are actually real, there's no point in using social media to gather information outside of regime-controlled channels. This suits Putin well, methinks.
As for the article itself, I didn't read it as it had very little novel in the beginning, but the New York Times online is generally a pretty poor source of news. But the phenomenon is quite old. You can find links to read about Russian troll farms here.
***
Regarding the Nemtsov investigation, most of the chatter has turned to analysing the relationship between Kadyrov and Putin. As the only suspect is custody worked for him, this might be an indication that Kadyrov is: a) doing Putin a favour, b) challenging Putin, b) trying to capture a bigger slice of the government pie from other agencies, c) being pushed out by other agencies, etc. If you're interested I can provide some links to this recent chatter, but I haven't seen a definitive article nor a good reading compendium.
There are at leasta few stories around. Though that is quite an aside and an issue I think I've given more attention than it's worth, so I'll leave it there.
I'd say that the Kadyrov angle is a dead end. He isn't exactly an upstanding figure and he makes many rather idiotic shows of power, but he keeps the peace in the unstable region of Chechnya. I had no doubt from the beginning that Chechens were responsible for the shooting itself, because there are plenty of willing mercenaries there for whoever would be willing to pay to have him killed.
Overall, Kadyrov is a bit of a curiosity, but it makes a lot more sense to have someone like him around when there are terrorists within the nation's borders. He will do lots of seemingly threatening posturing (e.g. threatening to shoot Russian police officers if they interfere) as he always does, but if he does something out of line he will quickly be removed, and he knows that.
Not an obvious conclusion, but I'd say it's definitely best to look elsewhere for meaningful information on this story.
There have actually been some updates worth mentioning within the past few weeks.
http://lenta.ru/news/2015/10/13/dadaev/ Ballistics report just released analyzing Nemtsov's death. Evidence against Dadaev is pretty solid, but they're also analyzing weapon origins, cause of death, etc. DNA analysis implicates three other people who were in the car with him.
http://lenta.ru/news/2015/10/19/kremlin/ Complaint from Duma deputy (Dmitry Gudkov, opposition member) on poor handling of the security in Moscow that allowed this to happen. A few more similar stories, but not much worth mentioning.
http://lenta.ru/news/2015/10/18/chechnya/ Leaders of Chechnya will be questioned about Nemtsov's death. A few suspects from there who are considered the likely organizers of the assassination. Kadyrov may or may not be questioned, federal investigators don't really want to do it.
Submitting news articles in Russian with your own two-sentence summaries to an English-speaking web forum isn't exactly helpful. Submitting news articles regarding a controversial subject entirely from a single, Russian source isn't exactly objective.
Also, I think the "poor handling" of security surrounding the single-most important building in Russia's capitol, during which security cameras were conveniently "not working" at the time of the assassination, is very worth mentioning.
If you want more from these articles, try Google Translate. If that doesn't do it for you, you're free to ask more questions about them. Also, feel free to post any English-language sources you have - I'm quite sure that the western world has pretty much forgotten that Nemtsov ever existed after the whole "Putin conspiracy" angle didn't go anywhere. And if Lenta doesn't do it from you, you're free to go to the bottom of the article and read their sources.
Look at link #2 for more on the story. Sure, it's an important concern, but there isn't too much interesting within the actual articles.
On October 24 2015 01:10 LegalLord wrote: ... I'm quite sure that the western world has pretty much forgotten that Nemtsov ever existed after the whole "Putin conspiracy" angle didn't go anywhere...
No, it's that Putin obviously did it and there's only so many shits the average Westerner can be bothered to give about dictators killing dissidents. Like yeah, we get it, Putin is a douche. But he has nukes and a great propoganda operation, so we can't touch him, so fuck it imma play some Halo.
On October 24 2015 01:10 LegalLord wrote: ... I'm quite sure that the western world has pretty much forgotten that Nemtsov ever existed after the whole "Putin conspiracy" angle didn't go anywhere...
there's only so many shits the average Westerner can be bothered to give about dictators killing dissidents.
What are we going to do about it? Go to Russia and run for office? Putin may have killed his political opponent because he could have become dangerous since the Russian economy is in the shitter. Will I protest him out of office from Canada on circumstantial evidence? Even if it's true there's nothing we can do... and even if we could, why bother. It's not my fight.
On October 24 2015 01:10 LegalLord wrote: ... I'm quite sure that the western world has pretty much forgotten that Nemtsov ever existed after the whole "Putin conspiracy" angle didn't go anywhere...
there's only so many shits the average Westerner can be bothered to give about dictators killing dissidents.
What are we going to do about it? Go to Russia and run for office? Putin may have killed his political opponent because he could have become dangerous since the Russian economy is in the shitter. Will I protest him out of office from Canada on circumstantial evidence? Even if it's true there's nothing we can do... and even if we could, why bother. It's not my fight.