FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Growing Russian Threat
Growing Russian Threat
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
An interesting article in the telegraph today.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/17/russia-accused-waging-secret-war-against-britain-using-cyber/?WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_androidshare_AnFPNdNTLNY1
Russia is determined to weaken the West, weaken the US, the UK, and the EU and are using many methods to do so, including trying to influence the referendum and US election through fake news stories as well as through the state controlled RT, and of course the various hacks.
I would say they have been incredibly effective. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"An interesting article in the telegraph today.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/17/russia-accused-waging-secret-war-against-britain-using-cyber/?WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_androidshare_AnFPNdNTLNY1
Russia is determined to weaken the West, weaken the US, the UK, and the EU and are using many methods to do so, including trying to influence the referendum and US election through fake news stories as well as through the state controlled RT, and of course the various hacks.
I would say they have been incredibly effective. "
how? So what are you saying? They have influenced voters in some way? How? Have you been influenced by them? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Ian curtis has a film out which goes into putins strategy.
Vladislav Surkov is the mastermind behind it.
Surkov is one of President Putin's advisors and has helped him maintain his power for fifteen years, but he has done it in a very new way. He came originally from the avant-garde art world, and those who have studied his career say that what Surkov has done is import ideas from conceptual art into the very heart of politics.
His aim is to undermine people's perception of the world so they never know what is really happening. Surkov turned Russian politics into a bewildering, constantly-changing piece of theatre: he sponsored all kinds of groups, from Neo-Nazi skin-heads to liberal human rights groups, he even backed parties that were opposed to President Putin. But the key thing was that Surkov then let it be known that this was what he was doing, which meant that no one was sure what was real or fake.
As one journalist put it" "It's a strategy of power that keeps any opposition constantly confused, a ceaseless shape-shifting that is unstoppable because its indefinable," which is exactly what Surkov is alleged to have done in the Ukraine this year.
In typical fashion as the war began Surkov published a short story about something he called Non-Linear War, a war where you never know what the enemy are really up to or even who they are. The underlying aim Surkov says is not to win the war but to use the conflict to create a constant state of destabilized perception in order to manage and control. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
how? So what are you saying? They have influenced voters in some way? How? Have you been influenced by them?
Did you read the article? "
no, I want you to explain if you can |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"
how? So what are you saying? They have influenced voters in some way? How? Have you been influenced by them?
Did you read the article?
no, I want you to explain if you can"
Read the article. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
how? So what are you saying? They have influenced voters in some way? How? Have you been influenced by them?
Did you read the article?
no, I want you to explain if you can
Read the article."
no thanks |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"
how? So what are you saying? They have influenced voters in some way? How? Have you been influenced by them?
Did you read the article?
no, I want you to explain if you can
Read the article.
no thanks"
That's fine, you don't have to read it, but don't expect people to waste their time answering your questions about it when you cant be bothered to read it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Countless politicians and people within the corridors of power have already been co-opted by Putin. They have directorships on the various gas, oil, mining companies etc that are run by the oligarchs.
That said, I wonder how many of us who now are expressing alarm at Putin's strategies would have been as angry with the USA doing far worse in Central and South America over the past 50 years?
The US and its allies had the chance during Gorbachev's leadership to help make a stable prosperous democracy in Russia but hubris and greed undermined it and gave ammunition to those in Russia who wanted a return to autocracy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Now who would have guessed a former KGB Colonel with a reputation for being particularly aggressive, savage and brutal with a taste for power would be continually looking for ways extend his control over others and destroy by any means (but with a preference for the covert) any who he sees as a threat. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Countless politicians and people within the corridors of power have already been co-opted by Putin. They have directorships on the various gas, oil, mining companies etc that are run by the oligarchs.
That said, I wonder how many of us who now are expressing alarm at Putin's strategies would have been as angry with the USA doing far worse in Central and South America over the past 50 years?
The US and its allies had the chance during Gorbachev's leadership to help make a stable prosperous democracy in Russia but hubris and greed undermined it and gave ammunition to those in Russia who wanted a return to autocracy. "
.
Exactly, they spent billions if not trillions fighting the cold war and communists and when it finally collapsed, what did they do?.
Asset strip Russian resources while imposing an austerity so severe half the fucking country voted for the communists back coz it was actually better under them.
The wests logic never seems that logical at times |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
how? So what are you saying? They have influenced voters in some way? How? Have you been influenced by them?
Did you read the article?
no, I want you to explain if you can
Read the article.
no thanks"
Haha thats the best post truth thinking I've seen.Doesnt wish to read article's that may be counter to his or her world view.We all can be guilty of confirmation bias.It is diffucult reading contrary views or opinions sometimes but you cant comment on it if you dont read it... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Exactly, they spent billions if not trillions fighting the cold war and communists and when it finally collapsed, what did they do?.
Asset strip Russian resources while imposing an austerity so severe half the fucking country voted for the communists back coz it was actually better under them.
The wests logic never seems that logical at times"
You seem to have missed the point(s).
Firstly, it is not the West, it is the USA that calls the shots.
Second, the trillions of $£FrDMk€ were not spent to defeat communism (the USA does not give a shit about any countries politics). The money was spent to bring down an economic block that refused to allow US corporations access to their market for the purposes of asset stripping their economy and dumping unwanted US goods.
Remember the USSR and China were the great threats until McDonald's got to open in their capitals, then when Russia kicked MaccyD's out they reverted to being the big bad wolf again.
Unfortunately, Vlad is dangerous because he is a warrior and warriors don't do 'jaw-jaw' or 'flexible limited response'. They do do 'crushing blows', and 'elimination of all resistance'. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
how? So what are you saying? They have influenced voters in some way? How? Have you been influenced by them?
Did you read the article?
no, I want you to explain if you can
Read the article.
no thanks Haha thats the best post truth thinking I've seen.Doesnt wish to read article's that may be counter to his or her world view.We all can be guilty of confirmation bias.It is diffucult reading contrary views or opinions sometimes but you cant comment on it if you dont read it..."
It's not about reading 'articles'. The OP gave an opinion that Russia had influenced elections here and in America, I simply asked him for his thoughts of how and if they had influenced him, not to blindly read the opinion of someone I cannot debate with |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Naïve EU PC clowns including Merkel tried it on in Kiev and did a runner when Putin turned up. Putin has an open goal when it comes to Obama and the EU's arrogant PC idiot 'leaders' so who can blame him. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Naïve EU PC clowns including Merkel tried it on in Kiev and did a runner when Putin turned up. Putin has an open goal when it comes to Obama and the EU's arrogant PC idiot 'leaders' so who can blame him. "
I didn't really understand your post, but from "so who can blame him" I take it that you do agree that he has been interfering and is trying to destabilize the West. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"
how? So what are you saying? They have influenced voters in some way? How? Have you been influenced by them?
Did you read the article?
no, I want you to explain if you can
Read the article.
no thanks Haha thats the best post truth thinking I've seen.Doesnt wish to read article's that may be counter to his or her world view.We all can be guilty of confirmation bias.It is diffucult reading contrary views or opinions sometimes but you cant comment on it if you dont read it...
It's not about reading 'articles'. The OP gave an opinion that Russia had influenced elections here and in America, I simply asked him for his thoughts of how and if they had influenced him, not to blindly read the opinion of someone I cannot debate with"
"the majority of people are ‘System One’ or ‘quick’ thinkers in that they make decisions on impulse, feeling, emotion, and first impressions, rather than ‘System Two’ or ‘slow’ thinkers who seek information, analyse it, and weigh arguments in order to come to decisions. System One thinkers can be captured by slogans, statements dramatised to the point of falsehood, and even downright lies, because they will not check the validity of what is said, but instead will mistrust System Two thinkers whose lengthier arguments and appeals to data are often regarded as efforts to bamboozle and mislead." |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Naïve EU PC clowns including Merkel tried it on in Kiev and did a runner when Putin turned up. Putin has an open goal when it comes to Obama and the EU's arrogant PC idiot 'leaders' so who can blame him. "
Naive maybe, but arrogant and idiotic, I don't think so, and definitely not clowns.
The problem our leaders have dealing with Putin is very simple, they are politicians and as such think and act like politicians. They employ warriors that they keep on very short leaches as guard dogs to only be used when all else fails, and even then under the strict control of politician handlers.
Putin is a warrior, no one has hold of his leach, in fact he has no leach! He is the guard dog! He is like all warriors who get thrust into the political limelight, he inspires loyalty, love, trust and a little fear in his own people and is a serious threat to everyone else.
Politicians don't have the mindset or skills to deal with the likes of Putin because Putin is the antithesis of political diplomacy which is about getting what you want without resorting to force. Just like Galtieri, Moe, Stalin, Genghis Khan or any other warrior that holds or ever has held power he uses force rather than diplomacy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
how? So what are you saying? They have influenced voters in some way? How? Have you been influenced by them?
Did you read the article?
no, I want you to explain if you can
Read the article.
no thanks Haha thats the best post truth thinking I've seen.Doesnt wish to read article's that may be counter to his or her world view.We all can be guilty of confirmation bias.It is diffucult reading contrary views or opinions sometimes but you cant comment on it if you dont read it...
It's not about reading 'articles'. The OP gave an opinion that Russia had influenced elections here and in America, I simply asked him for his thoughts of how and if they had influenced him, not to blindly read the opinion of someone I cannot debate with
"the majority of people are ‘System One’ or ‘quick’ thinkers in that they make decisions on impulse, feeling, emotion, and first impressions, rather than ‘System Two’ or ‘slow’ thinkers who seek information, analyse it, and weigh arguments in order to come to decisions. System One thinkers can be captured by slogans, statements dramatised to the point of falsehood, and even downright lies, because they will not check the validity of what is said, but instead will mistrust System Two thinkers whose lengthier arguments and appeals to data are often regarded as efforts to bamboozle and mislead." "
you have posted this before so I'll ask the same question again that you refused to answer -
How long did you consider voting to leave the EU? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"
how? So what are you saying? They have influenced voters in some way? How? Have you been influenced by them?
Did you read the article?
no, I want you to explain if you can
Read the article.
no thanks Haha thats the best post truth thinking I've seen.Doesnt wish to read article's that may be counter to his or her world view.We all can be guilty of confirmation bias.It is diffucult reading contrary views or opinions sometimes but you cant comment on it if you dont read it...
It's not about reading 'articles'. The OP gave an opinion that Russia had influenced elections here and in America, I simply asked him for his thoughts of how and if they had influenced him, not to blindly read the opinion of someone I cannot debate with
"the majority of people are ‘System One’ or ‘quick’ thinkers in that they make decisions on impulse, feeling, emotion, and first impressions, rather than ‘System Two’ or ‘slow’ thinkers who seek information, analyse it, and weigh arguments in order to come to decisions. System One thinkers can be captured by slogans, statements dramatised to the point of falsehood, and even downright lies, because they will not check the validity of what is said, but instead will mistrust System Two thinkers whose lengthier arguments and appeals to data are often regarded as efforts to bamboozle and mislead."
you have posted this before so I'll ask the same question again that you refused to answer -
How long did you consider voting to leave the EU?"
About 16 years, more seriously in the last 13 though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
how? So what are you saying? They have influenced voters in some way? How? Have you been influenced by them?
Did you read the article?
no, I want you to explain if you can
Read the article.
no thanks Haha thats the best post truth thinking I've seen.Doesnt wish to read article's that may be counter to his or her world view.We all can be guilty of confirmation bias.It is diffucult reading contrary views or opinions sometimes but you cant comment on it if you dont read it...
It's not about reading 'articles'. The OP gave an opinion that Russia had influenced elections here and in America, I simply asked him for his thoughts of how and if they had influenced him, not to blindly read the opinion of someone I cannot debate with
"the majority of people are ‘System One’ or ‘quick’ thinkers in that they make decisions on impulse, feeling, emotion, and first impressions, rather than ‘System Two’ or ‘slow’ thinkers who seek information, analyse it, and weigh arguments in order to come to decisions. System One thinkers can be captured by slogans, statements dramatised to the point of falsehood, and even downright lies, because they will not check the validity of what is said, but instead will mistrust System Two thinkers whose lengthier arguments and appeals to data are often regarded as efforts to bamboozle and mislead."
you have posted this before so I'll ask the same question again that you refused to answer -
How long did you consider voting to leave the EU?
About 16 years, more seriously in the last 13 though."
so you thought about leaving for 13-16 years? So what are the benefits of leaving the EU that had you thinking about it for so long? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"
how? So what are you saying? They have influenced voters in some way? How? Have you been influenced by them?
Did you read the article?
no, I want you to explain if you can
Read the article.
no thanks Haha thats the best post truth thinking I've seen.Doesnt wish to read article's that may be counter to his or her world view.We all can be guilty of confirmation bias.It is diffucult reading contrary views or opinions sometimes but you cant comment on it if you dont read it...
It's not about reading 'articles'. The OP gave an opinion that Russia had influenced elections here and in America, I simply asked him for his thoughts of how and if they had influenced him, not to blindly read the opinion of someone I cannot debate with
"the majority of people are ‘System One’ or ‘quick’ thinkers in that they make decisions on impulse, feeling, emotion, and first impressions, rather than ‘System Two’ or ‘slow’ thinkers who seek information, analyse it, and weigh arguments in order to come to decisions. System One thinkers can be captured by slogans, statements dramatised to the point of falsehood, and even downright lies, because they will not check the validity of what is said, but instead will mistrust System Two thinkers whose lengthier arguments and appeals to data are often regarded as efforts to bamboozle and mislead."
you have posted this before so I'll ask the same question again that you refused to answer -
How long did you consider voting to leave the EU?
About 16 years, more seriously in the last 13 though.
so you thought about leaving for 13-16 years? So what are the benefits of leaving the EU that had you thinking about it for so long?"
I sought information, analysed it and weighed it over that time period, and decided that remaining was the best option. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
how? So what are you saying? They have influenced voters in some way? How? Have you been influenced by them?
Did you read the article?
no, I want you to explain if you can
Read the article.
no thanks Haha thats the best post truth thinking I've seen.Doesnt wish to read article's that may be counter to his or her world view.We all can be guilty of confirmation bias.It is diffucult reading contrary views or opinions sometimes but you cant comment on it if you dont read it...
It's not about reading 'articles'. The OP gave an opinion that Russia had influenced elections here and in America, I simply asked him for his thoughts of how and if they had influenced him, not to blindly read the opinion of someone I cannot debate with
"the majority of people are ‘System One’ or ‘quick’ thinkers in that they make decisions on impulse, feeling, emotion, and first impressions, rather than ‘System Two’ or ‘slow’ thinkers who seek information, analyse it, and weigh arguments in order to come to decisions. System One thinkers can be captured by slogans, statements dramatised to the point of falsehood, and even downright lies, because they will not check the validity of what is said, but instead will mistrust System Two thinkers whose lengthier arguments and appeals to data are often regarded as efforts to bamboozle and mislead."
you have posted this before so I'll ask the same question again that you refused to answer -
How long did you consider voting to leave the EU?
About 16 years, more seriously in the last 13 though.
so you thought about leaving for 13-16 years? So what are the benefits of leaving the EU that had you thinking about it for so long?
I sought information, analysed it and weighed it over that time period, and decided that remaining was the best option."
Well if it took you that long to weigh it up you must have thought there were some good reasons for leaving. What were they? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"
how? So what are you saying? They have influenced voters in some way? How? Have you been influenced by them?
Did you read the article?
no, I want you to explain if you can
Read the article.
no thanks Haha thats the best post truth thinking I've seen.Doesnt wish to read article's that may be counter to his or her world view.We all can be guilty of confirmation bias.It is diffucult reading contrary views or opinions sometimes but you cant comment on it if you dont read it...
It's not about reading 'articles'. The OP gave an opinion that Russia had influenced elections here and in America, I simply asked him for his thoughts of how and if they had influenced him, not to blindly read the opinion of someone I cannot debate with
"the majority of people are ‘System One’ or ‘quick’ thinkers in that they make decisions on impulse, feeling, emotion, and first impressions, rather than ‘System Two’ or ‘slow’ thinkers who seek information, analyse it, and weigh arguments in order to come to decisions. System One thinkers can be captured by slogans, statements dramatised to the point of falsehood, and even downright lies, because they will not check the validity of what is said, but instead will mistrust System Two thinkers whose lengthier arguments and appeals to data are often regarded as efforts to bamboozle and mislead."
you have posted this before so I'll ask the same question again that you refused to answer -
How long did you consider voting to leave the EU?
About 16 years, more seriously in the last 13 though.
so you thought about leaving for 13-16 years? So what are the benefits of leaving the EU that had you thinking about it for so long?
I sought information, analysed it and weighed it over that time period, and decided that remaining was the best option.
Well if it took you that long to weigh it up you must have thought there were some good reasons for leaving. What were they?"
I'm not going down the rabbit hole with you. This thread is about the Russian threat, if you want to join in, please read the article and let us know what you think. If you don't want to read the article or stick to the topic, then maybe move on to another thread. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
how? So what are you saying? They have influenced voters in some way? How? Have you been influenced by them?
Did you read the article?
no, I want you to explain if you can
Read the article.
no thanks Haha thats the best post truth thinking I've seen.Doesnt wish to read article's that may be counter to his or her world view.We all can be guilty of confirmation bias.It is diffucult reading contrary views or opinions sometimes but you cant comment on it if you dont read it...
It's not about reading 'articles'. The OP gave an opinion that Russia had influenced elections here and in America, I simply asked him for his thoughts of how and if they had influenced him, not to blindly read the opinion of someone I cannot debate with
"the majority of people are ‘System One’ or ‘quick’ thinkers in that they make decisions on impulse, feeling, emotion, and first impressions, rather than ‘System Two’ or ‘slow’ thinkers who seek information, analyse it, and weigh arguments in order to come to decisions. System One thinkers can be captured by slogans, statements dramatised to the point of falsehood, and even downright lies, because they will not check the validity of what is said, but instead will mistrust System Two thinkers whose lengthier arguments and appeals to data are often regarded as efforts to bamboozle and mislead."
you have posted this before so I'll ask the same question again that you refused to answer -
How long did you consider voting to leave the EU?
About 16 years, more seriously in the last 13 though.
so you thought about leaving for 13-16 years? So what are the benefits of leaving the EU that had you thinking about it for so long?
I sought information, analysed it and weighed it over that time period, and decided that remaining was the best option.
Well if it took you that long to weigh it up you must have thought there were some good reasons for leaving. What were they?
I'm not going down the rabbit hole with you. This thread is about the Russian threat, if you want to join in, please read the article and let us know what you think. If you don't want to read the article or stick to the topic, then maybe move on to another thread."
brilliant |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Putin will look for anyway to destabilize the west.Or split it.Brexit and trump are a gift for putin.Also any future populist movement in the EU to break up the EU will be welcomed.Trump recently saying he doesn't believe his own intelligence services regarding Russia must bring a tear to vlads eye.Hopefully we won't be so naive. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think America is the growing threat. They have missiles surrounding Russia. Russia is just defending itself from them. Simple.
Western media reports a lot of anti Russian propaganda. People buy it. So they assume Russia or China or North Korea are the bad guys. And maybe they are. But in reality, they are just protecting themselves from American military dominance, and it's empirically motivated foreign policy.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Putin will look for anyway to destabilize the west.Or split it.Brexit and trump are a gift for putin.Also any future populist movement in the EU to break up the EU will be welcomed.Trump recently saying he doesn't believe his own intelligence services regarding Russia must bring a tear to vlads eye.Hopefully we won't be so naive. "
Guess how many "daily" intelligence briefs Trump has had since he became president elect?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3, yep, three. He blew off all the others. His team has said that he will try harder and ensure he attends the "daily" brief 3 times a week.
Its nice to see he is taking the presidency so seriously  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"I think America is the growing threat. They have missiles surrounding Russia. Russia is just defending itself from them. Simple.
Western media reports a lot of anti Russian propaganda. People buy it. So they assume Russia or China or North Korea are the bad guys. And maybe they are. But in reality, they are just protecting themselves from American military dominance, and it's empirically motivated foreign policy.
"
Don't you mean missile DEFENCE systems? There is quite a difference. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think America is the growing threat. They have missiles surrounding Russia. Russia is just defending itself from them. Simple.
Western media reports a lot of anti Russian propaganda. People buy it. So they assume Russia or China or North Korea are the bad guys. And maybe they are. But in reality, they are just protecting themselves from American military dominance, and it's empirically motivated foreign policy.
Don't you mean missile DEFENCE systems? There is quite a difference."
I agree American foreign policy can be a threat to world peace.North korea really is a brutal totalitarian regime .China i dont see as a threat.Their time is comming as a superpower.Russia is a super power in decline.With a nationalist president who wants to retain its super power status at any cost. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"you need to be red pilled if you believe that the Russians had anything to do with Brexit or Clinton's fail lol"
So the FBI and CIA need the red pill as they are in agreement that Russia aimed to help trump to the Whitehouse.I dont think russia had anything to do with brexit.Its just beneficial for Russia.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obka3Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
"you need to be red pilled if you believe that the Russians had anything to do with Brexit or Clinton's fail lol So the FBI and CIA need the red pill as they are in agreement that Russia aimed to help trump to the Whitehouse.I dont think russia had anything to do with brexit.Its just beneficial for Russia."
So this is the CIA that said that sadam had WMD and they could find them and have spent decades trying to get regime change all round the world and of course admitted bugging other western leaders ? Who is telling the truth ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think America is the growing threat. They have missiles surrounding Russia. Russia is just defending itself from them. Simple.
Western media reports a lot of anti Russian propaganda. People buy it. So they assume Russia or China or North Korea are the bad guys. And maybe they are. But in reality, they are just protecting themselves from American military dominance, and it's empirically motivated foreign policy.
Don't you mean missile DEFENCE systems? There is quite a difference."
no, he probably means the nuclear missiles that were recently moved from Turkey to Romania for a start |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think America is the growing threat. They have missiles surrounding Russia. Russia is just defending itself from them. Simple.
Western media reports a lot of anti Russian propaganda. People buy it. So they assume Russia or China or North Korea are the bad guys. And maybe they are. But in reality, they are just protecting themselves from American military dominance, and it's empirically motivated foreign policy.
Don't you mean missile DEFENCE systems? There is quite a difference.
no, he probably means the nuclear missiles that were recently moved from Turkey to Romania for a start"
Russia moved nuclear capable missiles to the EU border also and just tested a supersonic missile designed to evade a degence sytem. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"I think America is the growing threat. They have missiles surrounding Russia. Russia is just defending itself from them. Simple.
Western media reports a lot of anti Russian propaganda. People buy it. So they assume Russia or China or North Korea are the bad guys. And maybe they are. But in reality, they are just protecting themselves from American military dominance, and it's empirically motivated foreign policy.
Don't you mean missile DEFENCE systems? There is quite a difference.
no, he probably means the nuclear missiles that were recently moved from Turkey to Romania for a start"
You mean this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36272686 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Russia moved nuclear capable missiles to the EU border also and just tested a supersonic missile designed to evade a degence sytem."
Of course there is also the fact that Vlad boasted that after the shooting down of the passenger jet over the Ukraine, that he mobilised all his nuclear arsenal and moved his tactical nukes up to the Russia Ukrainian border in case any of the countries that guaranteed Ukraine's borders when Ukraine gave up its nuclear capability (The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances) intervened. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Russia moved nuclear capable missiles to the EU border also and just tested a supersonic missile designed to evade a degence sytem.
Of course there is also the fact that Vlad boasted that after the shooting down of the passenger jet over the Ukraine, that he mobilised all his nuclear arsenal and moved his tactical nukes up to the Russia Ukrainian border in case any of the countries that guaranteed Ukraine's borders when Ukraine gave up its nuclear capability (The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances) intervened. "
You mean like us? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"
no, he probably means the nuclear missiles that were recently moved from Turkey to Romania for a start"
"The Romanian foreign ministry, MAE on Thursday dismissed claims that the US has started transferring nuclear weapons from Turkey to Romania amid tensions in relations between Washington and Ankara.
“The MAE firmly rejects these pieces of information,” the ministry said in a press release, without elaborating.
Defence Minister Mihnea Motoc said that such media reports were just speculation and “so far there have not been any plans or discussions [among NATO members] on this topic”.
The statements came after website Euractiv reported on Thursday morning that more than 20 B61 nuclear weapons were being moved from Turkey’s Incirlik air base to the Deveselu base in Romania.
According to one of the two anonymous sources quoted by Euractiv, “US-Turkey relations had deteriorated so much following the [recent attempted] coup that Washington no longer trusted Ankara to host the weapons”.
US and Turkish officials made no immediate response to Euractiv’s request for a comment.
NATO said however that US allies must ensure that “all components of NATO’s nuclear deterrent remain safe, secure, and effective”.
In Romania, analysts said they doubted whether the transfer would happen.
“Such a transfer is very challenging in technical and political terms. I doubt the Alliance would run against its political commitments to cooperation with Moscow, based on the Founding Act of mutual relations and security between NATO and Russia,” said political analist Andrei Tarnea.
The Founding Act, signed in 1997, says NATO allies “have no intention, no plan and no reason to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of new members [such as Romania], nor any need to change any aspect of NATO's nuclear posture or nuclear policy - and do not foresee any future need to do so”.
Jeffrey Lewis, director of non-proliferation studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in Monterey, said in a Twitter post that Romania does not have the capacity to store the weapons.
“For one thing, there are no WS3 vaults at Deveselu - or anywhere in Romania - to store the B61s,” Lewis said.
In December 2015, the US Navy formally inaugurated its new missile defence base in Deveselu in southern Romania. The base became operational in mid-May this year.
It is one of two European land-based interceptor sites for a NATO missile shield, a scheme which is viewed with deep suspicion by Russia."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Russia moved nuclear capable missiles to the EU border also and just tested a supersonic missile designed to evade a degence sytem.
Of course there is also the fact that Vlad boasted that after the shooting down of the passenger jet over the Ukraine, that he mobilised all his nuclear arsenal and moved his tactical nukes up to the Russia Ukrainian border in case any of the countries that guaranteed Ukraine's borders when Ukraine gave up its nuclear capability (The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances) intervened.
You mean like us? "
Yep...
Nothing like living up to treaty obligations...
We and the Yanks have such a good record the Ukrainians should erect a memorial to us and the Russians for the way we protected their sovereignty.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
no, he probably means the nuclear missiles that were recently moved from Turkey to Romania for a start
"The Romanian foreign ministry, MAE on Thursday dismissed claims that the US has started transferring nuclear weapons from Turkey to Romania amid tensions in relations between Washington and Ankara.
“The MAE firmly rejects these pieces of information,” the ministry said in a press release, without elaborating.
Defence Minister Mihnea Motoc said that such media reports were just speculation and “so far there have not been any plans or discussions [among NATO members] on this topic”.
The statements came after website Euractiv reported on Thursday morning that more than 20 B61 nuclear weapons were being moved from Turkey’s Incirlik air base to the Deveselu base in Romania.
According to one of the two anonymous sources quoted by Euractiv, “US-Turkey relations had deteriorated so much following the [recent attempted] coup that Washington no longer trusted Ankara to host the weapons”.
US and Turkish officials made no immediate response to Euractiv’s request for a comment.
NATO said however that US allies must ensure that “all components of NATO’s nuclear deterrent remain safe, secure, and effective”.
In Romania, analysts said they doubted whether the transfer would happen.
“Such a transfer is very challenging in technical and political terms. I doubt the Alliance would run against its political commitments to cooperation with Moscow, based on the Founding Act of mutual relations and security between NATO and Russia,” said political analist Andrei Tarnea.
The Founding Act, signed in 1997, says NATO allies “have no intention, no plan and no reason to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of new members [such as Romania], nor any need to change any aspect of NATO's nuclear posture or nuclear policy - and do not foresee any future need to do so”.
Jeffrey Lewis, director of non-proliferation studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in Monterey, said in a Twitter post that Romania does not have the capacity to store the weapons.
“For one thing, there are no WS3 vaults at Deveselu - or anywhere in Romania - to store the B61s,” Lewis said.
In December 2015, the US Navy formally inaugurated its new missile defence base in Deveselu in southern Romania. The base became operational in mid-May this year.
It is one of two European land-based interceptor sites for a NATO missile shield, a scheme which is viewed with deep suspicion by Russia."
"
what would you expect them to say?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I like Russia. They haven't succumbed to political correctness and mass immigration and the are tax breaks for native Russians that have kids.
What's wrong with Russia? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"I like Russia. They haven't succumbed to political correctness and mass immigration and the are tax breaks for native Russians that have kids.
What's wrong with Russia?"
They haven't succumbed to political correctness? That's why LGBT people still get beaten to death in the street, and political opponents are either jailed or executed.
Do you know the guilty rate of the Russian court system? 97%. If you end up in court, there is a 97% chance you will be found gulity. Does that sound safe to you?
What about their invasions of Georgia, Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Do you think that's ok? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"State doping of athletes, shooting down of civilian airliners, mysterious murders of political opponents.....the charge sheet is getting longer! "
.
Yeah but we're not talking about West.....what about the Russians  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I like Russia. They haven't succumbed to political correctness and mass immigration and the are tax breaks for native Russians that have kids.
What's wrong with Russia?
They haven't succumbed to political correctness? That's why LGBT people still get beaten to death in the street, and political opponents are either jailed or executed.
Do you know the guilty rate of the Russian court system? 97%. If you end up in court, there is a 97% chance you will be found gulity. Does that sound safe to you?
What about their invasions of Georgia, Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Do you think that's ok? "
And yet there are countries in the world that still commit crucifixion and enforce the death penalty, where homosexualitg is ILLEGAL, and you are not allowed to enter certain countries is you belong to a certain ethnic group. Yet you focus on Russia. I know you dislike people with pale skin but try not let your shocking bias seep through to this extent.
And l doubt that statistic. Are you saying that if l called the police in Moscow, claimed you beat me up, there would be 97% chance you'd be convicted of it? Don't talk shite. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"State doping of athletes, shooting down of civilian airliners, mysterious murders of political opponents.....the charge sheet is getting longer! "
No worse than most nations but far better that some. There are far worse, more violent African countries and Asian countries. I've never seen anyone utter a peep about North Korea. Only places with people who have pale skin are up for criticism. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"State doping of athletes, shooting down of civilian airliners, mysterious murders of political opponents.....the charge sheet is getting longer!
No worse than most nations but far better that some. There are far worse, more violent African countries and Asian countries. I've never seen anyone utter a peep about North Korea. Only places with people who have pale skin are up for criticism."
With due respect, the country in question was Russia.
You'd need a whole new page if you wanted to include other countries in the world. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
"An interesting article in the telegraph today.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/17/russia-accused-waging-secret-war-against-britain-using-cyber/?WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_androidshare_AnFPNdNTLNY1
Russia is determined to weaken the West, weaken the US, the UK, and the EU and are using many methods to do so, including trying to influence the referendum and US election through fake news stories as well as through the state controlled RT, and of course the various hacks.
I would say they have been incredibly effective. "
Do you think that the West doesn't try to influence the East, or that any country doesn't try to influence any other country?
Have you never read about the CIA's tactics on foreign soil?
Were you not around during the referendum when non-UK countries and organisations from all over the world were trying to influence the way that people voted?
Or do you think it is only Russia that tries to influence others outside of its borders? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"I like Russia. They haven't succumbed to political correctness and mass immigration and the are tax breaks for native Russians that have kids.
What's wrong with Russia?
They haven't succumbed to political correctness? That's why LGBT people still get beaten to death in the street, and political opponents are either jailed or executed.
Do you know the guilty rate of the Russian court system? 97%. If you end up in court, there is a 97% chance you will be found gulity. Does that sound safe to you?
What about their invasions of Georgia, Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Do you think that's ok?
And yet there are countries in the world that still commit crucifixion and enforce the death penalty, where homosexualitg is ILLEGAL, and you are not allowed to enter certain countries is you belong to a certain ethnic group. Yet you focus on Russia. I know you dislike people with pale skin but try not let your shocking bias seep through to this extent.
And l doubt that statistic. Are you saying that if l called the police in Moscow, claimed you beat me up, there would be 97% chance you'd be convicted of it? Don't talk shite."
But the difference between you and I, is that I have publically stated on this forum that those kind of laws and punishments are barbaric whichever country they happen in, where as you say things like "I like Russia".
I will admit when I have made a mistake and I was indeed wrong on my statistic relating to the Russian judiciary. The actual figure is more than 99%, so I was out by just over 2%. That statistic comes from Vyacheslav Lebedev, the head of the Russian supreme court.
I don't know where you get it in your head that I am biased against "pale" people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And yet there are countries in the world that still commit crucifixion and enforce the death penalty, where homosexualitg is ILLEGAL, and you are not allowed to enter certain countries is you belong to a certain ethnic group. Yet you focus on Russia. I know you dislike people with pale skin but try not let your shocking bias seep through to this extent.
And l doubt that statistic. Are you saying that if l called the police in Moscow, claimed you beat me up, there would be 97% chance you'd be convicted of it? Don't talk shite."
And no matter what any individual, organisation or country does there will always be an apologist who will say 'but others do this or that' as if that exonerates the actions of who or whatever the apologist is defending...
Of course having used the 'but look at them' defence they will always finish with the 'and I dont believe what you are saying in any case' to finish.
Deniers are all the same. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I like Russia. They haven't succumbed to political correctness and mass immigration and the are tax breaks for native Russians that have kids.
What's wrong with Russia?
They haven't succumbed to political correctness? That's why LGBT people still get beaten to death in the street, and political opponents are either jailed or executed.
Do you know the guilty rate of the Russian court system? 97%. If you end up in court, there is a 97% chance you will be found gulity. Does that sound safe to you?
What about their invasions of Georgia, Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Do you think that's ok? "
Maybe if the CPS did its job properly in this country we would have 97/99% conviction rates. Or would you rather prosecute people with a slim chance of being convicted? Does that sound safe to you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"I like Russia. They haven't succumbed to political correctness and mass immigration and the are tax breaks for native Russians that have kids.
What's wrong with Russia?
They haven't succumbed to political correctness? That's why LGBT people still get beaten to death in the street, and political opponents are either jailed or executed.
Do you know the guilty rate of the Russian court system? 97%. If you end up in court, there is a 97% chance you will be found gulity. Does that sound safe to you?
What about their invasions of Georgia, Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Do you think that's ok?
Maybe if the CPS did its job properly in this country we would have 97/99% conviction rates. Or would you rather prosecute people with a slim chance of being convicted? Does that sound safe to you?"
You do have a very strange view of the world!
To get a conviction rate that high, you either need to just assume virtually everyone in court is guilty, therefore denying them a fair hearing, and ending up with lots of innocent people in jail, or, you only send the cases to court where there is vastly overwhelming evidence of guilt, and therefore NOT even bother to prosecute guilty people which had less than overwhelming evidence, thus allowing lots of guilty people to go free.
Which one would you prefer, innocent people in prison, or guilty people walking the streets? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I like Russia. They haven't succumbed to political correctness and mass immigration and the are tax breaks for native Russians that have kids.
What's wrong with Russia?
They haven't succumbed to political correctness? That's why LGBT people still get beaten to death in the street, and political opponents are either jailed or executed.
Do you know the guilty rate of the Russian court system? 97%. If you end up in court, there is a 97% chance you will be found gulity. Does that sound safe to you?
What about their invasions of Georgia, Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Do you think that's ok?
Maybe if the CPS did its job properly in this country we would have 97/99% conviction rates. Or would you rather prosecute people with a slim chance of being convicted? Does that sound safe to you?
You do have a very strange view of the world!
To get a conviction rate that high, you either need to just assume virtually everyone in court is guilty, therefore denying them a fair hearing, and ending up with lots of innocent people in jail, or, you only send the cases to court where there is vastly overwhelming evidence of guilt, and therefore NOT even bother to prosecute guilty people which had less than overwhelming evidence, thus allowing lots of guilty people to go free.
Which one would you prefer, innocent people in prison, or guilty people walking the streets? "
 how can you be guilty with less than overwhelming evidence?? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"I like Russia. They haven't succumbed to political correctness and mass immigration and the are tax breaks for native Russians that have kids.
What's wrong with Russia?
They haven't succumbed to political correctness? That's why LGBT people still get beaten to death in the street, and political opponents are either jailed or executed.
Do you know the guilty rate of the Russian court system? 97%. If you end up in court, there is a 97% chance you will be found gulity. Does that sound safe to you?
What about their invasions of Georgia, Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Do you think that's ok?
Maybe if the CPS did its job properly in this country we would have 97/99% conviction rates. Or would you rather prosecute people with a slim chance of being convicted? Does that sound safe to you?
You do have a very strange view of the world!
To get a conviction rate that high, you either need to just assume virtually everyone in court is guilty, therefore denying them a fair hearing, and ending up with lots of innocent people in jail, or, you only send the cases to court where there is vastly overwhelming evidence of guilt, and therefore NOT even bother to prosecute guilty people which had less than overwhelming evidence, thus allowing lots of guilty people to go free.
Which one would you prefer, innocent people in prison, or guilty people walking the streets?
how can you be guilty with less than overwhelming evidence??"
Because the burden of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt' |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I like Russia. They haven't succumbed to political correctness and mass immigration and the are tax breaks for native Russians that have kids.
What's wrong with Russia?
They haven't succumbed to political correctness? That's why LGBT people still get beaten to death in the street, and political opponents are either jailed or executed.
Do you know the guilty rate of the Russian court system? 97%. If you end up in court, there is a 97% chance you will be found gulity. Does that sound safe to you?
What about their invasions of Georgia, Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Do you think that's ok?
Maybe if the CPS did its job properly in this country we would have 97/99% conviction rates. Or would you rather prosecute people with a slim chance of being convicted? Does that sound safe to you?
You do have a very strange view of the world!
To get a conviction rate that high, you either need to just assume virtually everyone in court is guilty, therefore denying them a fair hearing, and ending up with lots of innocent people in jail, or, you only send the cases to court where there is vastly overwhelming evidence of guilt, and therefore NOT even bother to prosecute guilty people which had less than overwhelming evidence, thus allowing lots of guilty people to go free.
Which one would you prefer, innocent people in prison, or guilty people walking the streets?
how can you be guilty with less than overwhelming evidence??
Because the burden of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt'"
so the evidence would be overwhelming then |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"so the evidence would be overwhelming then"
No, if a credible eye witness says they saw you commiting a crime that is not overwhelming evidence, but it is enough to get you convicted unless you can prove they are mistaken. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"so the evidence would be overwhelming then
No, if a credible eye witness says they saw you commiting a crime that is not overwhelming evidence, but it is enough to get you convicted unless you can prove they are mistaken."
So that would be enough evidence, but overwhelming evidence could be 5 eye witnesses (3 policemen and 2 judges), 4k CCTV from 3 different cameras, finger prints, DNA, and the criminal accidentally dropping his passport and drivers licence at the scene of the crime.
See the difference? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"so the evidence would be overwhelming then
No, if a credible eye witness says they saw you commiting a crime that is not overwhelming evidence, but it is enough to get you convicted unless you can prove they are mistaken.
So that would be enough evidence, but overwhelming evidence could be 5 eye witnesses (3 policemen and 2 judges), 4k CCTV from 3 different cameras, finger prints, DNA, and the criminal accidentally dropping his passport and drivers licence at the scene of the crime.
See the difference? "
Or in the case of the armed robber who held up a jewellers in Stockport some years back. To run out of the shop strait into the forward pack or a rugby team who objected to him swinging his baseball bat at them and broke him...  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"so the evidence would be overwhelming then
No, if a credible eye witness says they saw you commiting a crime that is not overwhelming evidence, but it is enough to get you convicted unless you can prove they are mistaken."
that's enought to get you convicted? I'm surprised the conviction rate is not 99% in the UK then. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"so the evidence would be overwhelming then
No, if a credible eye witness says they saw you commiting a crime that is not overwhelming evidence, but it is enough to get you convicted unless you can prove they are mistaken.
that's enought to get you convicted? I'm surprised the conviction rate is not 99% in the UK then."
Because not every crime in that is committed has an eye witness! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"so the evidence would be overwhelming then
No, if a credible eye witness says they saw you commiting a crime that is not overwhelming evidence, but it is enough to get you convicted unless you can prove they are mistaken.
that's enought to get you convicted? I'm surprised the conviction rate is not 99% in the UK then.
Because not every crime in that is committed has an eye witness! "
I think you get the point. By the way, how come America has a higher percentage of prisoners than Russia do you think? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"By the way, how come America has a higher percentage of prisoners than Russia do you think?"
Because they have a 3 strikes rule in many states, therefore it is possible for a hungry homeless man to get a life sentence for staling food or breaking into an empty building to find shelter.
But what has that to do with Russia?
Are you now resorting what about them defence? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"By the way, how come America has a higher percentage of prisoners than Russia do you think?
Because they have a 3 strikes rule in many states, therefore it is possible for a hungry homeless man to get a life sentence for staling food or breaking into an empty building to find shelter.
But what has that to do with Russia?
Are you now resorting what about them defence?"
All CandM are trying to do is divert the thread by constantly asking their childish "why?" questions like they do all the time. They can't stick to a topic because they don't like it when they are proved wrong each and every time so they constantly try to divert the thread. That's why on a thread about Russian interference in western democracy they are talking about US prisoner rates. They don't want a bad word said against their beloved Putin. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"By the way, how come America has a higher percentage of prisoners than Russia do you think?
Because they have a 3 strikes rule in many states, therefore it is possible for a hungry homeless man to get a life sentence for staling food or breaking into an empty building to find shelter.
But what has that to do with Russia?
Are you now resorting what about them defence?
All CandM are trying to do is divert the thread by constantly asking their childish "why?" questions like they do all the time. They can't stick to a topic because they don't like it when they are proved wrong each and every time so they constantly try to divert the thread. That's why on a thread about Russian interference in western democracy they are talking about US prisoner rates. They don't want a bad word said against their beloved Putin."
lol, you are the one who brought up prisoner rates or convictions as some way of condemning Russia, I was just bringing some balance/context to the debate. I am sure that nobody here loves Putin but there are also some who do not fall for the propoganda put out by the West |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ian curtis has a film out which goes into putins strategy.
Vladislav Surkov is the mastermind behind it.
Surkov is one of President Putin's advisors and has helped him maintain his power for fifteen years, but he has done it in a very new way. He came originally from the avant-garde art world, and those who have studied his career say that what Surkov has done is import ideas from conceptual art into the very heart of politics.
His aim is to undermine people's perception of the world so they never know what is really happening. Surkov turned Russian politics into a bewildering, constantly-changing piece of theatre: he sponsored all kinds of groups, from Neo-Nazi skin-heads to liberal human rights groups, he even backed parties that were opposed to President Putin. But the key thing was that Surkov then let it be known that this was what he was doing, which meant that no one was sure what was real or fake.
As one journalist put it" "It's a strategy of power that keeps any opposition constantly confused, a ceaseless shape-shifting that is unstoppable because its indefinable," which is exactly what Surkov is alleged to have done in the Ukraine this year.
In typical fashion as the war began Surkov published a short story about something he called Non-Linear War, a war where you never know what the enemy are really up to or even who they are. The underlying aim Surkov says is not to win the war but to use the conflict to create a constant state of destabilized perception in order to manage and control."
Absolutely this |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ian curtis has a film out which goes into putins strategy.
Vladislav Surkov is the mastermind behind it.
Surkov is one of President Putin's advisors and has helped him maintain his power for fifteen years, but he has done it in a very new way. He came originally from the avant-garde art world, and those who have studied his career say that what Surkov has done is import ideas from conceptual art into the very heart of politics.
His aim is to undermine people's perception of the world so they never know what is really happening. Surkov turned Russian politics into a bewildering, constantly-changing piece of theatre: he sponsored all kinds of groups, from Neo-Nazi skin-heads to liberal human rights groups, he even backed parties that were opposed to President Putin. But the key thing was that Surkov then let it be known that this was what he was doing, which meant that no one was sure what was real or fake.
As one journalist put it" "It's a strategy of power that keeps any opposition constantly confused, a ceaseless shape-shifting that is unstoppable because its indefinable," which is exactly what Surkov is alleged to have done in the Ukraine this year.
In typical fashion as the war began Surkov published a short story about something he called Non-Linear War, a war where you never know what the enemy are really up to or even who they are. The underlying aim Surkov says is not to win the war but to use the conflict to create a constant state of destabilized perception in order to manage and control.
Absolutely this"
The film is on bbc Iplayer called "Hyper Normalisation".Its eye opening. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ian curtis has a film out which goes into putins strategy.
Vladislav Surkov is the mastermind behind it.
Surkov is one of President Putin's advisors and has helped him maintain his power for fifteen years, but he has done it in a very new way. He came originally from the avant-garde art world, and those who have studied his career say that what Surkov has done is import ideas from conceptual art into the very heart of politics.
His aim is to undermine people's perception of the world so they never know what is really happening. Surkov turned Russian politics into a bewildering, constantly-changing piece of theatre: he sponsored all kinds of groups, from Neo-Nazi skin-heads to liberal human rights groups, he even backed parties that were opposed to President Putin. But the key thing was that Surkov then let it be known that this was what he was doing, which meant that no one was sure what was real or fake.
As one journalist put it" "It's a strategy of power that keeps any opposition constantly confused, a ceaseless shape-shifting that is unstoppable because its indefinable," which is exactly what Surkov is alleged to have done in the Ukraine this year.
In typical fashion as the war began Surkov published a short story about something he called Non-Linear War, a war where you never know what the enemy are really up to or even who they are. The underlying aim Surkov says is not to win the war but to use the conflict to create a constant state of destabilized perception in order to manage and control.
Absolutely this The film is on bbc Iplayer called "Hyper Normalisation".Its eye opening."
Very much so. Thank you for the heads up on this  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think it's probably true to some extent but yeah it's not like the west have ever tried to influence Russian elections has it?.
"
No never, Yeltsin never played tennis with good old pal George, Shell was never pumping Russian oil out illegaly  Sallgood |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"I think it's probably true to some extent but yeah it's not like the west have ever tried to influence Russian elections has it?.
No never, Yeltsin never played tennis with good old pal George, Shell was never pumping Russian oil out illegaly Sallgood"
How would they be influenced? The Russian elections are rigged anyway.
From Wikipedia:
Since Vladimir Putin became President of Russia there has been increasing international criticism of the conduct of Russian elections. European institutions who observed the December 2007 legislative elections concluded that these were not fair elections. Göran Lennmarker, president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), said that the elections "failed to meet many of the commitments and standards that we have. It was not a fair election."[6] Luc Van den Brande, who headed a delegation from the Council of Europe, referred to the "overwhelming influence of the president's office and the president on the campaign" and said there was "abuse of administrative resources" designed to influence the outcome. He also said there were "flaws in the secrecy of the vote." "Effectively, we can't say these were fair elections," he said at a news conference.[7]
In February 2008 The human rights organisation Amnesty International said that the presidential election on 2 March would not be a genuine election: "There is no real opposition ahead of the election. There is no real electoral campaign battle," Friederike Behr, Amnesty's Russia researcher, was quoted as saying. In a report on the elections, Amnesty said laws restricting non-government organizations, police breaking up demonstrations, and harassment from critics were all part of "a systematic destruction of civil liberties in Russia."[8] Another human rights organisation, Freedom House, said that the victory of Putin's party in the 2007 elections "was achieved under patently unfair and non-competitive conditions calling into doubt the result’s legitimacy."[9]
The Russian government has acted to prevent international observers monitoring Russian elections. In 2007 the OSCE was prevented from monitoring the legislative elections held in December.[10] In February 2008 the European Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights announced that it would not send observers to monitor the presidential election on 2 March, citing what it called "severe restrictions" imposed on its work by the Russian government. "We made every effort in good faith to deploy our mission, even under the conditions imposed by the Russian authorities", said Christian Strohal, the organization’s director. "The Russian Federation has created limitations that are not conducive to undertaking election observation".[11] The OSCE has also withdrawn its attempts to monitor the elections.
The 2011 Russian legislative elections were considered to be rigged in favor of the ruling party by a number of journalists and opposition representatives.[12] However public opinion-polls prior to the election suggested that the ruling party could count on the support of 45–55 percent of voters, which may suggest that there were no mass falsifications, despite isolated cases of fraud.[13] Nationwide exit polls were very close to the final results.[14]
In 2015 OSCE called the Russian government to respect and support the work of independent election observers, following a number of incidents where citizen observers were beaten or harassed in regional elections.[15] |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I grew up in the whole post soviet eastern block, people look you in the eye, they smile and say hello, on the street. unlike here.
This whole post needs a tin foil hat over it. West - East all bullshit talks back and forth with no end. Live your life people, fuck politics. Uk/Us/Eu/Ru all empires/unions/etc have been and gone and nothing is ever right or lasts forever. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think it's probably true to some extent but yeah it's not like the west have ever tried to influence Russian elections has it?.
No never, Yeltsin never played tennis with good old pal George, Shell was never pumping Russian oil out illegaly Sallgood
How would they be influenced? The Russian elections are rigged anyway.
From Wikipedia:
Since Vladimir Putin became President of Russia there has been increasing international criticism of the conduct of Russian elections. European institutions who observed the December 2007 legislative elections concluded that these were not fair elections. Göran Lennmarker, president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), said that the elections "failed to meet many of the commitments and standards that we have. It was not a fair election."[6] Luc Van den Brande, who headed a delegation from the Council of Europe, referred to the "overwhelming influence of the president's office and the president on the campaign" and said there was "abuse of administrative resources" designed to influence the outcome. He also said there were "flaws in the secrecy of the vote." "Effectively, we can't say these were fair elections," he said at a news conference.[7]
In February 2008 The human rights organisation Amnesty International said that the presidential election on 2 March would not be a genuine election: "There is no real opposition ahead of the election. There is no real electoral campaign battle," Friederike Behr, Amnesty's Russia researcher, was quoted as saying. In a report on the elections, Amnesty said laws restricting non-government organizations, police breaking up demonstrations, and harassment from critics were all part of "a systematic destruction of civil liberties in Russia."[8] Another human rights organisation, Freedom House, said that the victory of Putin's party in the 2007 elections "was achieved under patently unfair and non-competitive conditions calling into doubt the result’s legitimacy."[9]
The Russian government has acted to prevent international observers monitoring Russian elections. In 2007 the OSCE was prevented from monitoring the legislative elections held in December.[10] In February 2008 the European Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights announced that it would not send observers to monitor the presidential election on 2 March, citing what it called "severe restrictions" imposed on its work by the Russian government. "We made every effort in good faith to deploy our mission, even under the conditions imposed by the Russian authorities", said Christian Strohal, the organization’s director. "The Russian Federation has created limitations that are not conducive to undertaking election observation".[11] The OSCE has also withdrawn its attempts to monitor the elections.
The 2011 Russian legislative elections were considered to be rigged in favor of the ruling party by a number of journalists and opposition representatives.[12] However public opinion-polls prior to the election suggested that the ruling party could count on the support of 45–55 percent of voters, which may suggest that there were no mass falsifications, despite isolated cases of fraud.[13] Nationwide exit polls were very close to the final results.[14]
In 2015 OSCE called the Russian government to respect and support the work of independent election observers, following a number of incidents where citizen observers were beaten or harassed in regional elections.[15]"
remember telling me that things on Wikipedia don't count? Or is that only when it differs from your viewpoint? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I grew up in the whole post soviet eastern block, people look you in the eye, they smile and say hello, on the street. unlike here.
This whole post needs a tin foil hat over it. West - East all bullshit talks back and forth with no end. Live your life people, fuck politics. Uk/Us/Eu/Ru all empires/unions/etc have been and gone and nothing is ever right or lasts forever. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
