War with Russia
Discussion
toppstuff said:
Transmitter Man said:
He will probably argue that they are all fascists or something equally absurd.An antiwar protest in Moscow, Putin allows protest contrary to his policy. And ? Waiting for the punchline here.
I remember a march in London, 1 million people, and the Iraq war still went ahead.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Monday 22 September 20:18
toppstuff said:
Transmitter Man said:
He will probably argue that they are all fascists or something equally absurd.
QuantumTokoloshi said:
toppstuff said:
Transmitter Man said:
He will probably argue that they are all fascists or something equally absurd.An antiwar protest in Moscow, Putin allows protest contrary to his policy. And ? Waiting for the punchline here.
I remember a march in London, 1 million people, and the Iraq war still went ahead.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Monday 22 September 20:18
No-one is saying the western media is infallible, nor that it has not gotten things wrong. But expecting the Russian administration to be seen as equal is just absurd.
toppstuff said:
I think most people find the notion that you regard the western press and governments and the Putin administration as somehow being on the same level in terms of transparency and accountability, rather comical.
No-one is saying the western media is infallible, nor that it has not gotten things wrong. But expecting the Russian administration to be seen as equal is just absurd.
I am well aware of what Putin is, more so than most on this thread. have you been to Russia lately ? I have. Been to Kazakhstan lately ? I have. Been to the Ukraine lately ? I have. been to Azerbaijan lately ? I have. Been to Georgia lately ? I have. Been to Finland lately ? I have. Been to Poland lately ? Been to Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, china or Belarus lately ? I have, Amongst many other places. I have covered a big chunk of the ex Soviet Union and it's neighbours in the last 3 years.No-one is saying the western media is infallible, nor that it has not gotten things wrong. But expecting the Russian administration to be seen as equal is just absurd.
I actually have first hand experience of these countries, not just the BBC sanctioned news diet. I have over a number of years, spoken to some very intelligent people about their views and political situations in the various countries. I have argued, agreed and listened quietly while people have told some extraordinary stories of life under communism and the geopolitics affecting their lives. Vodka tends to open the discussion up.
Your blind faith in the correctness, unbiased and propaganda free zone of Western media is what is absurd.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Monday 22 September 21:33
Finlandia said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Been to Finland lately ? I have
I'd be interested in your views on how Finns look at Russia. What is that Finnish saying, meaning not giving up or something similar? I was told it came from the winter war, but cannot remember it and cannot find it on the Internet.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Monday 22 September 22:03
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Finlandia said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Been to Finland lately ? I have
I'd be interested in your views on how Finns look at Russia. What is that Finnish saying, meaning not giving up, someone told me it came from the winter war, but cannot remember it and cannot find it on the Internet.
Sisu, the Finnish "f
k you, I won't give up" attitude.Finlandia said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Finlandia said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Been to Finland lately ? I have
I'd be interested in your views on how Finns look at Russia. What is that Finnish saying, meaning not giving up, someone told me it came from the winter war, but cannot remember it and cannot find it on the Internet.
Sisu, the Finnish "f
k you, I won't give up" attitude.Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Tuesday 23 September 07:50
QuantumTokoloshi said:
It is not about journalists being killed, it is about the main stream media doing the bidding of the required masters, be that state or private masters, either overt or subtle bias. It is not about Russian or American or UK or Iranian or Chinese or Israeli media. RT is no better than Fox news or Sky or Canal+ or RTI.
Though I usually agree with you and find your comments quite insightful and intelligent, I would not go this far. To compare RT to Fox News is, by any measure, absurd. To say otherwise would suggest that you have not watched much of Fox's programming (which, as you are not American, is quite possible).Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Thursday 18th September 14:59
What RT does is clever. I've watched a number of their opinion shows, where their bias should openly dominate, but even in that context, much of what is presented are easy-to-confirm facts and objective reporting. Yes, the facts often suit a Russian agenda and support a critical view of the United States in particular, but these facts would never see the light of day in a typical US newspaper, and the blatant propaganda that so often affects even the hard reporting from UK/US outlets is largely missing.
The way RT covers stories reminds me quite a bit of how the respected German outlets (I now live in DE) go about their business, as a lot of the same information tends to be reported -- information often missing in reports from equivalent outlets in the UK or US.
scherzkeks said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
It is not about journalists being killed, it is about the main stream media doing the bidding of the required masters, be that state or private masters, either overt or subtle bias. It is not about Russian or American or UK or Iranian or Chinese or Israeli media. RT is no better than Fox news or Sky or Canal+ or RTI.
Though I usually agree with you and find your comments quite insightful and intelligent, I would not go this far. To compare RT to Fox News is, by any measure, absurd. To say otherwise would suggest that you have not watched much of Fox's programming (which, as you are not American, is quite possible).Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Thursday 18th September 14:59
What RT does is clever. I've watched a number of their opinion shows, where their bias should openly dominate, but even in that context, much of what is presented are easy-to-confirm facts and objective reporting. Yes, the facts often suit a Russian agenda and support a critical view of the United States in particular, but these facts would never see the light of day in a typical US newspaper, and the blatant propaganda that so often affects even the hard reporting from UK/US outlets is largely missing.
The way RT covers stories reminds me quite a bit of how the respected German outlets (I now live in DE) go about their business, as a lot of the same information tends to be reported -- information often missing in reports from equivalent outlets in the UK or US.
RT is more sophisticated than that (not according to my detractors on this thread) with some sections having reasonable content, some of the finance news and commentary is very good. RT is not subtle in its pro Russian stance, most news stories, where feasible, invariably have a negative USA theme within, much like the anti Russian / Putin bias we are seeing with the UK news channels.
You have hit on what I have been saying, the mainstream media all have their paymasters, be that government or public owners. The only way to get a balanced view is to consult as many sources as possible. You try and look for the alternate sources, investigative journalists, electronic sources to see the whole story, unfortunately that means wading through tin foil hatters and crazies.
The best way ultimately is, go there.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Tuesday 23 September 14:17
QuantumTokoloshi said:
RT is more sophisticated than that (not according to my detractors on this thread) with some sections having reasonable content, some of the finance news and commentary is very good. RT is not subtle in its pro Russian stance, most news stories, where feasible, invariably have a negative USA theme within, much like the anti Russian / Putin bias we are seeing with the UK news channels.
Bit like The Guardian then. As long as yoiu stay away from politics it's actually a very good read but there's always an undercurrent of left wing subversion which can show itself as rabid ideology in the politics section.skyrover said:
No each side is not as bad as the other.
There is a difference between omission and outright fabrication.
Well I disagree, when the intention is to mislead the public in order to install your own opinion, by what ever method, then both sides are 'playing the game' so to speak, in my mind it places them both in the same boat.There is a difference between omission and outright fabrication.
Good article
wallstreetjournal said:
Putin Targets the Baltics to Discredit NATO
Having humiliated the West in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin's Russia is turning to the Baltic states. It has sent four powerful signals, none of which have met a proper response.
No sooner had President Obama earlier this month delivered a ringing message of support to Europe's beleaguered front line in Tallinn, the Estonian capital, than Russia abducted an Estonian security official, Eston Kohver, near the countries' shared border. He awaits trial in Moscow, on espionage charges—and a 20-year jail sentence if convicted.
Next, Russia asked Lithuania to extradite an estimated 1,500 citizens who allegedly failed to complete their military service in the final years of the Soviet Union. That is as sinister and repellent as if modern Germany wanted Dutch or Danish help in prosecuting deserters from Hitler's army. And on Sept. 19, Russia seized a Lithuanian fishing vessel, which Moscow said was poaching in Russia's territorial waters. The ship and its crew have been detained in Murmansk, prompting a furious protest from authorities in Vilnius.
Meanwhile, Konstantin Dolgov, a senior Russian official, issued a chilling warning earlier this month during a conference in Riga, the Latvian capital. He accused the Baltic states of fostering neo-Nazism, discriminating against ethnic Russians and the Russian language, and gross violations of human rights. The West, he said, had instigated these abuses.
Moscow has periodically tried to whip up the discrimination angle over the past two decades, but the revival of the theme, with the West dragged in, is a notable escalation in the Kremlin's information warfare. Coming now it is also a sign that Russia may be trying to repeat its triumph in Ukraine—but in countries that are core members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. If Mr. Putin succeeds in destabilizing those countries, it would deal a devastating blow to the alliance's credibility.
Russia has long preferred fiction to fact in the Baltics. It denies that then-independent Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were occupied by the Soviet army in 1940, maintaining that they were legally annexed. It shows no remorse for the resulting repression, including the deportation to the depths of the Soviet Union of 200,000 men, women and children. Even before Mr. Putin and his ex-KGB friends took power, Russia was a meddlesome neighbor.
It is now getting worse. Mr. Dolgov's charges in Riga are invented—and even his title, the Russian Foreign Ministry's "special representative for human rights, democracy and the rule of law," is as plausible as that of a vulpine specialist in poultry welfare. But the punishment is all too likely to be real. Mr. Dolgov warned the Baltic states of "far-reaching, unfortunate consequences" if they continue with their imaginary sins.
Russia's stealth war in Ukraine started with stunts and propaganda too. When its protégé, Ukraine's then-president Viktor Yanukovych, fled the country in February, Russia abruptly termed the new authorities in Kiev a "junta." Moscow claimed that Russian-speaking Ukrainians were being persecuted, and that neo-Nazism was rampant. The accusations were styled to inflame old grievances and fears, and they set the stage for civil war.
Could that now happen in the Baltics? Like Ukraine, these three countries have sizable numbers of ethnic Russians—around a million, or one-seventh of the total population, with Latvia having the largest proportion. They range from well-integrated local citizens to ardent Russian nationalists. But the Baltic states are not hotbeds of ethnic tension—at least for now. In everyday life, different languages and cultures rub along fine. Estonia and Latvia offer citizenship to all residents regardless of ethnicity: You merely have to learn the national language and pass a history exam. Lithuania enfranchised its small Russian minority in 1991.
As the shellshocked residents of the ruined towns and cities of eastern Ukraine would attest, Russian "protection" of allegedly oppressed minorities does not improve their lot. Mr. Dolgov's bullying will not ease wrangles over the role of Russia in education and public life. Instead, it threatens to destroy the peaceful lives all residents of the Baltics have enjoyed since 1991.
But the squeeze on the Baltics stems not from any real interest in the fate of expatriate Russians—a matter that Moscow systematically ignores in most countries. The Kremlin aim is to demoralize the countries by showing weak Western resolve.
So far, President Putin is succeeding. NATO is slowly and belatedly getting used to the idea that it must deal with territorial defense against a Russian threat. In a year or so, the alliance may have a rapid-reaction force, able to reinforce Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in a crisis. But NATO is hamstrung. Most members do not spend enough on defense, and some of the oldest members—France, Italy and Germany, in particular—believe that even defensive moves against Russia are "provocative."
Meanwhile, Russia is rearming fast. Its military plans involve the early use of battlefield nuclear weapons—something that is a serious taboo for most NATO members.
NATO's biggest problem is that it is configured to wage the wrong kind of war. Russia doesn't fight according to conventional military timetables. It softens up countries that it wants to dominate, using confusing, unpredictable tactics, with an approach that military experts dub "hybrid warfare." This includes trade sanctions, energy cutoffs (the Baltic states import all of their natural gas from Russia), propaganda, cyberattacks, the targeted use of organized crime, corruption of politicians—and the incitement of ethnic grievances.
NATO and the West aren't set up to deal with these threats, which also come with a dose of maskirovka, a word for camouflage and thus a broad program of military deception. The Soviet Union excelled at this, but modern Russia has taken it to a new level.
Its central feature is deniability. Cutting off the gas? A purely business decision. Cyberattack? Patriotic Russian hackers are acting on their own initiative. Propaganda? Russian editors make their own decisions. And those tough, soldierly men stoking ethnic discontent? Who knows—perhaps they choose to spend their vacation that way.
Such tactics could all too easily destabilize one or more of the Baltic states, forcing a change in government and destroying collective security in Europe forever. Yet so far NATO's placid political masters show no sign of willingness to forestall the looming disaster.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB206082973252...Having humiliated the West in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin's Russia is turning to the Baltic states. It has sent four powerful signals, none of which have met a proper response.
No sooner had President Obama earlier this month delivered a ringing message of support to Europe's beleaguered front line in Tallinn, the Estonian capital, than Russia abducted an Estonian security official, Eston Kohver, near the countries' shared border. He awaits trial in Moscow, on espionage charges—and a 20-year jail sentence if convicted.
Next, Russia asked Lithuania to extradite an estimated 1,500 citizens who allegedly failed to complete their military service in the final years of the Soviet Union. That is as sinister and repellent as if modern Germany wanted Dutch or Danish help in prosecuting deserters from Hitler's army. And on Sept. 19, Russia seized a Lithuanian fishing vessel, which Moscow said was poaching in Russia's territorial waters. The ship and its crew have been detained in Murmansk, prompting a furious protest from authorities in Vilnius.
Meanwhile, Konstantin Dolgov, a senior Russian official, issued a chilling warning earlier this month during a conference in Riga, the Latvian capital. He accused the Baltic states of fostering neo-Nazism, discriminating against ethnic Russians and the Russian language, and gross violations of human rights. The West, he said, had instigated these abuses.
Moscow has periodically tried to whip up the discrimination angle over the past two decades, but the revival of the theme, with the West dragged in, is a notable escalation in the Kremlin's information warfare. Coming now it is also a sign that Russia may be trying to repeat its triumph in Ukraine—but in countries that are core members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. If Mr. Putin succeeds in destabilizing those countries, it would deal a devastating blow to the alliance's credibility.
Russia has long preferred fiction to fact in the Baltics. It denies that then-independent Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were occupied by the Soviet army in 1940, maintaining that they were legally annexed. It shows no remorse for the resulting repression, including the deportation to the depths of the Soviet Union of 200,000 men, women and children. Even before Mr. Putin and his ex-KGB friends took power, Russia was a meddlesome neighbor.
It is now getting worse. Mr. Dolgov's charges in Riga are invented—and even his title, the Russian Foreign Ministry's "special representative for human rights, democracy and the rule of law," is as plausible as that of a vulpine specialist in poultry welfare. But the punishment is all too likely to be real. Mr. Dolgov warned the Baltic states of "far-reaching, unfortunate consequences" if they continue with their imaginary sins.
Russia's stealth war in Ukraine started with stunts and propaganda too. When its protégé, Ukraine's then-president Viktor Yanukovych, fled the country in February, Russia abruptly termed the new authorities in Kiev a "junta." Moscow claimed that Russian-speaking Ukrainians were being persecuted, and that neo-Nazism was rampant. The accusations were styled to inflame old grievances and fears, and they set the stage for civil war.
Could that now happen in the Baltics? Like Ukraine, these three countries have sizable numbers of ethnic Russians—around a million, or one-seventh of the total population, with Latvia having the largest proportion. They range from well-integrated local citizens to ardent Russian nationalists. But the Baltic states are not hotbeds of ethnic tension—at least for now. In everyday life, different languages and cultures rub along fine. Estonia and Latvia offer citizenship to all residents regardless of ethnicity: You merely have to learn the national language and pass a history exam. Lithuania enfranchised its small Russian minority in 1991.
As the shellshocked residents of the ruined towns and cities of eastern Ukraine would attest, Russian "protection" of allegedly oppressed minorities does not improve their lot. Mr. Dolgov's bullying will not ease wrangles over the role of Russia in education and public life. Instead, it threatens to destroy the peaceful lives all residents of the Baltics have enjoyed since 1991.
But the squeeze on the Baltics stems not from any real interest in the fate of expatriate Russians—a matter that Moscow systematically ignores in most countries. The Kremlin aim is to demoralize the countries by showing weak Western resolve.
So far, President Putin is succeeding. NATO is slowly and belatedly getting used to the idea that it must deal with territorial defense against a Russian threat. In a year or so, the alliance may have a rapid-reaction force, able to reinforce Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in a crisis. But NATO is hamstrung. Most members do not spend enough on defense, and some of the oldest members—France, Italy and Germany, in particular—believe that even defensive moves against Russia are "provocative."
Meanwhile, Russia is rearming fast. Its military plans involve the early use of battlefield nuclear weapons—something that is a serious taboo for most NATO members.
NATO's biggest problem is that it is configured to wage the wrong kind of war. Russia doesn't fight according to conventional military timetables. It softens up countries that it wants to dominate, using confusing, unpredictable tactics, with an approach that military experts dub "hybrid warfare." This includes trade sanctions, energy cutoffs (the Baltic states import all of their natural gas from Russia), propaganda, cyberattacks, the targeted use of organized crime, corruption of politicians—and the incitement of ethnic grievances.
NATO and the West aren't set up to deal with these threats, which also come with a dose of maskirovka, a word for camouflage and thus a broad program of military deception. The Soviet Union excelled at this, but modern Russia has taken it to a new level.
Its central feature is deniability. Cutting off the gas? A purely business decision. Cyberattack? Patriotic Russian hackers are acting on their own initiative. Propaganda? Russian editors make their own decisions. And those tough, soldierly men stoking ethnic discontent? Who knows—perhaps they choose to spend their vacation that way.
Such tactics could all too easily destabilize one or more of the Baltic states, forcing a change in government and destroying collective security in Europe forever. Yet so far NATO's placid political masters show no sign of willingness to forestall the looming disaster.
AA999 said:
skyrover said:
No each side is not as bad as the other.
There is a difference between omission and outright fabrication.
Well I disagree, when the intention is to mislead the public in order to install your own opinion, by what ever method, then both sides are 'playing the game' so to speak, in my mind it places them both in the same boat.There is a difference between omission and outright fabrication.
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/ofcom-rules-against-...
Octoposse said:
skyrover said:
Good article
Warmongering ste would be nearer the mark . . . only suprising thing missing was a plug in favour of TTIP which usually appears in these polemics . . .Really.
QuantumTokoloshi said:
You have hit on what I have been saying, the mainstream media all have their paymasters, be that government or public owners. The only way to get a balanced view is to consult as many sources as possible. You try and look for the alternate sources, investigative journalists, electronic sources to see the whole story, unfortunately that means wading through tin foil hatters and crazies.
The best way ultimately is, go there.
Quite so. Unfortunately I don't get over there as much as I used to (and former Yugoslavia and its successor states were mainly my thing anyway).The best way ultimately is, go there.
However, it's astonishing how little fairly basic critical thinking and analysis is done without even leaving the comfort of one's living room. The political imperatives facing Vladimir Putin are actually more straightforward than those facing, say, David Cameron. Yet even 'our' politicians (who at least one would expect to grasp simple politics - having never done anything else in their lives - however useless they are at everything else) fail to get to grips with simple facts and principles in order to inform subsequent policy decisions.
Ditto the conflict in Gaza - actually the imperatives, objectives and consequent strategies of the two sides are not rocket (ho ho) science, yet our expensive duplicated Foreign Offices and analysts go about their business apparently oblivious . . . engaging instead with image / soundbite / headline of the day . . . it's like watching eight year old playing football, kicking it up the pitch and chasing it in a pack.
Depressing really. I think I'll stop thinking about it and make some cheesey pasta for my toddler instead . . .
skyrover said:
It is a good article. It will be a very unpleasant experience being on the receiving side of that geopolitical play. Damned if you react, damned if you don't.I am not convinced Russia is uniquely adept at hybrid warfare, it sounds a lot like what has gone on before in many South American, African or Asian countries for years, when the prevailing government is earmarked for replacement.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Tuesday 23 September 19:22
Mojocvh said:
Octoposse said:
skyrover said:
Good article
Warmongering ste would be nearer the mark . . . only suprising thing missing was a plug in favour of TTIP which usually appears in these polemics . . .Really.
Octoposse said:
Mojocvh said:
Octoposse said:
skyrover said:
Good article
Warmongering ste would be nearer the mark . . . only suprising thing missing was a plug in favour of TTIP which usually appears in these polemics . . .Really.
Plot lost totally there methinks.. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff