War with Russia
Discussion
I've lurked this thread for a while....
What gets me is the almost inevitable nature and well trodden path the USA has to war, there is no doubt Russia is far from a good guy in this (and Putin a wise old dog, but bloody evil with it)
The USA just seems hell bent on tearing the Ukraine away from the East and has been for last couple of years...
Some wise words from Ron Paul here (USA congressmen for c30years+, right wing and served in the military for two stints) so hardly a typical Russian sympathiser.
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-...
What gets me is the almost inevitable nature and well trodden path the USA has to war, there is no doubt Russia is far from a good guy in this (and Putin a wise old dog, but bloody evil with it)
The USA just seems hell bent on tearing the Ukraine away from the East and has been for last couple of years...
Some wise words from Ron Paul here (USA congressmen for c30years+, right wing and served in the military for two stints) so hardly a typical Russian sympathiser.
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-...
Ron Paul - Institute said:
Today the US House passed what I consider to be one of the worst pieces of legislation ever. H. Res. 758 was billed as a resolution “strongly condemning the actions of the Russian Federation, under President Vladimir Putin, which has carried out a policy of aggression against neighboring countries aimed at political and economic domination.”
In fact, the bill was 16 pages of war propaganda that should have made even neocons blush, if they were capable of such a thing.
These are the kinds of resolutions I have always watched closely in Congress, as what are billed as “harmless” statements of opinion often lead to sanctions and war. I remember in 1998 arguing strongly against the Iraq Liberation Act because, as I said at the time, I knew it would lead to war. I did not oppose the Act because I was an admirer of Saddam Hussein – just as now I am not an admirer of Putin or any foreign political leader – but rather because I knew then that another war against Iraq would not solve the problems and would probably make things worse. We all know what happened next.
That is why I can hardly believe they are getting away with it again, and this time with even higher stakes: provoking a war with Russia that could result in total destruction!
If anyone thinks I am exaggerating about how bad this resolution really is, let me just offer a few examples from the legislation itself:
The resolution (paragraph 3) accuses Russia of an invasion of Ukraine and condemns Russia’s violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. The statement is offered without any proof of such a thing. Surely with our sophisticated satellites that can read a license plate from space we should have video and pictures of this Russian invasion. None have been offered. As to Russia’s violation of Ukrainian sovereignty, why isn’t it a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty for the US to participate in the overthrow of that country’s elected government as it did in February? We have all heard the tapes of State Department officials plotting with the US Ambassador in Ukraine to overthrow the government. We heard US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland bragging that the US spent $5 billion on regime change in Ukraine. Why is that OK?
The resolution (paragraph 11) accuses the people in east Ukraine of holding “fraudulent and illegal elections” in November. Why is it that every time elections do not produce the results desired by the US government they are called “illegal” and “fraudulent”? Aren’t the people of eastern Ukraine allowed self-determination? Isn’t that a basic human right?
The resolution (paragraph 13) demands a withdrawal of Russia forces from Ukraine even though the US government has provided no evidence the Russian army was ever in Ukraine. This paragraph also urges the government in Kiev to resume military operations against the eastern regions seeking independence.
The resolution (paragraph 14) states with certainty that the Malaysia Airlines flight 17 that crashed in Ukraine was brought down by a missile “fired by Russian-backed separatist forces in eastern Ukraine.” This is simply incorrect, as the final report on the investigation of this tragedy will not even be released until next year and the preliminary report did not state that a missile brought down the plane. Neither did the preliminary report – conducted with the participation of all countries involved – assign blame to any side.
Paragraph 16 of the resolution condemns Russia for selling arms to the Assad government in Syria. It does not mention, of course, that those weapons are going to fight ISIS – which we claim is the enemy -- while the US weapons supplied to the rebels in Syria have actually found their way into the hands of ISIS!
Paragraph 17 of the resolution condemns Russia for what the US claims are economic sanctions (“coercive economic measures”) against Ukraine. This even though the US has repeatedly hit Russia with economic sanctions and is considering even more!
The resolution (paragraph 22) states that Russia invaded the Republic of Georgia in 2008. This is simply untrue. Even the European Union – no friend of Russia – concluded in its investigation of the events in 2008 that it was Georgia that “started an unjustified war” against Russia not the other way around! How does Congress get away with such blatant falsehoods? Do Members not even bother to read these resolutions before voting?
In paragraph 34 the resolution begins to even become comical, condemning the Russians for what it claims are attacks on computer networks of the United States and “illicitly acquiring information” about the US government. In the aftermath of the Snowden revelations about the level of US spying on the rest of the world, how can the US claim the moral authority to condemn such actions in others?
Chillingly, the resolution singles out Russian state-funded media outlets for attack, claiming that they “distort public opinion.” The US government, of course, spends billions of dollars worldwide to finance and sponsor media outlets including Voice of America and RFE/RL, as well as to subsidize “independent” media in countless counties overseas. How long before alternative information sources like RT are banned in the United States? This legislation brings us closer to that unhappy day when the government decides the kind of programming we can and cannot consume – and calls such a violation “freedom.”
The resolution gives the green light (paragraph 45) to Ukrainian President Poroshenko to re-start his military assault on the independence-seeking eastern provinces, urging the “disarming of separatist and paramilitary forces in eastern Ukraine.” Such a move will mean many more thousands of dead civilians.
To that end, the resolution directly involves the US government in the conflict by calling on the US president to “provide the government of Ukraine with lethal and non-lethal defense articles, services, and training required to effectively defend its territory and sovereignty.” This means US weapons in the hands of US-trained military forces engaged in a hot war on the border with Russia. Does that sound at all like a good idea?
There are too many more ridiculous and horrific statements in this legislation to completely discuss. Probably the single most troubling part of this resolution, however, is the statement that “military intervention” by the Russian Federation in Ukraine “poses a threat to international peace and security.” Such terminology is not an accident: this phrase is the poison pill planted in this legislation from which future, more aggressive resolutions will follow. After all, if we accept that Russia is posing a “threat” to international peace how can such a thing be ignored? These are the slippery slopes that lead to war.
In fact, the bill was 16 pages of war propaganda that should have made even neocons blush, if they were capable of such a thing.
These are the kinds of resolutions I have always watched closely in Congress, as what are billed as “harmless” statements of opinion often lead to sanctions and war. I remember in 1998 arguing strongly against the Iraq Liberation Act because, as I said at the time, I knew it would lead to war. I did not oppose the Act because I was an admirer of Saddam Hussein – just as now I am not an admirer of Putin or any foreign political leader – but rather because I knew then that another war against Iraq would not solve the problems and would probably make things worse. We all know what happened next.
That is why I can hardly believe they are getting away with it again, and this time with even higher stakes: provoking a war with Russia that could result in total destruction!
If anyone thinks I am exaggerating about how bad this resolution really is, let me just offer a few examples from the legislation itself:
The resolution (paragraph 3) accuses Russia of an invasion of Ukraine and condemns Russia’s violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. The statement is offered without any proof of such a thing. Surely with our sophisticated satellites that can read a license plate from space we should have video and pictures of this Russian invasion. None have been offered. As to Russia’s violation of Ukrainian sovereignty, why isn’t it a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty for the US to participate in the overthrow of that country’s elected government as it did in February? We have all heard the tapes of State Department officials plotting with the US Ambassador in Ukraine to overthrow the government. We heard US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland bragging that the US spent $5 billion on regime change in Ukraine. Why is that OK?
The resolution (paragraph 11) accuses the people in east Ukraine of holding “fraudulent and illegal elections” in November. Why is it that every time elections do not produce the results desired by the US government they are called “illegal” and “fraudulent”? Aren’t the people of eastern Ukraine allowed self-determination? Isn’t that a basic human right?
The resolution (paragraph 13) demands a withdrawal of Russia forces from Ukraine even though the US government has provided no evidence the Russian army was ever in Ukraine. This paragraph also urges the government in Kiev to resume military operations against the eastern regions seeking independence.
The resolution (paragraph 14) states with certainty that the Malaysia Airlines flight 17 that crashed in Ukraine was brought down by a missile “fired by Russian-backed separatist forces in eastern Ukraine.” This is simply incorrect, as the final report on the investigation of this tragedy will not even be released until next year and the preliminary report did not state that a missile brought down the plane. Neither did the preliminary report – conducted with the participation of all countries involved – assign blame to any side.
Paragraph 16 of the resolution condemns Russia for selling arms to the Assad government in Syria. It does not mention, of course, that those weapons are going to fight ISIS – which we claim is the enemy -- while the US weapons supplied to the rebels in Syria have actually found their way into the hands of ISIS!
Paragraph 17 of the resolution condemns Russia for what the US claims are economic sanctions (“coercive economic measures”) against Ukraine. This even though the US has repeatedly hit Russia with economic sanctions and is considering even more!
The resolution (paragraph 22) states that Russia invaded the Republic of Georgia in 2008. This is simply untrue. Even the European Union – no friend of Russia – concluded in its investigation of the events in 2008 that it was Georgia that “started an unjustified war” against Russia not the other way around! How does Congress get away with such blatant falsehoods? Do Members not even bother to read these resolutions before voting?
In paragraph 34 the resolution begins to even become comical, condemning the Russians for what it claims are attacks on computer networks of the United States and “illicitly acquiring information” about the US government. In the aftermath of the Snowden revelations about the level of US spying on the rest of the world, how can the US claim the moral authority to condemn such actions in others?
Chillingly, the resolution singles out Russian state-funded media outlets for attack, claiming that they “distort public opinion.” The US government, of course, spends billions of dollars worldwide to finance and sponsor media outlets including Voice of America and RFE/RL, as well as to subsidize “independent” media in countless counties overseas. How long before alternative information sources like RT are banned in the United States? This legislation brings us closer to that unhappy day when the government decides the kind of programming we can and cannot consume – and calls such a violation “freedom.”
The resolution gives the green light (paragraph 45) to Ukrainian President Poroshenko to re-start his military assault on the independence-seeking eastern provinces, urging the “disarming of separatist and paramilitary forces in eastern Ukraine.” Such a move will mean many more thousands of dead civilians.
To that end, the resolution directly involves the US government in the conflict by calling on the US president to “provide the government of Ukraine with lethal and non-lethal defense articles, services, and training required to effectively defend its territory and sovereignty.” This means US weapons in the hands of US-trained military forces engaged in a hot war on the border with Russia. Does that sound at all like a good idea?
There are too many more ridiculous and horrific statements in this legislation to completely discuss. Probably the single most troubling part of this resolution, however, is the statement that “military intervention” by the Russian Federation in Ukraine “poses a threat to international peace and security.” Such terminology is not an accident: this phrase is the poison pill planted in this legislation from which future, more aggressive resolutions will follow. After all, if we accept that Russia is posing a “threat” to international peace how can such a thing be ignored? These are the slippery slopes that lead to war.
Edited by Wilmslowboy on Sunday 7th December 08:43
skyrover said:
Why would the US be hell bent pm tearinh Ukraine away from "the east".
It has nothing of strategic value.
Well, we agree on that. It has nothing of strategic value.
It makes picking an unecessary fight with Russia over the issue (and floating the idea of NATO membership for Ukraine and - even more bizarrely - Georgia) unfathomable.
Unless it's payback for styming 'our' heartfelt desire to go to war with Syria?
Or - and even I can't quite believe we'd be that stupid - it really is about going for regime change in Moscow?
Elroy Blue said:
I got as far as 'no proof of Russian invasion'. There's plenty of photographic and video evidence. He seems to have forgotten about it
The USA invades everywhere, but Russia and China don't go trying to stop them by force.The USA do nothing BUT invade everyone else.
If you can't read between the lines here then that is a shame, but it's pretty clear Russia called the West's bluff and now the USA are escalating the issue to try get Russia to back down.
From what I can see Russians seem to have pretty good solidarity when it comes to being bullied by foreign interests. And this time the bullies are up against someone with a nuclear deterrent, unlike everyone else they've bullied in the past.
Personally I'm on the side of Russia. World Police America should just f
k off and die now. Arrogant, warmongering, peace destroying fking muppets!If anyone is gonna make the future for our children and childrens children a nightmare it's gonna be the USA and their greedy single minded evil expansionist stupidness!
Dave
Mr Whippy said:
The USA invades everywhere, but Russia and China don't go trying to stop them by force.
The USA do nothing BUT invade everyone else.
Dave
Countries invaded by Russia since 1939 The USA do nothing BUT invade everyone else.
Dave
Poland (1939–1956)
Baltic states (1940–1991)
Finnish territories (1940)
Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina (1940)
The People's Socialist Republic of Albania (Satellite 1944–1960; government extant until 1992)
The People's Republic of Poland (1944–1989)
The People's Republic of Bulgaria (1946–1990)
The People's Republic of Romania (1947–1967)
The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (1948–1989)
The German Democratic Republic (1949–1990)
The People's Republic of Hungary (1949–1990)
Northern Iran 1941–1946
Hungary (1944)
Romania (1944)
Bulgaria (1944)
Czechoslovakia (1944)
Northern Norway 1944–1946 / Bornholm 1945–1946
Germany (1945)
Austria 1945–1955
Manchuria 1945–1946
Korea 1945–1948
Kuril Islands 1945
Hungary1956
Czechoslovakia (1968–1991)
Afghanistan 1979–1989
Crimea 2014
Russia has also annexed many countries like:
Mongolia=1921
Kazikstan= mid 19th c
Belarus= 1920s
It recently tried to take Georgia and now it is busy cutting chunks out of Ukraine.
The USA has indeed invaded many countries... how many has it annexed?
skyrover said:
The USA has indeed invaded many countries... how many has it annexed?
The USA doesn't need to annex them when it simply installs the correct people to reflect their interests in that country.Didn't Ukraine just allow three prominent US political types into their country as new Ukrainian citizens, so they can take seats on their government?
Much to the furore of many of the political establishment?
The USA doesn't have to annex, it just assimilates.
Dave
Mr Whippy said:
skyrover said:
The USA has indeed invaded many countries... how many has it annexed?
The USA doesn't need to annex them when it simply installs the correct people to reflect their interests in that country.Didn't Ukraine just allow three prominent US political types into their country as new Ukrainian citizens, so they can take seats on their government?
Much to the furore of many of the political establishment?
The USA doesn't have to annex, it just assimilates.
Dave
Mr Whippy said:
The USA doesn't need to annex them when it simply installs the correct people to reflect their interests in that country.
Didn't Ukraine just allow three prominent US political types into their country as new Ukrainian citizens, so they can take seats on their government?
Much to the furore of many of the political establishment?
The USA doesn't have to annex, it just assimilates.
Dave
Just accept that your cack-handed attempt to portray the United States as unique in its tendency to 'invade' everywhere has (courtesy of Skyrover) just run into an incontrovertible brick wall. Didn't Ukraine just allow three prominent US political types into their country as new Ukrainian citizens, so they can take seats on their government?
Much to the furore of many of the political establishment?
The USA doesn't have to annex, it just assimilates.
Dave
Joey Ramone said:
Mr Whippy said:
The USA doesn't need to annex them when it simply installs the correct people to reflect their interests in that country.
Didn't Ukraine just allow three prominent US political types into their country as new Ukrainian citizens, so they can take seats on their government?
Much to the furore of many of the political establishment?
The USA doesn't have to annex, it just assimilates.
Dave
Just accept that your cack-handed attempt to portray the United States as unique in its tendency to 'invade' everywhere has (courtesy of Skyrover) just run into an incontrovertible brick wall. Didn't Ukraine just allow three prominent US political types into their country as new Ukrainian citizens, so they can take seats on their government?
Much to the furore of many of the political establishment?
The USA doesn't have to annex, it just assimilates.
Dave
I've repeatedly said up and down this thread that neither side warrants any respect for their respective positions.
What I find stunning is that people actually believe the s
t that is rolled out from general western media outlets as proof.Remember the WMD dossier that led the west to invade Iraq, that turned out to be nonsense?
But you carry on thinking a war over Ukraine, perpetuated by a warmongering west, is in your best interests.
Unless you can explain why the USA are so motivated to 'liberate' Ukraine?
World Police? It's as simple as that? They just want to do something nice?
Dave
I think there are one or two people here that are making a mountain out of a molehill.
Look at the history, recent & distant of how Russia has trwated and used Ukraine.
The majority of the people of Ukraine and within the government wanted closer ties with Europe both before and since the democratic elections in October.
Don't get me started on Georgia.
And now Putin says he's going to bring Kazakstan back into the fold.
It's bloody laughable.
I sincerely hope he ends up like another dictator, in a pipe.
Phil
Look at the history, recent & distant of how Russia has trwated and used Ukraine.
The majority of the people of Ukraine and within the government wanted closer ties with Europe both before and since the democratic elections in October.
Don't get me started on Georgia.
And now Putin says he's going to bring Kazakstan back into the fold.
It's bloody laughable.
I sincerely hope he ends up like another dictator, in a pipe.
Phil
Joey Ramone said:
Mr Whippy said:
The USA doesn't need to annex them when it simply installs the correct people to reflect their interests in that country.
Didn't Ukraine just allow three prominent US political types into their country as new Ukrainian citizens, so they can take seats on their government?
Much to the furore of many of the political establishment?
The USA doesn't have to annex, it just assimilates.
Dave
Just accept that your cack-handed attempt to portray the United States as unique in its tendency to 'invade' everywhere has (courtesy of Skyrover) just run into an incontrovertible brick wall. Didn't Ukraine just allow three prominent US political types into their country as new Ukrainian citizens, so they can take seats on their government?
Much to the furore of many of the political establishment?
The USA doesn't have to annex, it just assimilates.
Dave
Mojocvh said:
Joey Ramone said:
Mr Whippy said:
The USA doesn't need to annex them when it simply installs the correct people to reflect their interests in that country.
Didn't Ukraine just allow three prominent US political types into their country as new Ukrainian citizens, so they can take seats on their government?
Much to the furore of many of the political establishment?
The USA doesn't have to annex, it just assimilates.
Dave
Just accept that your cack-handed attempt to portray the United States as unique in its tendency to 'invade' everywhere has (courtesy of Skyrover) just run into an incontrovertible brick wall. Didn't Ukraine just allow three prominent US political types into their country as new Ukrainian citizens, so they can take seats on their government?
Much to the furore of many of the political establishment?
The USA doesn't have to annex, it just assimilates.
Dave
But some people can't read their way out of a paper bag.
Dave
http://www.malaysiandigest.com/frontpage/29-4-tile...
UKRAINE was urged to close the east of the country to civil aviation days before the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in July but ignored the warning.
Sources at Eurocontrol, the organisation that manages Europe’s air traffic, said its experts spoke privately to their Ukrainian counterparts about the potential threat after more than 20 Ukrainian military aircraft were destroyed by Russian-backed rebels.
The Ukrainians continued to let planes fly over the affected area, however. The sources said Eurocontrol did not have the power to interfere with countries’ decisions.
The revelation looks certain to fuel the anger of the families of the 298 passengers and crew — 38 of them Australians — who died when the plane was shot down on July 17.
Some families are taking legal action against the Ukrainian government for refusing to shut the airspace above the conflict zone. They say there was abundant evidence rebel forces were using missiles that could have endangered civilian aircraft.
In the week before the downing of MH17, separatist militias shot down at least four Ukrainian Sukhoi-25 airforce jet fighters and one Antonov-26 transporter, which was flying at 6500m.
Following the destruction of the Antonov on July 14, Ukrainian authorities raised the minimum height at which civilian aircraft were required to fly over the region from 8000m to 9700m but refused to close the airspace. MH17 was flying at 10,000m when it was hit.
According to a source at Eurocontrol, experts from the organisation identified at least three reasons for serious concern: first that pro-Russian separatists had already downed a number of Ukrainian military aeroplanes using anti-aircraft weapons; second, separatist forces were jamming communication frequencies; and third, there had been a breakdown in communications between Russian and Ukrainian air-traffic control.
Several airlines re-routed their flights weeks before the attack on the Malaysian plane, which is believed to have been targeted by mistake. Several others, including Malaysia Airlines, did not.
Elmar Giemulla, a lawyer acting for the families of four German victims, has filed a lawsuit against the Ukrainian government at the European Court of Human Rights for its failure to close the airspace. He said the lives of passengers had been endangered for financial and political reasons.
“Presumably the Ukrainian authorities wanted to avoid losing the revenue from transit fees — up to $US1 billion ($1.19bn) per year — and also for political reasons, as shutting your airspace means admitting a loss of control and a loss of sovereignty,” he said.
Siemon Wezeman, a weapons expert at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, also criticised the Ukrainians’ failure to act. “Considering the Antonov was shot down with heavy anti-aircraft systems, and how widely they were used in the area, one must wonder why the airspace wasn’t shut down completely,” he said.
There was further controversy last week when it emerged that Dutch authorities had removed from their report into the crash a clause in an earlier version that said Ukraine had raised the altitude level for civilian airlines.
Ukraine intelligence sources said they had been made aware that several anti-aircraft systems had crossed from Russia into Ukraine at least a week before the MH17 incident. But they claimed the intelligence was not “100 per cent reliable” and could not have been used as grounds for “drastic moves” such as shutting airspace.
“I blame the Ukrainian authorities for not closing the airspace and Malaysia Airlines for not taking a decision to avoid it,” said Robby Oehlers, who lost a cousin in the tragedy.
UKRAINE was urged to close the east of the country to civil aviation days before the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in July but ignored the warning.
Sources at Eurocontrol, the organisation that manages Europe’s air traffic, said its experts spoke privately to their Ukrainian counterparts about the potential threat after more than 20 Ukrainian military aircraft were destroyed by Russian-backed rebels.
The Ukrainians continued to let planes fly over the affected area, however. The sources said Eurocontrol did not have the power to interfere with countries’ decisions.
The revelation looks certain to fuel the anger of the families of the 298 passengers and crew — 38 of them Australians — who died when the plane was shot down on July 17.
Some families are taking legal action against the Ukrainian government for refusing to shut the airspace above the conflict zone. They say there was abundant evidence rebel forces were using missiles that could have endangered civilian aircraft.
In the week before the downing of MH17, separatist militias shot down at least four Ukrainian Sukhoi-25 airforce jet fighters and one Antonov-26 transporter, which was flying at 6500m.
Following the destruction of the Antonov on July 14, Ukrainian authorities raised the minimum height at which civilian aircraft were required to fly over the region from 8000m to 9700m but refused to close the airspace. MH17 was flying at 10,000m when it was hit.
According to a source at Eurocontrol, experts from the organisation identified at least three reasons for serious concern: first that pro-Russian separatists had already downed a number of Ukrainian military aeroplanes using anti-aircraft weapons; second, separatist forces were jamming communication frequencies; and third, there had been a breakdown in communications between Russian and Ukrainian air-traffic control.
Several airlines re-routed their flights weeks before the attack on the Malaysian plane, which is believed to have been targeted by mistake. Several others, including Malaysia Airlines, did not.
Elmar Giemulla, a lawyer acting for the families of four German victims, has filed a lawsuit against the Ukrainian government at the European Court of Human Rights for its failure to close the airspace. He said the lives of passengers had been endangered for financial and political reasons.
“Presumably the Ukrainian authorities wanted to avoid losing the revenue from transit fees — up to $US1 billion ($1.19bn) per year — and also for political reasons, as shutting your airspace means admitting a loss of control and a loss of sovereignty,” he said.
Siemon Wezeman, a weapons expert at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, also criticised the Ukrainians’ failure to act. “Considering the Antonov was shot down with heavy anti-aircraft systems, and how widely they were used in the area, one must wonder why the airspace wasn’t shut down completely,” he said.
There was further controversy last week when it emerged that Dutch authorities had removed from their report into the crash a clause in an earlier version that said Ukraine had raised the altitude level for civilian airlines.
Ukraine intelligence sources said they had been made aware that several anti-aircraft systems had crossed from Russia into Ukraine at least a week before the MH17 incident. But they claimed the intelligence was not “100 per cent reliable” and could not have been used as grounds for “drastic moves” such as shutting airspace.
“I blame the Ukrainian authorities for not closing the airspace and Malaysia Airlines for not taking a decision to avoid it,” said Robby Oehlers, who lost a cousin in the tragedy.
skyrover said:
She wants Königsberg back.FourWheelDrift said:
skyrover said:
She wants Königsberg back.
A shame... it used to look like this
Transmitter Man said:
quantum,
Spin there may be but we have the freedom to spin what we want unlike those media outlets in Russia as the end of so many journalists has proved.
Do you have an answer to that?
Phil
We have had many good discussions on here and on other threads, and I would expect more from you, than some vacuous "freedom USA, USA, USA" fall back. I will not dispute that Russia is a de-facto dictatorship, with all that entails for press freedom and personal freedom.Spin there may be but we have the freedom to spin what we want unlike those media outlets in Russia as the end of so many journalists has proved.
Do you have an answer to that?
Phil
What I strongly disagree with you, is your beatification of the mainstream western media. The Western mainstream media is as biased in the reporting, as anything RT could put out. The proof of this was the Iraqi WMD story before the second Iraq war. The BBC just disseminated the government line, the mendacious connection to AL Qaeda etc. without any critical thought.
The US media was even worse, dissenting voices were unpatriotic, treasonous in fact.
The way the Syrian story changed over the course of a year, preparing the population for another war, that far from actually asking questions, the media just needed news fodder, no investigation, simply regurgitation of the required line.
Sound familiar ?
The only source of reasonably accurate news now is independent reporters and investigative reporters, be they Russian, European or American. They are often hard to find, as the mainstream media will not pick up on controversial news. They only pick up the story, once it has gathered pace and cannot be ignored.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Monday 8th December 15:10
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff