View Full Version : Tension between Russia and USA
After have read this article and more about this tension between these two, I thought that this is should have its own thread.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3833941/Russia-orders-officials-fly-home-relatives-living-abroad-tensions-mount-prospect-global-war.html
Russia is ordering all of its officials to fly home any relatives living abroad amid heightened tensions over the prospect of global war, it has been claimed.
I hope they will find a diplomatic solution, so this doesn't turn into a real crisis.
If it turn into a crisis-please change headlines to crisis instead of tension
Markus
Catfish
10-12-16, 01:07 PM
The tension has risen since 1995, when it became clear that the NATO would not stay out of former soviet block countries - violating treaties that b.t.w. were prepositions for the unification of Germany.
Russia and especially Putin are no angels, but what we/the West/the Good do is almost ridiculous. You really must be a whole-hearted atlanticist to believe what the media tell you in Germany.
The latter is no wonder, almost all media anchormen and politicians are members of that club here.
I guess it really makes sense to have trade and treaties over a 3000-mile ocean rather than to come to grips with nearby Russia.
It won't amount to anything, and if it does then it'll fix our problems the old fashioned way.
https://media.giphy.com/media/vUXiliX9OV73O/giphy.gif
Bilge_Rat
10-12-16, 02:06 PM
Russia Reads US Bluster as Sign of War
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/10/11/russia-reads-us-bluster-as-sign-of-war/
as usual our politicians are totally clueless to how close we are to midnight...
Looks like they are going to sit down and have a chat finally.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-announces-first-syria-talks-since-us-freeze/ar-AAiRFCT
Skybird
10-12-16, 02:26 PM
Once tensions feel like in autumn 1983 again, I will agree to be concerned again.
In that autumn, I was 16 back then, the world escaped global nuclear war TWICE by just a hairbreadth. Not before many years later most of us who already were living back then learned how close our encounter with armageddon was in those weeks. First a malfunctioning Sovjet satellite reporting an American missile launch, and then, just a few weeks later after that was resolved by a Russian Lieutenant-Colonel, a misinterpretation by the Sovjets of NATO exercise Able Archer, leading to Sovjet nuclear bombers armed with live nuclear bombs and standing with running engines on the runways, and German cities being 10 minutes away from annihilation.
Compared to that autumn's secret events, what there is today in tensions is relatively boring.
It is events like these two almost-desasters that make me so extrenely pessimistic about our chances to get away with another nuclear arms race in the religiously upheated and highly irrational ME. Compared to that outlook, I prefer to get the Sovjets back. Different to some rleigous idiots in the ME, the Sowjets never wanted to commit suicide for nothing.
Not so long ago an expert on Russian poltics said the West had lost its momentum in foreign politics in both Syria and before that in Ukraine. This expert said the blame was on Obama he is a very weak President regarding foreign politics
Then something about a political vacuum that Putin have exploited to the full.
Markus
It's always Obamas fault, that's rule number one. :yeah: You see, if you get involved in Middle Eastern events then you get lambasted for trying to drag the US into another war, but if you don't get involved in Middle Eastern events then you get lambasted for being weak.
Just launch the damn nukes and get it over with already. :ping:
Onkel Neal
10-12-16, 03:13 PM
Putin ally tells Americans: vote Trump or face nuclear war (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-russian-trump-idUSKCN12C28Q)
Americans should vote for Donald Trump as president next month or risk being dragged into a nuclear war, according to a Russian ultra-nationalist ally of President Vladimir Putin who likes to compare himself to the U.S. Republican candidate.
Vladimir Zhirinovsky, a flamboyant veteran lawmaker known for his fiery rhetoric, told Reuters in an interview that Trump was the only person able to de-escalate dangerous tensions between Moscow and Washington.
By contrast, Trump's Democratic rival Hillary Clinton could spark World War Three, said Zhirinovsky, who received a top state award from Putin after his pro-Kremlin Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) came third in Russia's parliamentary election last month.
Many Russians regard Zhirinovsky as a clownish figure who makes outspoken statements to grab attention but he is also widely viewed as a faithful servant of Kremlin policy, sometimes used to float radical opinions to test public reaction.
Clownish, yet... alive and prospering in Putin's Russia.:hmmm:
It's always Obamas fault, that's rule number one. :yeah: You see, if you get involved in Middle Eastern events then you get lambasted for trying to drag the US into another war, but if you don't get involved in Middle Eastern events then you get lambasted for being weak.
Just launch the damn nukes and get it over with already. :ping:
Ain't that the common rule-always blame it on the President of US.
He also said or he toke an example where Obama had drawn a red line and if Assad crossed this then all hell would come upon Assad-Assad has crossed this line several times and nothing have happened and this such be one of the factor that Putin knows we in the west are weak.
We have it in our mouth, as he said.
Markus
Platapus
10-12-16, 03:42 PM
Remember that the US has to have an enemy. Our MIC depends on it. Actual our economy as a whole depends on it.
Terrorism is not working out and besides you don't need high dollar equipment development for fight terrorists.
China is not cooperating as they are pretty much sticking to their own waters and spending their time making money
North Korea is still the JV of international threats so no funding there.
That leaves the ole reliable Soviet Union/Russia. Always good for a few trillion in new development.
Prometheus
10-12-16, 03:54 PM
don't be afraid folks everything gonna be alright :yeah:
Skybird
10-12-16, 04:32 PM
Obama certainly encouraged too many of the too wrong guys in the ME too much, and mistook adapting a weak own stand for encouring the opponent to communicate, and pissed quite some of his former allies: real one and pretended ones as well. Israel on my mind, Saudi Arabia as well. But he has made the Persians strong.
Putin is Sovjet style, old school. Sowjets understand only one language, and the whole Eastern sphere ticks like that: power. Ellaborated intellectualism is not what scores you points here, but showing what a big thing you have.
No, Obama has not understood this at all. Not one bit. The importance of reason as a factor forming history, often gets dramatically overestimated. So did Obama. And not just in overseas affairs, but at home as well.
I thought it could not become more stupid in foreign politics than with George W. Bush. 8 years of Obama have proven me wrong - it seems its always possible to get even worse. And now comes eiether Clinton or Trump. Fan. Tas. Tic.
Bilge_Rat
10-12-16, 04:39 PM
I'm an Anti-Putin Russian and Clinton Makes Me Nervous
It’s easy to agree with this “democracy good, dictatorship bad” approach, but harder to imagine what it will mean in practice. In Ukraine, for example, trying to thwart Putin could mean buying the line President Petro Poroshenko is trying to sell to the West -- that his opportunistic, thoroughly post-Soviet government is a beacon of freedom and a shield against the Russian plague. Poroshenko’s fondest wish is to get lethal weapons from the U.S., but granting it would probably lead to an even more destructive and deadly phase of the now-frozen conflict. What will the U.S. do if Ukraine is overrun by Russian troops as a result? Neither Clinton nor anyone else in Washington has even discussed this possibility in public.
In Syria, President Bashar al-Assad is obviously a dictator, and he’s tight with Putin to boot. Clinton had urged President Barack Obama to be more resolute in removing him by aiding the Syrian opposition. What if President Clinton uses force more directly against Assad? Will Putin shrink from some kind of military confrontation with the U.S.? I fear not: Russian generals have been itching for such a test for the last few years, since Russia has rearmed and reformed its military. And if the confrontation occurs, consequences will be even more unpredictable than from arming Ukraine.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-11/i-m-an-anti-putin-russian-and-clinton-makes-me-nervous
The Russians are here to stay, either we make a deal with them on practical terms or we just keep pushing them...many in Washington seem to think that the Russians will always blink. Personally, I would rather not gamble with a country that can destroy the entire planet 10 times over.
Prometheus
10-12-16, 04:44 PM
https://s17.postimg.org/ot310vx4f/image.jpg
:D
Rockstar
10-12-16, 06:56 PM
Let see, Russia has a GDP less than that of Italy, its economy is reportedly in decline, it cannot wage a sustained conventional conflict against NATO. But it does have a crap ton load of nuclear weapons. :hmmm:
Dont poke the bear.:D
:D
Pure propaganda.
As the great American Bard Charles Daniels once said:
We may have done a little bit of fighting among ourselves but you outside people had best leave us alone, because we'll all stick together and you can take that to the bank.
fireftr18
10-12-16, 11:02 PM
A friend posted on Facebook. His wife is from Kazakstan. He said she is in touch with her family and there is a lot of tension there.
Catfish
10-13-16, 01:43 AM
Hmm, i wonder what exactly happened to raise those tensions, seems we are not being told all, in the media.
Or from the secret servics. Or from the politicians.
Better not tell us, as usual. Or a hundred years later, if at all. When we are long dead and canot blame certain people anymore. How nice. I wonder how one can get through with this, or why we let them.
Catfish
10-13-16, 05:51 AM
"Mikhail Gorbatchev accuses Nato of preparing for "offensive operations" against Russia"
"Nato has begun preparations for escalating from the Cold War into a hot one."
"All the rhetoric in Warsaw just yells of a desire almost to declare war on Russia. They only talk about defence, but actually they are preparing for offensive operations."
From.. wait.. Gorbatchev?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/nato-chief-russia-soviet-mikhail-gorbachev-ukraine-eastern-europe-tensions-jens-stoltenberg-unified-a7128521.html
When i hear those ultra-nationalists in Poland and Romania alone, i can understand him. But there's also Syriah..
Clearly what we need to do here is give Russia the Baltic States, Poland, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Belarus and half of Germany, then we can get back to how things are supposed to be, facing Ivan over the Fulda Gap. :yep: None of this bloody terrorism business, proper T-72 vs M1A1 action with a liberal sprinkling of tactical nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. :up:
http://i.imgur.com/507MVI4.jpg?1
AVGWarhawk
10-13-16, 07:29 AM
I hold Hillary's campaign, the Obama administration and media accountable for the rising tensions.
Jimbuna
10-13-16, 07:40 AM
Sooooo.....interesting and potentially worrying times ahead then :hmmm:
I should imagine a lot depends on who becomes the next POTUS but either way, God help us.
Rockstar
10-13-16, 10:41 AM
Meanwhile everyone is focused on Trump and regurgitating media stories about how it is HE who will bring us into war with other nations. Anyone hear a fiddle playing? :har:
AVGWarhawk
10-13-16, 10:45 AM
Sooooo.....interesting and potentially worrying times ahead then :hmmm:
I should imagine a lot depends on who becomes the next POTUS but either way, God help us.
If anything this makes for good entertainment. Personally, if I were Putin I would request to keep Russia out of the nonsense. Unless of course Russia has been hacking servers.
Rockstar
10-13-16, 11:09 AM
Sooooo.....interesting and potentially worrying times ahead then :hmmm:
I should imagine a lot depends on who becomes the next POTUS but either way, God help us.
The next POTUS? I dont get it, while some here seem to really be concerned about how one candidate 'might' bring about a war because he has a potty mouth or whatever your emotions dictate. What about the current President his administration and European leaders who seem hell bent on allowing things to escalate into a very real war right now? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot over. Lame duck and all that I guess huh?
Rockstar
10-13-16, 11:34 AM
Clearly what we need to do here is give Russia the Baltic States, Poland, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Belarus and half of Germany, then we can get back to how things are supposed to be, facing Ivan over the Fulda Gap. :yep: None of this bloody terrorism business, proper T-72 vs M1A1 action with a liberal sprinkling of tactical nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. :up:
http://i.imgur.com/507MVI4.jpg?1
Well it certainly would take care of your immigration problem
Well it certainly would take care of your immigration problem
Exactly! It would take care of immigration, benefits, the deficit, overpopulation, food shortages, water shortages, the price of Marmite, everything! It's the ultimate solution. :yeah:
http://i.makeagif.com/media/11-04-2015/3sTgbC.gif
Rockstar
10-13-16, 01:02 PM
I wasnt thinking so much about a war. But rather giving them back the Balkans. If Im not mistaken it was Russia which ousted the Ottoman Empire from that region in the first place. With Russia gone from there guess who's knocking on your door and flooding your borders again?
Agrees...
http://img08.deviantart.net/7681/i/2015/121/8/1/alexander_ii_of_russia_by_kraljaleksandar-d2yrkx6.jpg
(are going into the Ukraine discussion a little)
If this military expert on Danish TV was correct then we will not see a war in its ordinary style. He said that a war in the Baltic would be fought-here he used the same word that some of you have used-by proxy
And will therefor be impossible for NATO to "engage"
Another thing
If you Americans don't vote on Trump-There will be a nuclear war between USA and Russia
If you don't vote on Clinton - There will be a........(Have not heard what will happen to USA and/or the world, if you don't put your vote on Clinton)
Markus
I wasnt thinking so much about a war. But rather giving them back the Balkans. If Im not mistaken it was Russia which ousted the Ottoman Empire from that region in the first place. With Russia gone from there guess who's knocking on your door and flooding your borders again?
Agrees...
http://img08.deviantart.net/7681/i/2015/121/8/1/alexander_ii_of_russia_by_kraljaleksandar-d2yrkx6.jpg
To be honest, I think Russia is already taking the Balkans, but they're doing it with financial contracts rather than T-80s...which makes more sense since the last time someone tried invading the Balkans it was a bit bloody for them.
em2nought
10-13-16, 05:44 PM
Russia is looking like a good place to immigrate to once the liberals are done boosting the West's Allahu Akbar population. :D
Russia is looking like a good place to immigrate to once the liberals are done boosting the West's Allahu Akbar population. :D
Absolutely, you do love Putin right? :yeah:
Jimbuna
10-14-16, 07:19 AM
Why not give Obama a third term....there probably wouldn't be a war then :hmmm:
Rockstar
10-14-16, 07:52 AM
Thats an excellent idea, he did get handed a Nobel peace prize :har:. As everyone knows Trump would very likely start the war drums by proposing a no-fly zone in Syria to shoot down Russian jets, increase troop levels on Russian borders and just play golf all day long while his drones fly to their targets in foreign lands. :D
AVGWarhawk
10-14-16, 09:48 AM
Why not give Obama a third term....there probably wouldn't be a war then :hmmm:
Hillary will be the third term of Obama.
Rockstar
10-14-16, 10:08 AM
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-options-exclusiv-idUSKCN12D2B2
Some top officials argue the United States must act more forcefully in Syria or risk losing what influence it still has over moderate rebels and its Arab, Kurdish and Turkish allies in the fight against Islamic State, the officials told Reuters.
... options includes direct U.S. military action such as air strikes on Syrian military bases, munitions depots or radar and anti-aircraft bases, said one official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
ummm if this is a fight against ISIS. Tell me again why we have to bomb Syrian supply depots and military installations?
But wait! Lets get back to the more pressing issue, who did that war monger Trump grope and when did he grope it?
While we're being fed this crap, Russian government is telling their citizens to find bomb shelters.
LOL.
https://33.media.tumblr.com/d0b01d78ebdf81b8824e8e546d3501ac/tumblr_mpzttwaVU91sp9fcho1_500.gif
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnayvmyploE
:rock::rock::rock::rock:
Russia now says it could sell Turkey a missile defense system, if Turkey wants it. Why is Turkey in NATO?
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-says-it-could-sell-missile-defense-systems-to-turkey/ar-AAiXfin
em2nought
10-14-16, 12:51 PM
Absolutely, you do love Putin right? :yeah:
on the Ritz
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iIL7YKf15ms/Uj2t-gwff4I/AAAAAAAAGEo/twc2Jo28hXo/s1600/putin-on-the-ritz.png
on the Ritz
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iIL7YKf15ms/Uj2t-gwff4I/AAAAAAAAGEo/twc2Jo28hXo/s1600/putin-on-the-ritz.png
http://esq.h-cdn.co/assets/cm/15/05/54ce613cb16d2_-_putinthumbs.jpg
Prometheus
10-14-16, 02:56 PM
To be honest, I think Russia is already taking the Balkans, but they're doing it with financial contracts rather than T-80s...which makes more sense since the last time someone tried invading the Balkans it was a bit bloody for them.
Last one who invaded balkans, to be more precise one balkan state was NATO in 1999!
Prometheus
10-14-16, 03:08 PM
I wasnt thinking so much about a war. But rather giving them back the Balkans. If Im not mistaken it was Russia which ousted the Ottoman Empire from that region in the first place. With Russia gone from there guess who's knocking on your door and flooding your borders again?
The ones who ousted Ottoman empire from balkan was balkans states. Was there been help from Russia at the time, yes. But also help was given by western European countries.Only thing what Russia had in balkan was Bulgaria after WW II because they been allies with Third Reich in WW II
Last one who invaded balkans, to be more precise one balkan state was NATO in 1999!
And look how well that went:
https://planesnsuch.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/f117_5.jpg
:oops:
Rockstar
10-14-16, 04:27 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnayvmyploE
:rock::rock::rock::rock:
Oberon, Oberon, search your feelings Oberon, why resist, why fight it, why deny it. Accept yourself for what you are and embrace the savagery that is humanity.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01681/darthVader_1681043c.jpg
btw I prefer FEAR "Lets Have a War". :Kaleun_Cheers: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yJAlIHsXcLY
Oberon, Oberon, search your feelings Oberon, why resist, why fight it, why deny it. Accept yourself for what you are and embrace the savagery that is humanity.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01681/darthVader_1681043c.jpg
https://31.media.tumblr.com/2116fb219b6ce405fe018526d03e24cd/tumblr_inline_n04pnju70O1ssbkkq.jpg
Skybird is right, this tension isn't so severe as those he mentioned earlier in this thread. But every crisis and/or war has started as a little tension
Let see where this end
In a some kind of diplomatic solution
or this will, not so far from now, turn into a crisis.
A crisis not only regarding Syria.
Markus
If it does, what can we do about it? If the balloon goes up and the buckets of sunshine start pouring all we can do is hope and pray that we get a direct hit.
Rockstar
10-14-16, 06:38 PM
Here Oberon you can use this for planning purposes. Good luck :Kaleun_Wink:
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
em2nought
10-15-16, 12:16 AM
If it does, what can we do about it? If the balloon goes up and the buckets of sunshine start pouring all we can do is hope and pray that we get a direct hit.
We can die with some smug satisfaction that it wasn't the Trumpster who pushed the button. :03:
Jimbuna
10-15-16, 10:02 AM
Here Oberon you can use this for planning purposes. Good luck :Kaleun_Wink:
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
Seen that before and it frightens the life out of me :timeout:
Here Oberon you can use this for planning purposes. Good luck :Kaleun_Wink:
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
Aye, that's the buggerance, despite getting a liberal covering of London and its inhabitants, I would survive the damn thing. Well, unless Ivan wants to nuke nuclear power stations too in which case
https://media.giphy.com/media/gi6R4RkFDKg5G/giphy.gif
em2nought
10-15-16, 02:10 PM
We can die with some smug satisfaction that it wasn't the Trumpster who pushed the button. :03:
edited, I could swear there was an n't on the end of was when I typed that.
edited, I could swear there was an 'nt on the end of was when I typed that.
http://www.robertsoncooper.com/images/content-curation/o-SIGMUND-FREUD-570.jpg
The Russian master weapon has been spotted on the Defence Ministers desk:
http://i.imgur.com/o7Ytg0i.jpg
Eichhörnchen
10-15-16, 03:07 PM
http://i.imgur.com/NjDlY61.jpg
The Russian master weapon has been spotted on the Defence Ministers desk:
http://i.imgur.com/o7Ytg0i.jpg
They are really getting sneaky over there Oberon, check out the Mig 31 in this article,lol
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/world/europe/russia-decoy-weapon.html?_r=0
They are really getting sneaky over there Oberon, check out the Mig 31 in this article,lol
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/world/europe/russia-decoy-weapon.html?_r=0
Well, they learnt from us :up: :
https://warchroniclesblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/4-engineers-lift-up-an-inflatable-sherman.jpg
Catfish
10-15-16, 04:05 PM
Fill that MiG with Helium, or hydrogen.. not soo fast but low radar signature :D
And the company also produces bouncy castles :haha:
In this ongoing tense between USA and Russia, both side try to show each other what new deadly weapon system they have.
First I read about it in a Danish news paper some hours ago, made a search and found an English version
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/russia-unveils-worlds-first-death-9043360
This terrifying footage shows what Russia is claiming is the world's first weapon to use microwave energy 'death-rays' to target military drones.
According to Russia's United Instrument Manufacturing Company (OPK), the weapon has undergone successful prototype testing and is ready to be rolled out.
Markus
First micro-wave based weapon, eh? So the Active Denial System doesn't count? High power microwave weapons were used during the Iraq war to disable and destroy Iraqi electronics and comms gear.
I seriously doubt that Russia has developed the worlds first example of such a weapon.
The stuff that DARPA is working on, crazy stuff:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon
I'm not saying Russia hasn't got similar stuff, they played around with lasers as much as the US did during the Cold War, more so in some cases, but the fact that Russia has a smaller GDP than Brazil, that's got to have taken its toll on their weapons research programs.
First micro-wave based weapon, eh? So the Active Denial System doesn't count? High power microwave weapons were used during the Iraq war to disable and destroy Iraqi electronics and comms gear.
I seriously doubt that Russia has developed the worlds first example of such a weapon.
The stuff that DARPA is working on, crazy stuff:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon
I'm not saying Russia hasn't got similar stuff, they played around with lasers as much as the US did during the Cold War, more so in some cases, but the fact that Russia has a smaller GDP than Brazil, that's got to have taken its toll on their weapons research programs.
You're completely right. This "show off" wasn't directed to the politicians or the military here in the west. It was more directed to the common people mostly in Russia and secondly here in the West.
Markus
Mr Quatro
10-16-16, 08:19 AM
Here's a list of answers to fear that Russia is getting ready for war.
The Washington Post's Moscow bureau decided to rank the signs to see how likely they suggest that Russia is getting ready to fight.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/15/are-the-russians-really-preparing-for-war/
If you don't want to read it ... they said, "no"
The Russian Navy is having a big old shuffle around though, probably switching over patrol vessels, the old Kuznetsov has finally left port, with some refurbished Su-33s and a couple of MiG-29KRs
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cuwjq-CW8AE6lyu.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cu0JOtSWEAAZMRs.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cu4ABrqWcAAsIT3.jpg:large
Looks like they'll be transitting through the Channel so the RN will have some fun getting some duty-free vodka from them and the Daily Mail will probably declare war on Putin.
A few days ago there was a routine ICBM launch from Plesetsk, needless to say the USAF was on hand to deliver a score out of ten.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CujLu4eWEAAENTI.jpg
Torplexed
10-16-16, 09:10 AM
the Daily Mail will probably declare war on Putin.
The Mail sure do like to beat the scary drum to sell papers.--
Russia orders all officials to fly home any relatives living abroad, as tensions mount over the prospect of a global war (http:// www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3833941/Russia-orders-officials-fly-home-relatives-living-abroad-tensions-mount-prospect-global-war.html)
Gee...we're gonna party like it's 1939.
Gee...we're gonna party like it's 1939.
:haha: Oh, the Daily Mail were beating a drum in 1930s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#Support_of_fascism) alright:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/%22Hurrah_for_the_Blackshirts!%22.jpg
Torplexed
10-16-16, 10:00 AM
:haha: Oh, the Daily Mail were beating a drum in 1930s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#Support_of_fascism) alright:
Funny I was just reading the other day about the Battle of Cable street.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cable_Street
Baronet Mosley, a former Labour party MP, had declared October 4th to be "a day of destiny and reckoning" and planned to lead his Blackshirt army east from the Tower of London to occupy the "Jew-ridden and communistic" dockside areas. All the while chanting "Britain for the British" and "We’re going to get rid of the Yids".
Kinda of the high water mark for fascism in Britain.
Funny I was just reading the other day about the Battle of Cable street.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cable_Street
Baronet Mosley, a former Labour party MP, had declared October 4th to be "a day of destiny and reckoning" and planned to lead his Blackshirt army east from the Tower of London to occupy the "Jew-ridden and communistic" dockside areas. All the while chanting "Britain for the British" and "We’re going to get rid of the Yids".
Kinda of the high water mark for fascism in Britain.
Aye, a proud moment for the Londoners who banded together to oppose the BUF. Gives me hope that we can resist the creeping lure of political extremism. Right now I'll take any hope I can get. :salute:
If I understood this article correctly the Royal Navy has gone into red alert
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1981794/putin-to-send-russian-warships-into-english-channel-amid-growing-tension-over-syria-crisis/
A FLEET of Russian warships has set sail for the English Channel with Vladimir Putin poised to test bombs off the British coast, putting the Royal Navy on red alert.
British warships are being scrambled to intercept the fleet which will pass within one mile of the British coast on its way to Syria.
Markus
If I understood this article correctly the Royal Navy has gone into red alert
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1981794/putin-to-send-russian-warships-into-english-channel-amid-growing-tension-over-syria-crisis/
Markus
Yeah...nah.
That's 'The Sun' Markus, about as reliable as 'Pravda'. The RN will be tailing the Russian ships but they won't be 'testing bombs' off the coast, it's just a normal transit from their ports in Murmansk to the patrol area off the Syrian coast and vice versa.
Rockstar
10-16-16, 06:41 PM
Interesting, what actually constitutes a British warship these days? :D
Interesting, what actually constitutes a British warship these days? :D
It floats at least once a week.
Why???? oooohh maybe because,,, The Obama administration and the Clintons fear a prison cell more than a nuclear war,, ooohh yes they will cover their crimes with our blood,,, this is what tyrants do,... go BRexit,,, Americanism not globalism. Trump 2016
https://www.ft.com/content/2d9c73fa-935b-11e6-a80e-bcd69f323a8b
Takeda Shingen
10-16-16, 08:46 PM
It should be noted at this time that tyrants do not leave office voluntarily.
Why???? oooohh maybe because,,, The Obama administration and the Clintons fear a prison cell more than a nuclear war,, ooohh yes they will cover their crimes with our blood,,, this is what tyrants do,... go BRexit,,, Americanism not globalism. Trump 2016
https://www.ft.com/content/2d9c73fa-935b-11e6-a80e-bcd69f323a8b
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v138/Thony/129179935564199718_zpswprhjd12.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Thony/media/129179935564199718_zpswprhjd12.jpg.html)
http://i.gifntext.com/40815-nurse-he-s-out-of-bed-again.gif
Coming back to the original post, here's a nice rebuttal:
http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/12/putin-urging-russian-officials-to-return/
Comment made on the radio phone in on this subject..
"Launch the nukes or shut the flip up you cry babies"
The person went on saying they were sick of all sides acting like kids in nappies.
My personal view point I just don't give a bar of soap over a story from the Daily scare the crap out of you.
Georgemeister
10-17-16, 08:57 AM
Comment made on the radio phone in on this subject..
"Launch the nukes or shut the flip up you cry babies"
The person went on saying they were sick of all sides acting like kids in nappies.
My personal view point I just don't give a bar of soap over a story from the Daily scare the crap out of you.
Totally agree with your last point.
My personal view point I just don't give a bar of soap over a story from the Daily scare the crap out of you.
http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/2a/2a9a1a17ec33583415a2659bd5300a7957907c2b023cf92cf2 29e2994344ed13.jpg
The Kuznetsov group passed Trøndelag this morning, an Su-33 was flying around for the cameras and poked Norwegian airspace a few times for the lolz.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvDlZPFWgAACtGA.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvDlZzNWIAA10JP.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvDlaBpXEAAcwF2.jpg
I imagine they'll hit the Channel around Thursday, although if they stop for a day north of Scotland for exercises that might put it back until the weekend. I'd figure they'd want to get in the papers so would probably go through on a week day.
Russian exercises seem to be taking place between tomorrow and friday:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvEQk5QWYAISO_N.jpg
I wonder which of the Traffies or Astutes will be watching. Last I heard Ambush was down in the Med playing contact sports with the merchant shipping (https://news.usni.org/2016/07/20/u-k-nuclear-submarine-hms-ambush-collides-merchant-vessel), Artful came online this year and is the first of the A boats to have the Common Combat System installed, so she'd be a good choice to go practice Cowboys and Cossacks. :hmmm:
In about two weeks from now, we will see this fleet near the coast of Syria. Their transit will go without any problems-of course if they(the Russian) get some technical problems or so I can not say-But regarding RN and NATO there will not be any "contact" other than tailing and sniffing The fleets way to Syria.
Markus
In about two weeks from now, we will see this fleet near the coast of Syria. Their transit will go without any problems-of course if they(the Russian) get some technical problems or so I can not say-But regarding RN and NATO there will not be any "contact" other than tailing and sniffing The fleets way to Syria.
Markus
Yeah, that sounds about right. The Kuznetsov might have a few hiccups, but nothing that Ivan can't fix, and he'll be on station soon. NATO will do what NATO has always done, find, evaluate and trail to gain as much intel as possible. They'd be failing in their duties if they did not.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v138/Thony/129179935564199718_zpswprhjd12.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Thony/media/129179935564199718_zpswprhjd12.jpg.html)
We'll see won't we,,, don't do the crime if you can't do the time,,, got to love wiki leaks,,, I just wonder how many are going to prison after Trump wins
kraznyi_oktjabr
10-18-16, 04:28 PM
We'll see won't we,,, don't do the crime if you can't do the time,,, got to love wiki leaks,,, I just wonder how many are going to prison after Trump winsI'm quite confident that none of them will. Prosecuting fellow crooks would make inconvenient precedent if you happen to lose in next election cycle...
Kuznetsov has possibly abandoned the NOTAM which means that the initial exercises planned for north of Scotland may have been scrubbed.
Alledgedly the group have also entered the international waters of the UK Exclusive Economic Zone (but those stretch out for stupid far so it's no big deal really)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvJJCgOXEAAELHh.jpg
Torplexed
10-19-16, 10:45 PM
Kuznetsov has possibly abandoned the NOTAM which means that the initial exercises planned for north of Scotland may have been scrubbed.
Abandoned? Ummm. Would that be Russian naval jargon for decrepit carrier broke down and had to be left behind? :hmmm:
Catfish
10-20-16, 01:36 AM
[...]
Alledgedly the group have also entered the international waters of the UK Exclusive Economic Zone (but those stretch out for stupid far so it's no big deal really)
You or the US could again define half of the Atlantic and North Sea to be your exclusive zone like in WW2, and suddenly there are russian intruders and a real war reason. :yeah: :O:
Abandoned? Ummm. Would that be Russian naval jargon for decrepit carrier broke down and had to be left behind? :hmmm:
Ha! Could be, or the flight deck bjorked so badly that they can't actually use it.
You or the US could again define half of the Atlantic and North Sea to be your exclusive zone like in WW2, and suddenly there are russian intruders and a real war reason. :yeah: :O:
Not enough Catalinas or Sunderlands I'm afraid. :dead:
Meanwhile, here's a pic of HMS Richmond keeping an eye on the Kuznetsov:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvMqYF0WYAEsdk4.jpg:large
Jimbuna
10-20-16, 07:34 AM
Meanwhile, here's a pic of HMS Richmond keeping an eye on the Kuznetsov:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvMqYF0WYAEsdk4.jpg:large
I hope she is actually carrying a weapons loadout :)
I hope she is actually carrying a weapons loadout :)
She certainly is, some 5.62mm sternly worded letters, and a 72mm angry frown.
Rockstar
10-20-16, 10:23 AM
Wonder what the wind speed is? Could get a good estimate of their speed since the ship's exhaust is going straight up.
Rough guess would be around 17 knots, since they reckon at current speed the flotilla might pass the Channel tonight/early tomorrow morning, and it was reported earlier today that they were about 100 odd miles off Edinburgh, it's around 400 nm from Edinburgh to the entrance to the channel, divide that by 24 gives around 17 which seems like a fair cruising speed.
HMS Duncan, one of our Type 45s has also joined the show, as has a Belgian frigate, the Leopold I.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvOZbrxWIAAMc_j.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvOTD9yXYAAZ4Cc.jpg
Pretty soon there's going to be more NATO ships there than Russian ones. :har:
"More Nato ships than Russian ones" Is nothing more than-we are bigger than you, just so you know-signal.
I can't see anything else with this build-up by NATO ships. To follow(Tailing and sniffin) you need only one ship or at most two.
Afterward NATO can share the information-this or these two ship had gathered.
Markus
Catfish
10-20-16, 02:40 PM
^ :haha: so true
Next we will be hearing a lot about russian submarines in swedish waters :03:
^ :haha: so true
Next we will be hearing a lot about russian submarines in swedish waters :03:
If these military expert from Sweden is right about their analyse then Sweden can expect an increase of "Sub who have lost trak of where they are"
This due to Ivans massive build-up around the Baltic states and Ivans huge interest in a Swedish island.
End of going a little off topic.
Markus
Speaking of the Baltics, I see there was talk in Finland about possibly ending the demilitarised status of the Aland islands. Doubt it will come to much but Niinisto reckons that their demilitarised status makes them harder to defend.
I guess you have heard it-USA is sending 300 Marines to Norway this due to Russia's build-up in the Arctic
Heard also today on Danish TV- Putin are showing more aggression then before. Not even during the good old cold war, did Soviet showed that type of aggression.
Markus
Don't worry, Trump will fix it all. :yeah:
kraznyi_oktjabr
10-20-16, 05:21 PM
Speaking of the Baltics, I see there was talk in Finland about possibly ending the demilitarised status of the Aland islands. Doubt it will come to much but Niinisto reckons that their demilitarised status makes them harder to defend.I assume you are talking about Jussi Niinistö (True Finns, MP), our minister of defence. There are also president Sauli Niinistö (National Coalition) and Ville Niinistö (Greens, MP and former party leader). (Ville Niinistö is president's nephew but there is no connection to Jussi Niinistö.)
Both prime minister Juha Sipilä and president Sauli Niinistö shot that idea down. Status of Åland Islands is governed by international agreement and is not something our government can decide.
The autonomous status of the islands was affirmed by a decision made by the League of Nations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations) in 1921 following the Åland crisis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85land_crisis). It was reaffirmed within the treaty admitting Finland to the European Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union). By law, Åland is politically neutral and entirely demilitarised, and residents are exempt from conscription (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription) to the Finnish Defence Forces (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Defence_Forces). The islands were granted extensive autonomy by the Parliament of Finland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Finland) in the Act on the Autonomy of Åland of 1920, which was later replaced by new legislation by the same name in 1951 and 1991.[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85land_Islands#cite_note-8) Åland remains exclusively Swedish-speaking by law.
I assume you are talking about Jussi Niinistö (True Finns, MP), our minister of defence. There are also president Sauli Niinistö (National Coalition) and Ville Niinistö (Greens, MP and former party leader). (Ville Niinistö is president's nephew but there is no connection to Jussi Niinistö.)
Both prime minister Juha Sipilä and president Sauli Niinistö shot that idea down. Status of Åland Islands is governed by international agreement and is not something our government can decide.
I figured that it wouldn't get very far, but it was an interesting proposition. Niinisto a common surname in Finland then?
Kuznetsov entered the Channel at 11am BST, seen here from Folkestone:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvSL8ahVYAIZT8k.jpg:large
kraznyi_oktjabr
10-21-16, 07:17 AM
I figured that it wouldn't get very far, but it was an interesting proposition. Niinisto a common surname in Finland then?Depends on how you define "common". Väestörekisterikeskus keeps open source records of all first and surnames which have atleast 20 holders. In that list "Niinistö" is 2403rd most common in list of 22562 surnames (yes, four and five digits respectively...).
Open source Finnish name stuff is available here (https://www.avoindata.fi/data/fi/dataset/none) and this link (https://www.avoindata.fi/dataset/57282ad6-3ab1-48fb-983a-8aba5ff8d29a/resource/ef50d7ca-da3c-4d50-90e2-f985b8a7a099/download/HNimidatan-avaaminen2016osa2JulkaistavatSukunimet-syyskuu2016.csv) leads directly to relevant CSV file.
Re: Wannabe-Swedes Åland Islands
If there was to be a threat towards the Islands, wouldn't the FDF have responsibility to defend it?
(Not saying there is a threat atm, but in case of)
kraznyi_oktjabr
10-21-16, 07:31 AM
Re: Wannabe-Swedes Åland Islands
If there was to be a threat towards the Islands, wouldn't the FDF have responsibility to defend it?
(Not saying there is a threat atm, but in case of)If I remember correctly, that treaty includes obligation to protect Åland Islands in event of war. Also if I remember correctly we had troops and warships there during World War II.
Things get tricky when "little green men" appear as I don't think treaty writers could imagine that kind scenario back in 1920s. That is from treaty point of view. I'm quite confident that Sweden would not mind Finnish troops intervening in that case whatever the treaty happens to say.
EDIT: Oh and ofcourse we could always respond with "little blue men" (dressed as police). There are certain advantages in having conscription based military with almost everyone taught to handle AK-47 (or its copy to be exact). :D
Also if I remember correctly we had troops and warships there during World War II.
Yes, militarization of the Islands began on 22 June 1941. ("Operaatio Kilpapurjehdus")
Jimbuna
10-21-16, 09:08 AM
This is a pretty good article on the naval situation and contains video, pictures and a map with individual ship lists:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/21/russian-warships-pictured-off-coast-of-britain-as-royal-navy-sha/
I think we should at least consider fining the Kuznetsov for violating emissions limits...I mean, what is that thing burning, car tires? :doh:
Still, it's not the first time that the Russians have played around off UK waters, and there was this lovely article I read today:
http://www.seapowerthinker.com/a-frigate-versus-the-soviet-navy-lessons-of-the-past/
Oberon, I'm sure the Russians have to slow a bit around the UK, so that ship doesn't break down before they get to Syria,lol I thought the same thing when I saw the smoke coming out of it, haven't seen anything like that since the war, thought maybe it was coal fired!
Aren't there still some mines left over from WW2 floating around in the channel? It'd be a shame if they hit one! :D
I think we should at least consider fining the Kuznetsov for violating emissions limits...I mean, what is that thing burning, car tires? :doh:
Still, it's not the first time that the Russians have played around off UK waters, and there was this lovely article I read today:
http://www.seapowerthinker.com/a-frigate-versus-the-soviet-navy-lessons-of-the-past/
I agree Oberon, they have gone way over emission limits. Maybe your govt should issue smog warnings to all the cities on your southern coast!! Look at the smoke coming out of that tub!:doh:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v138/Thony/k1_zps0gfbn49n.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Thony/media/k1_zps0gfbn49n.jpg.html)
Rockstar
10-22-16, 06:48 AM
Belching black smoke may mean their engineers arent the brightest and dont know what the heck they're doing. Or, thier MDE's and fuel systems are in a state of disrepair and need a lot of work. Could be the reason they are only making good an estimated 15-17 knots. I'll be surprised if it makes to the Eastern Med.
Then again, it can also happen when you push the throttles up a little too fast and normally clears up pretty quick.
Prometheus
10-22-16, 08:59 AM
https://southfront.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/92017445_russian_aircraft_map.png
Boris Johnson has sent the Russian's a photocopy of his Butt in protest of all that smoke we had to put up with in the English Channel. :03:
Jimbuna
10-22-16, 09:17 AM
Still, it's not the first time that the Russians have played around off UK waters, and there was this lovely article I read today:
RULE BRITANNIA
https://s13.postimg.org/g5gq6cj5z/sailornt1.gif (https://postimg.org/image/fspc060w3/)https://s14.postimg.org/kd8t11q0h/uk_royal_navy.gif (https://postimg.org/image/qqxw4auwd/)
Belching black smoke may mean their engineers arent the brightest and dont know what the heck they're doing. Or, thier MDE's and fuel systems are in a state of disrepair and need a lot of work. Could be the reason they are only making good an estimated 15-17 knots. I'll be surprised if it makes to the Eastern Med.
Then again, it can also happen when you push the throttles up a little too fast and normally clears up pretty quick.
I saw this doing the rounds yesterday:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvSdYghW8AAZ5LB.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvSdeOkWIAAQ-1N.jpg
:oops:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvSmH0cWYAEAP9C.jpg:large
This is the salvage tug Nikolai Chiker, he is Kuznetsovs personal bodyguard, there for when the carrier breaks down.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvTsrdMXEAEelpZ.jpg:large
Steed and Oberon, you crack me up!:haha:
Mr Quatro
10-22-16, 11:38 AM
Would this cause tensions: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=807912
What would be the fallout if Russia invades Finland
Assume Putin, for whatever reason, decided to invade Finland.
Finland is not a part of NATO. They are also a developed nation with no history of being part of the USSR.
How would the world respond? Would western europe declare war on Russia? Would it ignite WWIII? Or would it be like Syria, a lot of nations getting involved in providing training, air support, weapons, etc. but not actually getting into a full on war with each other (Finland would be a proxy war)?
How far would western nations go to defend Finland? Would Russia have any allies?
What support would western nations provide and where would they draw the line?
^ While the Ukrainian crisis was on its highest, some military expert said on Swedish TV
Russia could very well invade countries who ain't a member of NATO or have major strategic meaning to NATO
In the program he mentioned some country who wasn't a member of NATO and had not a major strategic meaning to NATO, while the island Gotland and parts of Sweden has.
Markus
Use this thread 'cause it somehow have connection to this.
It's not only the hardware tension between USA and Russia and Europe
Even the psychological tension is there.
Have just read an article in a Danish news paper
They wrote about the Russian columnist Tatyana Lukashenko
Here's a little of what she wrote and what ordinary Russian citizens can read and see on TV
"The total lack of cleanliness is striking. Everywhere people go around in dirty, wrinkled and tattered clothes. The women do nothing out of them self. Children and adults are fiercely tormented by lice, and children are often forced to drink from puddles, "
And similar horror stories about how hard and uncomfortable life is in other European countries and in North America appears increasingly up on Russian TV and web media.
I have been pondered about this since I read it
What is the purpose behind this "type-of-propaganda-lies" ?
Markus
What is the purpose behind this "type-of-propaganda-lies" ?
Markus
Oh that's fairly easy to explain. You use propaganda in order to widen the perceived difference between one set of people and another, there are different ways to do it. I think the example you mentioned probably also helps to make Russians feel superior to their western counterparts during the Russian embargoes. The whole "Our lot may be bad, but at least we're not like those people in the west." It's odd because that sort of sentiment would be conducive to sympathy which I don't think is the goal...perhaps it's more likely that their goal is to increase the perception that westerners are lazy, corrupt, and decadent, in order to increase a form of patriotic and nationalistic fervor amongst Russians in order to guard against sliding into decadence and 'nekultary'ism (uncultured).
In short, most propaganda like this is designed to emphasis the differences and minimise the similarities in order to make it easy for the Russian government to take actions contrary to the west.
Language is a very powerful thing, and it's usually where such things start, Stephen Fry made a good comment on this a while ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohrtFuxUzZE
^ Thank you for taking your time explaining me why Russia is using this type of propaganda and it's purpose.
I'm assure that in the good old days when the relations ship between Russia and the west was at its best this type of propaganda was filled with "how good it is in the west"
I also see another reason for this change to the worse in these "reports from Western Europe and USA"
It has something to do with this increased tension
That's why I posted here in this thread.
Markus
I can't speak for certain, you'd be better off talking to Xabbarus or someone who was in Russia in the Yeltsin era. There was a big push by western companies to get in there and exploit a new audience, and these would have certainly put a lot of pro-western propaganda out there in the form of adverts and such. As for whether there would have been actual Russian government promoted advertisement indicating good lifestyles in the west...I doubt it, but they wouldn't have needed to, because listening to or watching western media would do that. Let's face it, most films have a slight pro-western spin on them, even if it's just because they're set in a western environment and so foreign people get to see a certain part of that nation.
It's kind of like tourism, people don't go to New York to see the back alleys and get mugged, they go to see the Statue of Liberty, and the shiny clean sights.
That kind of...I don't really want to say propaganda because it's not strictly propaganda since it's rarely government sponsored, but it still exists today, however Russia will be wanting to tamper that with these stories that highlight the darker side of life in the west, whilst promoting to their own public positive stories about life in Russia. That way the public feels good about life in Russia and less good about life in the west.
For example, Japan at the moment is suffering from a major shrinkage in the tourism trade, I imagine that it's related to the 2011 earthquake and nuclear meltdown at Fukushima, so there's been a big push by the Japanese government to encourage foreign visitors to come to Japan and spend money (I imagine that soon post-Brexit, my country will have to do the same thing) and so you'll see adverts for visiting Japan from time to time and whenever a foreign nation wants to do a program in Japan the government will likely fall over themselves to help, for example just recently a program airred on ITV over here called 'Joanna Lumleys Japan' in which the actress Joanna Lumley took a journey from the north to the south of Japan and she was able to go and do many things on the way which no doubt were eased by the Japanese government encouraging people to welcome foreigners and their money.
It doesn't always work, and in some cases the influx of foreign visitors causes a backlash from the natives, again in Japan recently there was a train driver who got a rebuke from his employers when he said over the tannoy that he apologised for the amount of foreigners on the train. Not an image that the Japanese government wants to encourage.
So it's swings and roundabouts really, but the media is a powerful tool, certainly.
Thank you so much Oberon you gave me so much input which I never thought of when I read the article in this Danish news paper and when I wrote my first and second post in this thread.
So I was wrong to make a connection between this propaganda and the ongoing tense between Russia and USA/The West.
Markus
So I was wrong to make a connection between this propaganda and the ongoing tense between Russia and USA/The West.
Markus
I wouldn't have said that you were wrong, it's most likely a factor that is involved in it, although it might well not be the only factor. :salute:
Dmitry Markov
10-24-16, 01:31 AM
Hi, gentlemen )
I don't watch TV too much - neither Russian, nor Western/ Eastern/ African or so. If I do - that would be mostly travel&adventure' style channels. News, analytics and such jump into my eyes on occasions like visiting mother-in-law's house ) Most info about everything I get from the internet these days.
I can't speak for everybody here - our country is not too small. From what I can hear/see/read - the picture in general is - "okay it is not everything as good in our country as we want it to be, but we are trying to make it better. Meanwhile, some other countries that criticize us, are having their own problems too. "
I haven't seen personally any show in which they've said that there are "people in dirty clothes " in the West. I dare say - it would be very crude job on journalist's part to tell such things in the days when there ain't absolutely any problem to come and see everything with your own eyes.
More frightening are the stories about juvenile justice in Scandinavian countries and about Russian kids that are being taken from their parents by the police while visiting countries like Finland , Norway and some others. no matter were they living there or were there just as tourists.
Personally, I've seen some people in dirty clothes both in London and in Paris, even in Milano ;-) But if you want, you'll find some in Moscow too ))
Again - with TV - there ain't the least problem with watching any channels today - if you have Sat antenna, or IP TV you can switch from say Russian 1 channel to CNN or EuroNews and back to RT and compare.
I am happy that we have RT and Russia Travel Guide now - Yeltsin never bothered himself with doing anything like that - so there never was a possibility to see something other than stories how bad it was during USSR and how it is good in the west and how good we will live after we'll close all our factories and sell all our concessions to Western companies, and if West tells us that we do something wrong - we must immediately sit down and repent...
That's what you could read/see/hear in 90's before the internet came.
I'm exaggerating of course - there were some patriotic media but they were marginal those days.
On the other hand I read some Russia-related articles in Western media and I get very disappointed as most of them are negative - even road stories , diaries, not to say about analytics and serious stuff. Living here I just don't see so many bad thing as they write - "burning cheese", forced elections and so on...
"Folks, let's live friendly" :-)
Eichhörnchen
10-24-16, 02:20 AM
"Folks, let's live friendly" :-)
I'll drink to that, Dmitry, whatever our 'leaders' view of things may be :salute:
I'll drink to that too Dmitry, and you make a very important point, our media are certainly not apostles of mercy, and when it comes to this new 'Cold War' they are more than happy to stir up feelings against Russia, if only for ratings sake.
Take for example, the hit show NCIS, you notice that the villains of the week change to reflect how the public mood feels. Recently they have started to shift away from Islamic based terrorism and the likes of Iran and towards Russia.
How media affects us and how we in turn affect media is a very interesting study, it's a symbiotic relationship rather than a parasitical one, since the media requires us to watch it and that in turn shapes the media, unless of course it is media which is government sponsored and then it does not depend on ratings in order to survive. So it goes both ways, really.
Dmitry Markov
10-24-16, 08:14 AM
Glad to hear from both of You :-)
Just another funny thing about how propaganda works - this summer my wife went to St.Petersburg by business affairs. There she got acquainted with a girl from Italy - a student who came here to study art. So this Italian girl had brought with her to Russia a full road bag of pasta 'cause from what she was told or read, she knew that there's absolutely no chance to find one here :haha: Imagine her expression when she entered a local supermarket ))
Commander Wallace
10-24-16, 08:38 AM
Well said Dmitry. People are people no matter where you go. A large percentage of people have never traveled to different countries or certainly, not all of them. The only perceptions they have of a different country is that which has been created by the media.
The media can be biased or pursuing an agenda known only to them. I have seen the media play up problems another country is having when their own country is experiencing the same issues maybe under different circumstances. I think most people are smart enough to see through that and don't take reports at " face value "
kraznyi_oktjabr
10-25-16, 05:16 AM
I'm surprised that nobody have mentioned this already (or I have missed it). Many points rised before are most likely valid, but there is also that it is easier to justify unpopular policies (e.g. involvement in foreign wars) and hardship (e.g. Western countries' economic sanctions against Russia) if popular perception is that it isn't any better in other side of the fence or that situation will not significantly improve if you submit to West's demands.
EDIT: Nevermind, just noticed Oberon already touched in this issue in post #123.
Mr Quatro
10-25-16, 11:11 AM
Speaking of Russian TV did you know that if you watch a 'Naked and Funny' video over on youtube that is in english (most of them are filmed in Russia) you get the blacked out treament for their tops and bottoms, but if you click on the same title in Russian ...
you get the whole show with naked tops and bottoms and all the laughs too :o
Different people these Russians, but I like their video's :up:
The Kuznetsov group is down a MiG-29, fortunately the pilot survived.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-37978463
Jimbuna
11-14-16, 03:52 PM
Good that the pilot is safe but even better knowing that is one less bird capable of bombing the innocents in Aleppo.
Aktungbby
11-14-16, 04:07 PM
Good that the pilot is safe but even better knowing that is one less bird capable of bombing the innocents in Aleppo. Especially on the anniversary of Coventry.:k_confused:
Skybird
11-14-16, 04:18 PM
Good that the pilot is safe but even better knowing that is one less bird capable of bombing the innocents in Aleppo.
Acting as advocatus diaboli here, if your assessment would be true wouldn'T it be better then if the poilot would have been killed, considerign that the article says he is "ready to fly again"...?
Just pointing out the moral contradiction there. ;)
Jimbuna
11-15-16, 06:22 AM
Acting as advocatus diaboli here, if your assessment would be true wouldn'T it be better then if the poilot would have been killed, considerign that the article says he is "ready to fly again"...?
Just pointing out the moral contradiction there. ;)
Moral contradiction indeed :)
I'd be happier still if the Kuznetsov suffered a catastrophic breakdown and needed towing back from whence she came.....no lives lost and potentially a great many more (civilians) saved :03:
Skybird
11-15-16, 08:32 AM
More moral contradiction in there. Everything that prevents the Assadis and Russians from finally winning the war, will increas the time the fighting lasts on, and thus will increase the death toll.
Wwe do not want to hear this iher ein the Werst - but if we really would make saving of civilian lives our priorit yin syria, then we MUST wish for a quick Russian-Assad win, and stop prolonging the war ourtselves by supporting the opposition. Thats the unvomfroitabel truth, and nobody darers to spoeak it out.
Just to claim that we want to save civilian lives when we support the "rebels" - and there are over one hundred kinds of these! Over 150 factions even, I seem to recall - that is a good load of hypocrisy on our side.
We never should have gone into Syria anyway, from beginning on. If the rebels win - more civil war will come, since then the many rebel factions will go after each others throats. Moral claims alone do not win wars, nor do moral claims alone pacify war factions.
In case Trump will let fade US engagement over Syria and agree to a deal with Putin, I would welcome this, pragmatically. To shorten the war, the victorxy of Assad ands Russia should not be hindrede anymore - while we at the same time lack the forces and the political will to win the war at our conditions. Its one of these foul stinking compromises we run over Syria and our engagement there. Alibi action, but not decisive. Real detemrination would mean to fight the Rzussians out, and go in there is massive strength. And nobody wants that. We instead appeal to Putin.
And even if we would "get" Syria - nobody in the West has a realistic vision of what then to do with it. Only dreamdancing and wishful thinking for such a scenario there is. We would lose a fortune in trying to manage it, and in the end see things collapsing nevertheless. I see Trump as a pragmatist, and businessman. I think his stand over Syria will mean unwelcomed desillusionising for Europeans.
Our help there - makes sure the war lasts on. And that is hypocrisy from our side. Ask the Israelis - they know better than anyopne else why the preferred to leavce Assad in power, and why they did not want the Western action. Assad was hostile, yes - but he also meant stability and control of the underlaying, potentially genocidal tensions. Haven't we learned NOTHING from the so-called Arab "Spring"?
Jimbuna
11-15-16, 08:54 AM
No, I doubt we have learned all that much but watching war crimes being committed and doing little if anything to stop it is the least palatable choice of all.
Skybird
11-15-16, 11:07 AM
Only decisive action makes the difference, the determination to do what it takesd, no matter what. This is what is lacking. Action that serves just as an alibi, means nothing. And is hypocrisy. We stay engaged there to serve our upset conscience, to sooth ourselves. And we accept that for this relief of our conscience the war lasts longer and more people must suffer longer and even dearer.
Do things right - or don't start messing up things by just trying. These half-hearted under-founded excuses of a pseudo-effort make things just worse.
Really, that is Realpolitik, in this case: End the war by stopping to fuel it. It does not matter that Assad and the Russian stay in, then, its the smaller harm. What has been achieved is that the Russians are now stronger in sYria than ever before, and by their protection any Syrian nuclear porgram in the future is more out of reach for Israel to disrupt it. And that is not good.
Are you suggesting a war more total and radical than anything we can even imagine today?
Skybird
11-15-16, 12:04 PM
I suggest that if you embark on war action that has not been enforced onto you, make sure you have the will and the means to do what it takes to win this war for sure, no matter what. For ideals fly out of the window first when war starts, and there is no award given for just having tried but nevertheless loosing it. Just meaning it well, but loosing nevertheless, means nothing. It makes no difference. It does not chnage the outcome. And the outcome is that you have messed it up, and lost it.
People like Putin or Trump understand this perfectly. The loosers to them just complain and snobbily call them bad boys with bad manners. And they are bad boys for sure, and they show bad manners - if that is what gets them where they want to be. Bad boys may not be liked by many, but they are the bad boys that win the race while playing foul, get all the prize money, take the big cup for first place, and grab the ball queen and take her home for the night and have hot fun with her.
Just having meant to win, just having had good intentions, is meaningless. And as the saying goes: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. What you hoped to acchieve, what you wanted to acchieve, will soon be lost in history. What you actually have managed to achieve - that is what forms the world and the future and makes a difference for the people.
In short, the ends justify the means.
Of course, the problem comes in the morality of the end.
Jimbuna
11-15-16, 01:42 PM
Not much morality around apparently....the bombing has recommenced.
Syrian government aircraft have bombed besieged rebel-held eastern districts of the city of Aleppo for the first time in three weeks, activists say.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that at least five people were killed as a number of areas were hit.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-37988798
Skybird
11-15-16, 01:47 PM
In short, the ends justify the means.
Of course, the problem comes in the morality of the end.
Totally wrong: the harm is already done in the very beginning, when deciding over whether or not to go to war with war not being enforced onto you by somebody else.
The moral decision you have to make at the very beginning. Not after the show has run. Either the cause is in conformity with your moral standards, or it is not. If it is, then you have no other choice than to do anything needed to succeed - else you would compromise your own very morals. Like internaitonal law demands every nation recognising a genocide to do anything it can to stop that gencoide. That is why many nations weasel around such reciognitions of genocides, and avoid the term even when hundreds of tousands get massacred due to their ethicty and cultural heritage. An offence this is.
I said this many times before: be sure of your moral arguments that make you go to war. Be sure you can justify them before your conscience, under all circumstances. War is chaos. It never is just. It always hits more innocents than deserving ones. If you allow your moral argument to let you opt for war - then do ALL you can to win this war, no matter what. else you betray yourself. Your morals. The whole damn cause, whatever it really was worth from all begining on or not. You contradict yourself. You turn yourself into a wanted loser, and you justify your defeat with foul excuses. To hell with you, for all the chaos you unleashed, just to sneak out of the backdoor then. To hell with you.
Uncomfortably, this also includes necessarily that you must be willing to even die for your cause. Sorry for the inconvenience. "What you believe in - that is what you should be willing live for - and even to die for, if necessary." Thats a quote by a German author form my youth. And that is something in whose truth I believe.
This unforgiving detemrinatiuon is missing all to often. It also is missing over Syria. We are not willing to wage war against Russia. We are not wiulling to risk WWIII. And that is why we should never have started to get engaged in Syria. Never.
To carelessly and easymindedly launch a war and then hope for the best and that it may, by luck's agreement and approval of the fairy queen, may hopefully turn out in our favour - that is no option at all.
War, or not war. Stop playing games.
That's determining morality on a case by case basis, however, Japan probably had no problem with invading Manchuria, nor did they have any problems with the butchering of the Chinese, and systematic torturing of many Chinese prisoners. In fact, Japan probably comes the closest to the conduct of war which you state as being the correct course, and yet they still lost and many of their commanders were considered war criminals. The more successful application probably comes from the Soviet Union on the push back of Nazi Germany and into Berlin but even then they were not quite to the level that you indicate that war should go, they still with-held from using chemical weaponry.
The conduct of war that you describe, indicates that once the decision is made to go to war then that war should be conducted to annihilate all traces of the enemy, to kill the adults whether armed or not, since they may be armed, to kill the women, since they could bear children that would be armed, or indeed could be armed themselves and to kill the children since they could become soldiers themselves in time. To use all weapons at your disposal to not only defeat the enemy but to break them in a manner in which they will never become your enemy again, to, if needs be, destroy their entire population.
That is war pursued to its logical end, to achieve victory by the overwhelming superiority of firepower and logistics irrespective of civilian casualties. You designate your enemy, and upon declaring war on it, you use all methods at your disposal to annihilate it from top to bottom, if necessary to the last person.
There's a reason we have rules to avoid that.
That's determining morality on a case by case basis, however, Japan probably had no problem with invading Manchuria, nor did they have any problems with the butchering of the Chinese, and systematic torturing of many Chinese prisoners. In fact, Japan probably comes the closest to the conduct of war which you state as being the correct course, and yet they still lost and many of their commanders were considered war criminals. The more successful application probably comes from the Soviet Union on the push back of Nazi Germany and into Berlin but even then they were not quite to the level that you indicate that war should go, they still with-held from using chemical weaponry.
The conduct of war that you describe, indicates that once the decision is made to go to war then that war should be conducted to annihilate all traces of the enemy, to kill the adults whether armed or not, since they may be armed, to kill the women, since they could bear children that would be armed, or indeed could be armed themselves and to kill the children since they could become soldiers themselves in time. To use all weapons at your disposal to not only defeat the enemy but to break them in a manner in which they will never become your enemy again, to, if needs be, destroy their entire population.
That is war pursued to its logical end, to achieve victory by the overwhelming superiority of firepower and logistics irrespective of civilian casualties. You designate your enemy, and upon declaring war on it, you use all methods at your disposal to annihilate it from top to bottom, if necessary to the last person.
There's a reason we have rules to avoid that.interesting that you use Japan as an example, If I recall correctly we, the United States, virtually annihilated 2 Japanese cities with Nuclear weapons, killing almost 500,000 civilians to end that war. And how many civilians did the Allies kill to liberate Europe?
Skybird
11-15-16, 09:39 PM
Japan's war crimes in China. Claimed to illustrate my thinking. Implying that mass raping a city population, and genocide on grounds of ethnicity are a valid moral objective.
Give me a break.
Japan's war crimes in China. Claimed to illustrate my thinking. Implying that mass raping a city population, and genocide on grounds of ethnicity are a valid moral objective.
Give me a break.
Either the cause is in conformity with your moral standards, or it is not. If it is, then you have no other choice than to do anything needed to succeed - else you would compromise your own very morals.
It was a valid moral objective to the Japanese.
interesting that you use Japan as an example, If I recall correctly we, the United States, virtually annihilated 2 Japanese cities with Nuclear weapons, killing almost 500,000 civilians to end that war. And how many civilians did the Allies kill to liberate Europe?
Many indeed, I wasn't attempting to portray the Allies as apostles of mercy, but to be fair, the instances of what we would dictate as acts of brutality which were undertaken by the western allies are at a rate lower than that of the other factions in the war. Which perhaps would indicate, coming back to Skybirds original musings, a different basis of morality in our war effort.
I understand that Oberon, I think the point I was trying to make is that Skybird is right, there is really no difference between an unjust war and a just war except for the reasons for fighting.
I understand that Oberon, I think the point I was trying to make is that Skybird is right, there is really no difference between an unjust war and a just war except for the reasons for fighting.
Well, everyone thinks that they're fighting a just war when they start it, even if others think it unjust. Morality itself is also something that depends on a country by country, person by person basis. What is morally fine by one nation would be repulsive by another. But the idea of pursuing a war to the level of inflicting maximum devastation upon all parts of your enemys existence, taken to its maximum level and disregarding the laws of war, is a dangerous concept.
In lighter Russian based news, introducing the T-Purrty-Four:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bTYH4pEkFo
Well, everyone thinks that they're fighting a just war when they start it, even if others think it unjust. Morality itself is also something that depends on a country by country, person by person basis. What is morally fine by one nation would be repulsive by another. But the idea of pursuing a war to the level of inflicting maximum devastation upon all parts of your enemys existence, taken to its maximum level and disregarding the laws of war, is a dangerous concept.
But not all wars are moral judgement calls. Wars where one side is fighting for their survival against a genocide minded enemy for instance.
But not all wars are moral judgement calls. Wars where one side is fighting for their survival against a genocide minded enemy for instance.
Absolutely, although allowing the genocide of your people could certainly be called morally justifyable. Although the question to put there is that if your enemy is minded upon genocide, is returning the favour morally acceptable?
Absolutely, although allowing the genocide of your people could certainly be called morally justifyable. Although the question to put there is that if your enemy is minded upon genocide, is returning the favour morally acceptable?
I was just thinking that if a combatant adopted Skybirds theories of warfare then their opponent would own the moral high ground.
I was just thinking that if a combatant adopted Skybirds theories of warfare then their opponent would own the moral high ground.
Absolutely, but then you have the problem in whether taking that high ground will undermine your war effort, or will it enhance it? :hmmm: I think that's part of what Skybird drives at, the theory that adapting the moral high ground in warfare may cost you progress in the war itself. I can see what he's driving at in that point, but at the same time to discard that morality and focus on the annihilation of the enemy above all else, irregardless of boundaries, is the kind of thinking that leads to genocides.
Skybird
11-16-16, 04:48 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbqkY4PDuzs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr2GIHjR_yg
They declared war on a section of people and did all they could to destroy it, to 'win' their war.
Skybird
11-16-16, 08:32 PM
If the goal is to kill Jews, then you have to kill Jews. Else you cannot fulfill the goal of killing Jews. There is no denial to this. You want to have the Jews dead, then you have to kill Jews. Else you cannot get them being dead. They will not kill themselves just because you kindly ask them.
Question is whether or not there is a moral argument for wanting to kill Jews for mere sake of killing Jews. Or whether there is a military need for doing so in a bigger war started over other objectives to be achieved. I do not see the use in this.
What Oberon tries to demonstrate with his queer examples, killing Jews as well as Japanese war crimes in China, thus is pointless fopr the intended purpose - its a return to a claim that nobody ever made. Not me, not somebody else. The moral validity of a war, I said, is not decided afterwards, when the war is done (then it would just be a foul excuse), but you have to answer that question before you decide on whether you go to war or not. Ethics are no game of luck, you do not roll the dice and see whether you win credibility afterwards or not, also, ethics are no card gamble, and when the cards oyu hold do not let you win, you cunningly pull a marked card out of your pocket (Bush did that after 2003 when no WMD were found) - moral behaviour, ethical behaviour is an intentional decision of yours, the judge is your conscience, and the burden of justifying your decision for or against war thus must be accepted and felt BEFORE you embark on action (or not). If you decide for Yes, the decision for war is made, and then you better should make sure you do what needs to be done to achieve your objectives. NO. MATTER WHAT. If later you find you have scruples to do what is needed to secure your objectives for war, then you have made the wrong decision to go to war from all beginning on. Actions during the war need to be seen in the light of whether they fulfill a militarily needed function regarding securing the war objectives, or not. War has its own needs, necessities and logic, and it has nothing in common with peace. What is allowed in war, would tget you jailed in peace, what you would do in peace, would get yourself killed, or your comrade, or your hometown wiped out.
This, and only this, decides on whether you can sleep well with sending people into death and making decisions that kill people - or will (at least should) have nightmares afterwards. What needs to be done, needs to be done - but the morality of the cause why you think it needs to be done, must be decided from all beginning on - BEFORE you decide for war.
If then you do not all that is needed to make your cause a success, you betray those you send into battle and who bring the i, you betray those who suffer as a consequence of you getting engaged in war, you render these losses useless and in vain. To hell with you.
So be serious about your motives. If they are such that you are not willing to turn into the evil beast yourself and let all hell break lose, then your motives for war are not strong enough and your consciences does not accept them. AND SO DO NOT GO TO WAR THEN. Are you not willing to die for your cause over which you decide to go to war? THEN DO NOT GO TO WAR. If you decide for war, and chose to bring chaos, killing and destruction into the world, then you better be damn serious and 110% certain about your motives.
Oberon thinks that is not sensible, not concerned, not humane what I say. I say I am sensible and concerned and worried for the waste of life more than he can even understand. And I am bitterly serious about this. Oberons thinking is wide-spread today, and popular with the politicians and populists in the West. The result of this is the nightmare of the Arab "Spring", the desaster of Bush's little childgame in Iraq 2003, its long rat tail of disastrous consequences, the way in which Afghanistan was handled (/stupidly, shortsightedly and naive), then the emerging of the IS after the breakdown of Iraq, and the war in Syria that gets needlessly prolonged by supplying some 150 rebel factions :doh: with goods while they cannot win against Assad, and so the war rages on and even more people get killed thanks to Western resistance to Russia that has far more serious and solid interests in syria than anyone in the west ever has had - and that is why the Russians will not play kindly and will not polay fair and will not fall back, no matter what the West does. They have their war objective, and they give smelly brown stuff for whether we find these morally acceptable or not.
With my reasoning, with the exception of the US military reaction after 9/11 in Afghanistan none of these wars would have happened, and the ME would still not be perfect - but many people now dead, expelled or suffering, would just be there and live their lives. Corruption would thrive, but there would be stability, predictablity, and a status in general much more agreeable than the desaster Western moralising and messianism has created there. And shall nobody dare to say that "at least we have tried!" and that "we meant it well!" - I puke him right into his cynical face.
Was the extermination of civilian peoples done to win the war against the Soviet Union in the east or the Allied Forces in the west? Or was it the result of nazi government administration of conquered lands?
In the case of the Jews it was as a result of a governmental campaign against that group of people. Morality varies from culture to culture, so purely relying on morality as the trigger guard to a war would not be enough to stop an immoral war being launched by a nation.
Furthermore pursuing that war to the level that genocide is deemed permissible is a shortsighted endeavor. Take Strategic 'Terror' bombing of cities for example, what is the goal? To demoralise the enemy populace into surrender.
How many times has that actually worked? If anything terror bombing seems to only strengthen enemy resolve. It reduces the chance of surrender even while it increases the death count of the enemy.
Sure, there will be incidents in war when ethics by individuals get thrown out of the window, machine-gunning pilots who have bailed out, the execution of prisoners of war, for example.
However legitimising this behaviour at a state level, or worse, encouraging it, is hardly the way forward.
Jimbuna
11-17-16, 08:22 AM
Thread temporarily locked pending a managerial decision on recent post contents.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.