Russia Discussion

Atze-Peng said:
EU norms ...
... where a prime minister gets put into position without a democractic vote (Mario Monti)
... where one country has more and more prevailing pedophile issues (Jimmy Savile case with him being good friends with Thatcher & Prince Charles, the coverups of officials in the Roterham, Sheffield, Oxford-cases as well as the documents accusing several people in the parliament of it)
... where a german politician, who had to go, gets a few months later an easy and influental position in a thinkthank of Washington as well as becoming part of the EU (Guttenberg)
... where it the Libya war was supported while not standing up to the disaster they created
... where one country sells and even gifts several nucreal capable high-tech submarines to a country which is at constant risk of war (Germany to Israel)
... where everyone loses their shit over freedom of speech towards one religion, but it being illegal - and can lead to prison time - towards another one with a star (Je suis Charlie & Judaism)
... who accepts that in several EU member states critical people get arrested (Dieudonné M’bala M’bala & Giulietto Chiesa)
... who supports the Ukraine government despite having shady people - including actual nazis - fighting for them
... who hides the fact that poverty is constantly increasing inside the EU (see Red Cross report)
... who has 8 out of the 10 most indepted countries worldwide among them
... who ignores the decision of Den Haag who decided that the sanctions against Iran are illegitimate
... whose closest ally has ongoing wars for decades - mostly organised from european ground
... whose closest ally has the most prisoners worldwide by total numbers as well as population-percentage
... whose closest ally is the only country who ever used atombombs on humans
... whose closest ally stabs them in the back for still having economic trade despite the EU-embargo and no one calls it out

Those are just a few from the top of my mind. In German we have a saying: "Who sits in a house of glass shouldn't throw with stones."


We should also look at some of Russia-Today headlines:

"Putin blasts WWII history rewriting as lies aimed at weakening Russia"
"Russian military exercises ‘logical response’ to NATO troops on its border"
"EU blaming Russia for lack of freedom of expression - the pot calling the kettle black"
"No matter what Russia does, US neo-cons will always go for Cold War"
"West’s ‘propaganda war for public opinion’"
"Kiev silencing opposition voices"


Those are just a few nitpicks. I am not saying Russia is right, nor wrong. I am saying that we aren't any better than them. These headlines could be easily the same for our media. So who says our media is exactly superior - especially when we have been involved in more wars in the last 30 years than Russia has? More often than not the truth is inbetween both sides and I stay with both sides being equally to blame in this game of chess being about to turn into disaster.

It is easy to point fingers, but it is much more difficult to accept own mistakes. We should first take responsibility for our own actions and accept that we have a blame in the current state of events in order to find a proper solution, because as long as we just point fingers it will be impossible to find such a solution to this conflict.





Do you find it equally questionable that Helmut Kohl was for 16 years the Kanzler of Germany or do you only find it questionable because he is Putin and it is Russia?
Click to expand...

Not sure what the point of this post is. Can you summarize all this into one coherent sentence ?
 
Raoul said:
Not sure what the point of this post is. Can you summarize all this into one coherent sentence ?
Click to expand...

Apparently a bunch of unrelated things are related.
 
- You say the west is only reacting to the aggressive actions of Russia
- I disagree
- You say that EU norms are superior to Russian ones (see "if Russia were a liberal democracy in line with EU norms") and state corruption in Russia in order to prove your point
- I point out several instances out of the recent past which prove that the EU is by no means ethically superior and has corruption and all sorts of shit going on as well in order to prove my point (which is that both sides are to blame and we aren't any better)
- I also point out at news headlines to show that Russian headlines are the exact same as EU/US headlines, just different way around, in order to show its the very same propaganda on both sides.
- You say ???

I can't explain it any easier without trying to make a picture-book. And frankly for that my artistic abilities aren't good enough. You are free to tell me where you lost my train of thought in the listed part of events.



Shamwow said:
Uhm it was 8 years Western Germany and 8 years Germany, slightly different situation.
Click to expand...

Its convenient to dodge a simple question, eh?
 
Atze-Peng said:
- You say the west is only reacting to the aggressive actions of Russia
- I disagree
- You say that EU norms are superior to Russian ones (see "if Russia were a liberal democracy in line with EU norms") and state corruption in Russia in order to prove your point
- I point out several instances out of the recent past which prove that the EU is by no means ethically superior and has corruption and all sorts of shit going on as well in order to prove my point (which is that both sides are to blame and we aren't any better)
- I also point out at news headlines to show that Russian headlines are the exact same as EU/US headlines, just different way around, in order to show its the very same propaganda on both sides.
- You say ???

I can't explain it any easier without trying to make a picture-book. And frankly for that my artistic abilities aren't good enough. You are free to tell me where you lost my train of thought in the listed part of events.





Its convenient to dodge a simple question, eh?
Click to expand...

Do you really think Russia and the EU, in 2015 are ethically comparable ?
 
Raoul said:
He's crossed the tipping point of leaving office, in that if he were to leave, any follow on Russian governments could prosecute him for a litany of crimes from corruption to murder, to drug trafficking . Therefore he's incentivized to cling to power for as long as possible, which also means he is likely to crack down on all forms of potential dissent or opposition, as their strengthening would be perceived as a potential threat to his own grip on power. I doubt he will ever leave office unless he is deposed through a coup or a popular uprising, which imo, is his worst fear and the reason he has completely securitized the Russian mindset towards foreign invaders and fascists. Its basically a way to preserve his own dictatorship.
Click to expand...

Yep.
 
Raoul said:
He's crossed the tipping point of leaving office, in that if he were to leave, any follow on Russian governments could prosecute him for a litany of crimes from corruption to murder, to drug trafficking . Therefore he's incentivized to cling to power for as long as possible, which also means he is likely to crack down on all forms of potential dissent or opposition, as their strengthening would be perceived as a potential threat to his own grip on power. I doubt he will ever leave office unless he is deposed through a coup or a popular uprising, which imo, is his worst fear and the reason he has completely securitized the Russian mindset towards foreign invaders and fascists. Its basically a way to preserve his own dictatorship.
Click to expand...

Putin (and his buddy Dugin) likes to claim that Russia is the spiritual successor to Rome while the West (or US) is the successor to Carthage. He's certainly tried to imitate the fall of the republic and has done a almost perfect job of it.
 
Raoul said:
Do you really think Russia and the EU, in 2015 are ethically comparable ?
Click to expand...

Depends on which areas.

Corruption in politics? Yes
Propaganda in Media? Yes
Nepotism of the powerful? Yes
Acting out of self-interest alone under the disguise of some other reasons? Yes
Violation of human rights domestically? No
Violation of human rights internationally? Yes
 
Atze-Peng said:
Depends on which areas.

Corruption in politics? Yes
Propaganda in Media? Yes
Nepotism of the powerful? Yes
Acting out of self-interest alone under the disguise of some other reasons? Yes
Violation of human rights domestically? No
Violation of human rights internationally? Yes
Click to expand...

Can you list some examples of EU states who have complete nationalized control of their own media for propaganda purposes, who use organized crime as a means to suppress domestic dissent, and also list some examples in the EU where a small group of elites steal a vast majority of their nation's wealth, and where 35% of any EU nation's wealth is owned by 110 people ?
 
Someone just listened to their first Rage Against the Machine album.
 
This thread has taken a bizarre turn over the last two pages, especially without the usual pro-Putin agitators involved.
 
Atze-Peng said:
Depends on which areas.

Corruption in politics? Yes
Propaganda in Media? Yes
Nepotism of the powerful? Yes
Acting out of self-interest alone under the disguise of some other reasons? Yes
Violation of human rights domestically? No
Violation of human rights internationally? Yes
Click to expand...


Please, please don't ever leave this thread, I haven't laughed so hard at anything in donkeys years. I think we are all going to have a lot of fun together discussing exactly how closely the EU and Putin's Russia mirror each other morally. I hadn't seen it before but now you mention it, it's like the shells have fallen from my eyes they are clearly as bad as each other.
 
Raoul said:
Can you list some examples of EU states who have complete nationalized control of their own media for propaganda purposes, who use organized crime as a means to suppress domestic dissent, and also list some examples in the EU where a small group of elites steal a vast majority of their nation's wealth, and where 35% of any EU nation's wealth is owned by 110 people ?
Click to expand...

You don't exactly need to officially _own_ media in order to influence and control it.

Also does it really matter if its 110 people or 1000 people controlling all the wealth of a nation, if it comes down to the same nepotism and wealth-imbalance? -> http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/02/money-hasnt-gone-1-gone-01.html
It would also be interesting to know how many of those 110 were already rich and influental before Putin.


Sir Matt said:
:lol:

http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results
http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php

Are you trying to be obtuse?
Click to expand...

While I appreciate your effort - if I see this correctly those are basicially results out of questionaires.

If I look at the organisations listed as the CPI sources (in the FAQ) from transparency.org, then I see not a single one in proper russian contact. Most of these sources are US- / EU-centric and the one african source has the US and all EU countries as members (and guess who isn't one). So they ask people out of US- / EU-centric organisations for their obviously subjective opinions about the worldwide corruption parameters. No, thanks. I don't think that's legit. Especially since a common criticism towards this organisation is that they are mainly funded by big, influental companies. If Russia would do something similar, all of you would scream that this is a farce ... and rightfully so.

Reportes without Border isn't any different. Additionally the survey they used has quite a few of flaws in it. Not to mention the flaw of how reporters are reliable to judge other countries press freedom without proper experience in that specific country? How is a german reporter exactly reliable to give information about the state of reporters in Brazil? Wouldn't it be more useful to only find the reporters experiences reliable who have a certain amount of time of experience in that country? How exactly is privately owned press a sign of a free press? Couldn't those 110 rich Russians not own the private press and therefor it wouldn't make a difference? How exactly is nationality, gender, religion a sign of the quality and ethically of the journalistic work? And once more: How exactly is the reporters subjectivity reliable? If Russia would do such a questionaire for their reporters, would it look similar just with the roles reversed?

Sorry, but I don't see how these are in any way reliable sources for ethical judgement as there are way too many flaws in their methodology.



@Shamwow

I can see how you have 7000 posts in little more than a year and how you only ended up with barely 16 likes of your posts. But don't worry, the amount of posts will let your e-penis grow to the point it will turn into a growth in reality.



To all the others mocking me for having a different opinion I have a little hint. While commonly the opinion of the majority is true, it is not a guarantee. The majority has been faulty several times in the past (i.e. the earth is flat). You can feel strong all you want with the majority behind you, but it barely comes down to shoulderpatting.
Here is an eventually foreign idea for you though: An discussion is not only there to win and be right. It equally serves the purpose to actively seek out for opposing opions and points of views in order to broaden your own by considering the oppositions point. If your opinion is easily superior and right, it should be of no problem to take in the opposing one and consider it in order to see, if it is wrong or right. Additionally by refusing to acknowledge an opposing opinion altogether, you also miss out on eventual subpoints which can be legit. It is actually possible to disagree with someone to 99% and still get something valuable out of that discussion.

I strongly recommend you the process of Falsifiability by Karl R. Popper. First you have a theory, then you try to prove that theory and as you have done so, you actively seek out to try to disprove your theory to see, if it can withstand any opposition. Or are you this afraid of your worldview being challenged? (And this is independent of who is wrong or right in the current discussion and should be valuable to everyone)



And as a last word: I am out of this thread now as I have said what I wanted to say. If anyone still wants to know something, ask or discuss, then the private message is available. You are free to continue with your shitposting while subtly celebrating your perceived intellectual superiority without me interfering anymore.
 
Raoul said:
Do you really think Russia and the EU, in 2015 are ethically comparable ?
Click to expand...

It appears as if they believe that if the West isn't perfect than its the same as Russia. It's like I said to Atze, just because it's grey doesn't mean it's not a really, REALLY dark shade of grey.
 
Atze-Peng said:
You don't exactly need to officially _own_ media in order to influence and control it.

Also does it really matter if its 110 people or 1000 people controlling all the wealth of a nation, if it comes down to the same nepotism and wealth-imbalance? -> http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/02/money-hasnt-gone-1-gone-01.html
It would also be interesting to know how many of those 110 were already rich and influental before Putin.
Click to expand...

We're talking about government owned media where "free" third party media organizations are frowned upon and so called normal outlets like RT are funded by the Russian government specifically to advance Russian policy objectives. I don't think there is any such thing in Europe or North America.

I'd imagine most of the wealthy became so under Putin.
 
Tyrion said:
It appears as if they believe that if the West isn't perfect than its the same as Russia. It's like I said to Atze, just because it's grey doesn't mean it's not a really, REALLY dark shade of grey.
Click to expand...

Yeah its this sort of nauseating relativism by Putin apologists that completely misses the point that there is an objective aggressor in Putin and a victim in Ukraine.
 
Atze-Peng said:
@Shamwow

I can see how you have 7000 posts in little more than a year and how you only ended up with barely 16 likes of your posts. But don't worry, the amount of posts will let your e-penis grow to the point it will turn into a growth in reality.
Click to expand...

Still got more likes than you so there.
 
Sort of surprised Putins comments about how he considered the ultimate form of saber rattling when he seized the Crimea has not drawn more attention. Would have thought him considering threatening nuclear war at the time would have drawn more discussion.
 
Atze-Peng said:
EU norms ...
... where a prime minister gets put into position without a democractic vote (Mario Monti)
... where one country has more and more prevailing pedophile issues (Jimmy Savile case with him being good friends with Thatcher & Prince Charles, the coverups of officials in the Roterham, Sheffield, Oxford-cases as well as the documents accusing several people in the parliament of it)
... where a german politician, who had to go, gets a few months later an easy and influental position in a thinkthank of Washington as well as becoming part of the EU (Guttenberg)
... where it the Libya war was supported while not standing up to the disaster they created
... where one country sells and even gifts several nucreal capable high-tech submarines to a country which is at constant risk of war (Germany to Israel)
... where everyone loses their shit over freedom of speech towards one religion, but it being illegal - and can lead to prison time - towards another one with a star (Je suis Charlie & Judaism)
... who accepts that in several EU member states critical people get arrested (Dieudonné M’bala M’bala & Giulietto Chiesa)
... who supports the Ukraine government despite having shady people - including actual nazis - fighting for them
... who hides the fact that poverty is constantly increasing inside the EU (see Red Cross report)
... who has 8 out of the 10 most indepted countries worldwide among them
... who ignores the decision of Den Haag who decided that the sanctions against Iran are illegitimate
... whose closest ally has ongoing wars for decades - mostly organised from european ground
... whose closest ally has the most prisoners worldwide by total numbers as well as population-percentage
... whose closest ally is the only country who ever used atombombs on humans
... whose closest ally stabs them in the back for still having economic trade despite the EU-embargo and no one calls it out

Those are just a few from the top of my mind. In German we have a saying: "Who sits in a house of glass shouldn't throw with stones."


We should also look at some of Russia-Today headlines:

"Putin blasts WWII history rewriting as lies aimed at weakening Russia"
"Russian military exercises ‘logical response’ to NATO troops on its border"
"EU blaming Russia for lack of freedom of expression - the pot calling the kettle black"
"No matter what Russia does, US neo-cons will always go for Cold War"
"West’s ‘propaganda war for public opinion’"
"Kiev silencing opposition voices"


Those are just a few nitpicks. I am not saying Russia is right, nor wrong. I am saying that we aren't any better than them. These headlines could be easily the same for our media. So who says our media is exactly superior - especially when we have been involved in more wars in the last 30 years than Russia has? More often than not the truth is inbetween both sides and I stay with both sides being equally to blame in this game of chess being about to turn into disaster.

It is easy to point fingers, but it is much more difficult to accept own mistakes. We should first take responsibility for our own actions and accept that we have a blame in the current state of events in order to find a proper solution, because as long as we just point fingers it will be impossible to find such a solution to this conflict.





Do you find it equally questionable that Helmut Kohl was for 16 years the Kanzler of Germany or do you only find it questionable because he is Putin and it is Russia?
Click to expand...

Hate speech can be illegal in a country that has freedom of speech. Inciting violence can also be illegal in a country that has freedom of speech. You start yelling bomb on your next airplane ride and let me know if the freedom of speech defense works for you then. M'bala was not arrested for being critical as you said.

The mistake you make is exposed in the second bolded part. The US and the EU do have a role to play in Ukraine but saying both sides are equally to blame reeks of moral equivalency and an attempt to appear impartial and fair. The west has plenty of problems with corruption, crime, press freedoms, personal freedoms etc. You make a lot of valid points in pointing out the hypocrisy on display but that is not relevant to situation in Crimea. Comparing Helmut Kohl to Vladimir Putin is just an example of the false equivalency you have to maintain to keep up your both sides equally to blame view. What a lot of the people arguing the Russian side of this ( Not specifically meant for you) fail to recognize is that a lot of their criticisms of the west are shared by the people they are arguing with. Unfortunately this thread is about the Ukraine/Russia conflict though so those criticisms although they might be true, aren't really relevant to the conversation.
 
Atze-Peng said:
While I appreciate your effort - if I see this correctly those are basicially results out of questionaires.

If I look at the organisations listed as the CPI sources (in the FAQ) from transparency.org, then I see not a single one in proper russian contact. Most of these sources are US- / EU-centric and the one african source has the US and all EU countries as members (and guess who isn't one). So they ask people out of US- / EU-centric organisations for their obviously subjective opinions about the worldwide corruption parameters. No, thanks. I don't think that's legit. Especially since a common criticism towards this organisation is that they are mainly funded by big, influental companies. If Russia would do something similar, all of you would scream that this is a farce ... and rightfully so.

Reportes without Border isn't any different. Additionally the survey they used has quite a few of flaws in it. Not to mention the flaw of how reporters are reliable to judge other countries press freedom without proper experience in that specific country? How is a german reporter exactly reliable to give information about the state of reporters in Brazil? Wouldn't it be more useful to only find the reporters experiences reliable who have a certain amount of time of experience in that country? How exactly is privately owned press a sign of a free press? Couldn't those 110 rich Russians not own the private press and therefor it wouldn't make a difference? How exactly is nationality, gender, religion a sign of the quality and ethically of the journalistic work? And once more: How exactly is the reporters subjectivity reliable? If Russia would do such a questionaire for their reporters, would it look similar just with the roles reversed?

Sorry, but I don't see how these are in any way reliable sources for ethical judgement as there are way too many flaws in their methodology.
Click to expand...

That's some nice copypasta you have there. Let's offer some more concrete comparisons between the press in Russia and the West since you believe subjectivity is a major flaw. All of the major corporations in Russia are run by Putin's cronies. He was even personally involved in the extraction of Russian resources for money when he was St. Petersburg. All of the resources left but the food he was supposed to secure never came. Meanwhile, he and his buddies got outrageously wealthy from the asset stripping and privatization. There is nothing even close to that in the West. Are the surveys perfect? No, but they give a solid picture of the state of both journalism and corruption. Everyone in Russia knows there is rampant corruption.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114145/perceptions-government-corruption-high-russia.aspx

As for the press:

https://www.cpj.org/killed/europe/russia/

Since 1992, 56 journalists have been murdered in Russia and 24 more were murdered without a confirmed motive.

vs

https://www.cpj.org/killed/americas/usa/

Since 1992, 5 journalists have been murdered for their work in the US, 1 more was killed without a confirmed motive. The US population is double that of Russia.

Since 1992, there have been 11 journalists murdered in Western Europe, with another 3 unconfirmed motive.

Even in Ukraine, there have been 18 murders of journalists since 1992.

Now, tell me which environment is a better, more free environment for journalism. In one country, if you write the wrong thing, you have a substantially higher chance of ending up murdered than in the West. If you don't understand how a private press is more free than state press, then you're beyond help. Putin shuts down or nationalizes private media organizations that don't pander to him. That's why virtually all of the television news in Russia (where most Russians get their information) is state owned and very, very pro-Putin. Private organizations with their own opinions are harassed or shut down. Does any of this happen in the West? No, it doesn't.
 
Sir Matt said:
That's some nice copypasta you have there. Let's offer some more concrete comparisons between the press in Russia and the West since you believe subjectivity is a major flaw. All of the major corporations in Russia are run by Putin's cronies. He was even personally involved in the extraction of Russian resources for money when he was St. Petersburg. All of the resources left but the food he was supposed to secure never came. Meanwhile, he and his buddies got outrageously wealthy from the asset stripping and privatization. There is nothing even close to that in the West. Are the surveys perfect? No, but they give a solid picture of the state of both journalism and corruption. Everyone in Russia knows there is rampant corruption.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114145/perceptions-government-corruption-high-russia.aspx

As for the press:

https://www.cpj.org/killed/europe/russia/

Since 1992, 56 journalists have been murdered in Russia and 24 more were murdered without a confirmed motive.

vs

https://www.cpj.org/killed/americas/usa/

Since 1992, 5 journalists have been murdered for their work in the US, 1 more was killed without a confirmed motive. The US population is double that of Russia.

Since 1992, there have been 11 journalists murdered in Western Europe, with another 3 unconfirmed motive.

Even in Ukraine, there have been 18 murders of journalists since 1992.

Now, tell me which environment is a better, more free environment for journalism. In one country, if you write the wrong thing, you have a substantially higher chance of ending up murdered than in the West. If you don't understand how a private press is more free than state press, then you're beyond help. Putin shuts down or nationalizes private media organizations that don't pander to him. That's why virtually all of the television news in Russia (where most Russians get their information) is state owned and very, very pro-Putin. Private organizations with their own opinions are harassed or shut down. Does any of this happen in the West? No, it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Another example would be how foreign news stations are treated. In the West, it's not hard to find radically different views and even political agendas. Look at Fox news. I have a feeling Putin would not tolerate a news station suggesting he's some kind of Muslim, foreign dictator or any of the other crap they say about Obama.

A 2 minute google search showed 2 contrasting stories.

Western media in Russia: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-in-russia-after-foreign-media-law?cmpid=yhoo

Russian media in the West: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/oct/28/kremlin-rt-uk-news-channel-russia-today
 
Interesting news:

Heads of government, meeting in Brussels as we went to press, were expected to ask Federica Mogherini, the EU’s foreign-policy chief, to produce a plan to counter Russia’s “disinformation campaigns” by June. Before that the EU will launch a task force (working name: Mythbusters) charged with monitoring Russian media, identifying patent falsehoods and issuing corrections.
Click to expand...

http://www.economist.com/news/europ...as-information-warfare-aux-armes-journalistes

(Reuters) - The European Union is set to launch a first operation in a new propaganda war with Russia within days of EU leaders giving formal approval to the campaign at a summit on Thursday.

Officials told Reuters that a dozen public relations and communications experts would start work by the end of March in Brussels with a brief to counter what the EU says is deliberate misinformation coordinated by the Kremlin over Moscow's role and aims in Ukraine and elsewhere in Europe.

It is the first stage of a plan that leaders want EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini to finalize by June, which may include efforts to produce and share Russian-language broadcast programming, notably for ethnic Russians in ex-Soviet states.
Click to expand...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/19/us-ukraine-crisis-eu-propaganda-idUSKBN0MF26A20150319
 
Sir Matt said:
Putin (and his buddy Dugin) likes to claim that Russia is the spiritual successor to Rome while the West (or US) is the successor to Carthage. He's certainly tried to imitate the fall of the republic and has done a almost perfect job of it.
Click to expand...

Dugin has nothing to do with Putin, except they both live in the same country. His buddy? What are you even talking about?
 
antihenry said:
Dugin has nothing to do with Putin, except they both live in the same country. His buddy? What are you even talking about?
Click to expand...

Putin leans heavily on his ideology. Putin's rhetoric about the fifth column, the Eurasian-ness of Russia, and his "Novorossiya" concept with regards to Ukraine all come from Dugin's ideology. The push for revanchism and authoritarianism as well. I've previously posted an article from Foreign Affairs about Dugin and his relationship to Putin and how Putin has coopted Dugin's ideas for his own use. He's also gained a number of prominent positions in the last few years as well as an increase in air time on Russian TV.

Does Putin believe it wholeheartedly? Of course not, but he's certainly accepted it and taken advantage of its popularity.
 
I spent an hour watching Russia Today last weekend, it was quite special. Some 30 minute show dedicated to slagging off the US and Europe and inviting people on to tell the host how awesome he is and how intelligent his viewers are. The next 30 minutes covering 'Breaking News' such as mass protests outside an immigration detention center in London where the occupants are tortured in their rat infested rooms with no proper food or medical care. They even had a guy outside interviewing all six of the mass protesters.

I get the feeling a few people on here are avid viewers.
 
Simbo said:
I spent an hour watching Russia Today last weekend, it was quite special. Some 30 minute show dedicated to slagging off the US and Europe and inviting people on to tell the host how awesome he is and how intelligent his viewers are. The next 30 minutes covering 'Breaking News' such as mass protests outside an immigration detention center in London where the occupants are tortured in their rat infested rooms with no proper food or medical care. They even had a guy outside interviewing all six of the mass protesters.

I get the feeling a few people on here are avid viewers.
Click to expand...

I do occasionally watch some of the financial shows on the English version of RT, because they do have decent guests who talk finance outside the world of politics. Once it returns to politics, it gets a bit insufferable.
 
Sir Matt said:
Putin leans heavily on his ideology. Putin's rhetoric about the fifth column, the Eurasian-ness of Russia, and his "Novorossiya" concept with regards to Ukraine all come from Dugin's ideology. The push for revanchism and authoritarianism as well. I've previously posted an article from Foreign Affairs about Dugin and his relationship to Putin and how Putin has coopted Dugin's ideas for his own use. He's also gained a number of prominent positions in the last few years as well as an increase in air time on Russian TV.

Does Putin believe it wholeheartedly? Of course not, but he's certainly accepted it and taken advantage of its popularity.
Click to expand...

Majority of Russians wouldn't know who Dugin is. Just because you read an article in Foreign Affairs, doesn't mean it has anything to do with reality. Dugin is in no way affiliated with Putin or Russian government and I doubt they'd be interested in his harebrained ideas. Once again, reading stuff on the Internet doesn't make you an expert. Stick with what you know first hand.
 
antihenry said:
Majority of Russians wouldn't know who Dugin is. Just because you read an article in Foreign Affairs, doesn't mean it has anything to do with reality. Dugin is in no way affiliated with Putin or Russian government and I doubt they'd be interested in his harebrained ideas. Once again, reading stuff on the Internet doesn't make you an expert. Stick with what you know first hand.
Click to expand...

:lol: So is that why you come in here spouting off about Ukrainian oligarchs? You know it all first hand? It does explain why you're so obviously blinkered though. If Putin doesn't tell you personally he's invaded Crimea, you'd never believe it. You say Putin's not interested in his ideas, but he's consistently talked about retaking Crimea, establishing Novorossiya via expansionism, and generally being belligerent. What has Russia spent the last year doing? Exactly that.

I'm more apt to listen to political science experts on a subject than one of Putin's apologists on the internet.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.