Argle links Logs MUME Players Profiles
ElvenRunes Logo
AMERICUH!!!! catchup  discussions

<<   <   30  31  32  33  34  35  36  

2017/03/25 08:15, Razoor: 
On a more humorous note, WikiLeaks official twitter just tweeted several times at the @sweden account, claiming that the account (which is run by a random swede every week) is an effort by the Swedish government to spread propaganda. Then they sent DM's asking if the account was still being censored by the state :D They seem to have truly lost the plot..

2017/03/25 09:37, Roadkill: 
Assange seems to be on a personal mission of vengeance against the UK and the US for keeping him in house arrest. And Sweden for helping.

His colleagues at WL are not all happy with him at the moment

2017/03/25 12:16, Roadkill: 
The BBC puts the failure of Trumpcare into perspective, and wonders what it may indicate for the future of this regime:

[submitted link]

2017/03/25 13:36, Zepir:  edited 3x   
still not impressed Roadkill, Trump is doing his best and getting attacked from every angle on all his policies. Its literally the second month, do not really care about the opinion of the BBC which is garbage to begin with :D

the whole Assange thing again you people are focused on all the wrong things, its the truths revealed in the work he does, not really concerned about him whatsoever just like I was not concerned about who released the DNC emails only the fact that they reveal a dark truth. You guys are stuck on semantics and useless shit :D Please do tell me how this is somehow Trumps fault? He can only do so much against such massive pushbacks.

Is it a big surprise that there is so many hit pieces out on Assange? I mean considering what he's doing I am not surprised he's being attacked this bad publicly. I just don't get you people I really don't, you focus on meaningless bullshit instead of the truth .

BBC is just another globalist propaganda mouthpiece

[submitted link]

2017/03/25 14:24, Roadkill: 
Aaand Trump aide discussed methods of removing Gulen from the USA to Turkey 'beyond the legal extradition process' (which means 'not legal methods', btw). Before Trump even got voted.

[submitted link]

2017/03/25 14:31, Zepir:   
more garbage yawnnnn

2017/03/25 14:39, Razoor: 
I sense a difference in perspective on what 'counts' :D

2017/03/25 14:53, Roadkill: 
Reported by former head of the CIA, no less. I seem to remember someone saying a lot of stuff about how former heads of national security and secret services are especially trustworthy sources.

2017/03/25 15:20, Zepir:   
I fail to see the point in any wrong doing, Its not a topic I really care about.

@Savu, I would love to discuss the Russia thing with you, provide me some evidence to your claims that Russia is threat and we can get into it. So far you just say things and have nothing to show or back up.

2017/03/25 16:06, Prist: 
Zepir, maybe you could tell us what you would accept as evidence that Russia is a threat?

2017/03/25 18:23, Zepir:  edited 2x   
that's not what I asked, seriously its ridiculous every EU country is blaming Russia for election interference etc, the entire world is blaming Russia for everything, to be honest I am a little sick of it. Lets hear and see the evidence , bring it forth . I want to discuss it. So far all I see is a huge NATO build up on every Russian border. Russia is threatened far more then it is a threat to anyone else. So I am asking Savu to bring forth his evidence as to why Swedes and Estonians are panicking and opening up Cold War era bunkers etc when Russia is not some giant rich super power, like I said they have the GDP of fucking Italy and are not some massive octopus organization that has its hands in everything. I mean all you cowering NATO nations are so scared surely there is overwhelming evidence to provide?

2017/03/25 21:04, Savu:   
So which points are you disagreeing with exactly?

Didn't Russia send troops to Georgia and Crimea (Ukraine) and Eastern Ukraine? I suppose the latter can be debated (because Russia won't aknowledge it) but not the others.

And proving is a problem with anything cyber. I mean, you need people from inside CIA or NSA coming out to Wikileaks to provide confidential documents so that people would know what they are doing. If you can provide solid evidence against anyone in cyber warfare, they are just not doing it right.

And again you are missing the points I brought out. You don't need a sick budget for the cyber operations brought out. You don't need a lot of money to buy off Le Pen (a few million euros). And so on.

What exactly are you disagreeing with?

2017/03/25 22:48, Zepir:  edited 3x   
I simply want you to provide evidence that Russia is a threat to Estonia and Sweden, lets assume I grew up on an island with no knowledge of Russia or Estonia or Sweden etc and you are trying to convince me that Russia is a threat to the rest of the world. (BTW Russia and Ukraine have had disputes since I don't know the beginning of their history?) I also sort of side with Russia on that issue so your going to have to come up with something better then the Crimea thing because those people living there sided with Russia so...........

ok so please provide evidence because Russia is pretty crippled from sanctions right now and is not some gigantic rich super power that everyone needs to be afraid of. Show me and explain to me why its a problem and a threat. Like I said assume I know nothing .

and you got to be fucking kidding me about bombing the opposition of Assad, you mean the US supported terrorist AL-Nusra? You are clearly clueless, Russia has funded greatly the Kurdish forces in Syria that have decimated ISIS and Russia has done more to fight ISIS then any other nation so you are clearly jaded.

LOL buy off Le pen? You live in such a distorted reality of propaganda. Everyone who doesent agree with your politics is a Russian agent I get it lol. So pathetic.

do you realize you just proved your own point wrong that you cant tie the hackings with Russia?? There literally has been 0 evidence of Russian interference with elections or hacking political parties. 0 let that sink in. I completely baited you with this because I knew you would not be able to produce 1 shred of evidence. Please I want you to prove me wrong.

2017/03/25 23:43, Savu:   
You are wrong on pretty much everything there, but it's 1:30 AM and I'm gonna go get some sleep. I'll respond another day if noone does it first.

The only thing I'll respond straight away is the 'bait' thing. You really overestimate yourself there. The 'evidence' of russian hacking that has been brought forward so far has not really been conclusive and I have never claimed it to be. On the other hand I don't expect to get conclusive evidence on that either, because... fuckit, there is no easy way to explain it. You are something of a sysadmin or it guy or whatever so you should know at least something about this stuff. Like I said, you needed insiders from US agencies to come forward to say that televisions can be used as surveillance equipment. It's really hard to get conclusive evidence pointing at a single entity in case of cyber attacks.

That is also the reason why I didn't bring up meddling in elections as an argument against Russia. However that is the thing you are most pleased about arguing against.

2017/03/26 01:07, Zepir:  edited 4x   
well you are making some pretty bold claims here, I am just hoping you can provide some good evidence. The Chinese have done far more hacking then the Russians to the West and its allies. I just want to know what makes you think they are a threat to Estonia specifically and Sweden because both those counties are going all cold war over Russia. I really want you to back up the claims about supporting ISIS because this is a fact that Russia has destroyd and thwarted ISIS more then any single nation on this planet and has helped fund greatly the YPG which is a Kurdish force I have been pretty obsessed with and following since the start of the war. So when you come into territory that I have immersed myself in , I am very curious as to why you are saying these things. I mean the hacking stuff sure whatever , I have no problem stating that its possible Russia hacked stuff but to what extent and did it affect any politics? Probably not but the claims that they are supporting ISIS? They certainly have destroyed US proxy forces like Al-Qaeda and Al-Nusra Jaesh-al-fatah the whole works but those are certainly evil people just as bad as ISIS I mean they cut off a 6 year olds head and claimed he was an Assad supporter....... were not talking about very good people here were talking about extreme radical sunni's no better then ISIS but supported vastly by the US, this is like my favorite topic, the Syrian civil war and the forces involved , I know them all by name and a good deal more so please tell me more so I can figure this out. I actually do want to have a discussion about this and I am not gonna insult you or start going crazy, I honestly wanna hear your view points and get to the bottom of this Russia thing because it literally has peaked my interest now to personally find out why this is happening and who better to ask then Swedes and Estonians. Honestly I do love talking to you guys, you guys are the only Europeans I know in real life and this is probably the best way to get a perspective regarding that.

very interesting just as were getting into this wiki leaks puts out some stuff about the Russia, Georgia conflict.

[submitted link]

2017/03/26 01:30, Andróg:   
So, wait, Crimeans siding with Russia (which, by the way, is very disputable, but lets leave it asid here) is enough to justify the annexation of Crimea by Russia? What if the people of Maine sided with Canada? By your logic it is perfectly justifiable for Canada to send in the troops and annex Maine and turn it into a part of Canada.

2017/03/26 01:53, Zepir:   
Jesus Christ how did I know silly buns McGee would come out of nowhere and derail the conversation. I asked him to provide evidence and explain the reasoning, even if he cannot provide evidence I want to understand better what the big deal is here, lets not derail this conversation as well , I know you enjoy that Androg but pl0x :D

2017/03/26 06:48, Savu:   
1. I don't want to talk about hacking and cyber attacks etc here. You brought up the topic, not me. It's plausible, but for the reasons stated earlier let's leave it at that.

2. Crimea - Russia sending thousands of troops there, taking control of all infrastructure, disbanding the local parliament (or whatever it was called) and then doing a quick referendum within a month IS NOT OK. It's like something that would have been done a century ago and apparently that's where Russian mentality still is.

3. I never claimed Russia supported ISIS. I said that ISIS was able to make territorial gains in Syria because Russia was so focused on fighting everyone else. ISIS even recaptured Palmyra when Russia was busy bombing the shit out of hospitals in Aleppo to support their favorite terrorist in the country - Assad.

4. Buying Le Pen. They are not even denying using Russian money for their campaigns. And they certainly have very pro-russian stance on issues. The whole issue of Russian foreign politics and money is a big deal in Europe. Just an example from Estonia. A few years ago there was a new Orthodox church being build in Tallinn and the party leading the local government asked for money from the head of Russian Railways and wanted ONE THIRD IN CASH. And that party again has had very pro-russian stances. You can find similar cases from other countries as well. Not to mention the cases you can't find. In conclusion - Russia is using the gas and oil money to buy politicians in countries where the money is actually coming from. Looking at the history I have no reason to believe that their endgame would be good for people in Europe or Russia.

5. How is a a few thousand NATO troops in a NATO country a provocation or a threat to Russia, who has hundreds of thousands of troops in the Western parts of their country. Again, this a nonsense narrative that's part of Russian foreign politics. The only thing these troops do is make things more uncomfortable for Russia if they should try to pull off another Ukraine-like endeavor. Imho they couldn't even stop Russia from conquering the Baltic States, but they would make things unpleasant on a political level.

6. Russia just doesn't want reasonable relations with it's neighbors. Besides annexing Crimea, they are still forcefully keeping some frozen (and some quite thawed) conflicts existing around their borders. Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria and creating new ones - LNR, DNR. This is not a good neighbor and I really can't see why you even ask how Russia poses a threat when they are constantly proving that they are doing everything in their power to destabilize their neighbors with an apparent end-goal to conquer them or parts of them should the need arise.

7. Like I said - the part about Russian budget being the same as Italy's isn't relevant for these things, because Russia still has far more money spent on military than their neighbors in Europe so one-on-one they could take on anyone. They can't fight NATO and would probably lose to a united Europe as well. That's why it must be made clear that and conflict with a neighbor would be a conflict against the whole of NATO.

TL;DR - Russia has the means and will to screw up the lives of it's own and neighbors people to 'make russia great again'.

2017/03/26 16:41, Zepir:   
ok but why would they want to invade Estonia? I still don't get it, you have not provided anything about that. I understand those conflicts and why you guy do not agree with them but I do not understand why you think Russia is going to invade Estonia or even Sweden.... there is literally no indication of this at all and I'm super confused why everyone is worried.

2017/03/26 19:46, Strori:edited 3x   
Zepir, noone knows why they want invade Estonia. We don't read thoughts. Maybe get to the Tallinn-based NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence or revenge passing Magnitsky Act? But they are already doing that.

Eston Kohver (born 1971) is an Estonian officer of the Estonian Internal Security who was abducted on September 5th, 2014, at gunpoint from the Estonian side of the border by Russians using a smoke grenade and radio jammers.

My opinion is they just making it real there is no place to run to from Russia. I don't remember the name, but even a whole newspaper escaped from Russia to Estonia recently.

2017/03/26 22:44, Roadkill: 
And those who dare to oppose Putin and his cronies...

[submitted link]



2017/03/27 00:44, Strori:edited 1x   
BBC's arrested or true life's kidnapped. There is an arrest warrant, really? No lawyers are allowed to visited them in the police stations.

BBC's several or true life's 100 cities/towns

2017/03/27 04:54, Zepir:   
ok so no one can provide any evidence....... awesome and no one can tell me why Russia would want to invade Estonia or Sweden... ok this is going well.

2017/03/27 05:20, Savu:   
What exactly are you expecting as proof? Documents with Putin's signature that detail why he wants to conquer a specific nation?

It's been shown that Russia constantly meddles with the sovereignty and politics of it's neighbors. If that doesn't make the country a threat then I really don't see what would.

2017/03/27 08:05, Roadkill: 
Here is Putin in 2016, saying that other countries developing defenses against Russian nuclear missiles is a serious threat to global peace (!??) and that Russia, in response, is looking to develop their arsenal, among other things in 'information wars'.

Note that this is a story from the Russian Tass news agency.

[submitted link]


Why would anyone who does not want to attack, complain about other peoples' defenses being too strong?

'Our goal is to effectively neutralize any military threats to Russia’s security, including those related to creation of strategic missile defense, to implementation of the concept of global strike and to information wars,' Putin said.

I'd say the evidence of work on point 3 can be seen in France, the UK and the USA. They tried in Holland as well, but Wilders is too obvious an extremist, so the plot failed there.

2017/03/27 08:52, Savu:   
@Roadkill: I think he meant that nuclear parity is a pillar of global peace. The reason why his statement sounds so wrong is that the whole idea of peace due to threat of mutual destruction is not very intuitional. Yet it seems to have worked.

2017/03/27 09:08, Zepir:   
Wilders was not an extremist , he was a realist. Truth and facts do hurt I know but facts > feelings always. So yea I just wanted you guys to convince me that Russia wanted to invade Estonia cause I been doing my own self research and I do not see any indication at all. I realize the conflicts Russia is currently in but that hardly constitutes for some kind of global domination plot that you guys have them out to be. No I do not want a signed statement from Putin, just information that would provide even a suggestion that they have some reason to invade Estonia. I realize the old soviet union was pretty evil and corrupt among other thing but just as Germany is not Nazi anymore, things change.

2017/03/27 09:18, Roadkill: 
Zepir, you do realize that Russia is economically dependent on selling gas to Europe, and would do almost anything to control the coastal territories as close as possible to Germany and the central EU market, to avoid having to negotiate both the existence (and security, including environmental) of the existing North Stream line, as well as the planned laying down of North Stream 2?

[submitted link]
If they assimilated the Baltic nations, they'd only have to run past Poland to reach Germany.

2017/03/27 11:57, Zepir:   
So Roadkill you think also that Russia somehow wants to invade Estonia or Sweden, yo have given me pretty good arguments thus far and been pretty good at backing up your points but I have yet to see one person thus far show me evidence that Russia would want to invade Estonia or Sweden....... Russia simply does not have the man power of the money to get involved in any more wars let alone full blown invasions and many of Russias allies are allies with Estonia and Sweden, it makes no sense the hype going on in that area of the world right now, please provide me with someone about an imminent Russian threat, I really want to believe it since so many are adamant about it on here but I also really want to some evidence.....

2017/03/27 12:16, Vidgri: 
Zepir is constanlty lying and changing to something else. Igrnored

Lie 1. no one can . I have provided motivation, targets and example

Lie 2. no one can provide any evidence. I have provided motivation ,targets and example.

Shift from 'Estonia' to 'Estonia or Sweden'. Sudden change of topic from Estonia. Why not use 'Estonia or Honduras' ? We all know what logical 'or' means





2017/03/27 12:34, Zepir:  edited 4x   
no, I am sorry you have not provided one piece of evidence, you provided speculation and total and complete guessing. I want actual evidence that Russia wants to invade Estonia because at this point I have been able to find 0 and no one has provided any. Please provide something more solid then an opinion article. You literally provided nothing of substance dude and I cant even understand what you are getting at, I am guessing English is not your main language. Like I said in my previous post how could Russia sustain an invasion of Estonia and the issues with its allies etc its just not feasible. I want to see some proof of Russian aggression vs Estonians in the recent past and moves that are considered hostile to the sovereignty Sweden and or Estonia because those two countries have just started activating cold war era bunkers and massing troops etc. Am I really asking much? If you are not gonna provide evidence and some sources etc don't even bother posting back , I want to better understand this phenomenom but I cant if you just write little irrelevant things. Plz anyone besides Vidgri , I cannot decipher what he is trying to say or why is calling me a liar for asking for someone to post some evidence? Makes 0 sense.

2017/03/27 13:24, Savu:   
So you still want a document of invasion plans signed by Putin?

2017/03/27 13:37, Razoor: 
Zepir, you will never be able to find evidence for this, because if it came out it would be a political scandal of huge proportions. Geopolitical advances of that kind have to be subtle out of necessity, and ideally no one will know until it's too late. What we can have at the moment are indications, a few examples have been given here already, but there is no way to provide concrete evidence. The response is based on speculation, but the speculations can seem more or less likely and logical. Given Russia's move into Crimea and their aggressive rhetoric, I would say that speculations are warranted (specially by Estonians), though a bit less so for Sweden. I think those who believe Russia is a threat to Sweden exaggerate a bit and I am really quite disappointed that our government now decided to strengthen our national defense. I think that's a waste of resources that could be put to better use.

2017/03/27 14:45, Prist: 
I remember asking something what would Zepir accept as proof.

I can guarantee you that Russia has plans for occupying Estonia. I can guarantee that Russia has plan for occupying most every neighbor. Their high staff would REALLY suck if they didn't have them and I have healthy respect for Russian military prowess.

I was actually in army retraining back in huh... 2012 or so (since I was recruited to Estonian defence forces in 2003, they hold those retraining camps every 3-5 years or so). One thing my training officers focused on was Russian-Georgian war. To simplify - plan to invade Georgia was created years before the actual war took place. Everything was meticulously planned, combining infowars (already back then), military, intelligence operations, political lobby etc. Basic doctrine is planned surprise - sudden, fast activity that takes everyone by surprise by combined use of military and political force that has been planned long time in advance. Idea is to break rules, lay claim to something using forged justification ('they attacked our citizens' claim in Georgia that was preceded by free giveaways of Russian passports in the area. Mind you - I don't contest the fact that Georgia did start it as they paniced) create a frozen conflict and then use political force to legitimize status quo, supported by infowar to create support for its actions.

This was something from Estonian military that have spent years and years preparing for defence from Russia. Having been part of that for some time I actually believe they do know their job.

Same tactic worked in Ukraine, only in grander scale and closer to Europe. Idea was to create Novorossiya puppet state, but military invasion failed and they ended up with two tiny puppet states instead).

Regarding motivation. A militarist cleptocracy/dictatorship needs external enemy, preferably short victoriorious war with that enemy to motivate its subjects and keep dictator's popularity high. Putin's popularity has never been higher than during Ukraine crisis and by now it is falling. US that has always acted as supportive and stabilizing pillar of western values is crumbling due to Trump turning inwards, which creates vacuum of power in Europe. This can lead to EU taking bigger role as it is already doing, but it can also lead to aggression from Russia who sees it as a opportunity.

2017/03/27 14:54, Strori: 
Guys, Zepir just wants a homework done for free.

2017/03/27 15:14, Zepir:  edited 1x   
Home work Strori? I am simply asking for evidence and no one can provide a single shred of evidence, literally only propaganda and opinions and empty 'guarantees'

I have done a lot of research into this topic and so far I agree with these sort of statements.

The latest US narrative on Russia is straight from the plot of a Hollywood fantasy: US superheroes versus a Russian villain. Sadly for the Baltic States, they are being used by Uncle Sam as bait.


Here's a starter for ten question: Russia’s reunification with Crimea last year was prompted by which of the following…
a.) a very particular set of historical circumstances, allied to the will of the overwhelming majority of the local population.
b.) Vladimir Putin’s desire to launch a blitzkrieg military campaign, complete with goose-stepping Russian soldiers marching across Europe?

If you are not a raving-mad neocon or someone who has difficulties with reality, the correct answer is a. Crimea was Russian territory for centuries and had been transferred to Ukraine as part of an administrative re-alignment at a time when both states were part of the Soviet Union. The peninsula is as Russian as Cornwall is British or Texas is American. Furthermore, not even the most myopic anti-Russia activist questions the fact that most Crimean residents wished to join the Russian Federation.

direct statement from Putin : ‘Russia has no aggressive plans, will always prefer political settlement’ - Putin

Given what has happened in Ukraine since, it’s unlikely that many people in Simferopol or Yalta would change that stance. Certainly, Crimean integration into the Russia state has been far from straightforward. Western sanctions targeted at local denizens haven’t helped in that regard and neither has the lack of a physical connection with the Russian mainland.

However, the alternative would have been far worse. Ukraine is now a failed state. Its economy has been decimated, corruption is arguably even more rampant than before the Maidan coup and a civil war rages sporadically in the east. Compared to Ukraine, Crimea is Narnia. Then again, almost every place on the planet, outside of Africa, probably looks attractive to those desperate to flee from Ukraine.

According to elements in the Western media and the US propaganda machine, the original poser ought to be answered with option (b). Crimea’s ‘annexation’ was the first phase of an embryonic Russian plan to sweep across Europe, gobbling up lebensraum with gay abandon. Anybody who objects to this narrative is a “Kremlin troll,” or “Putin apologist.” If old Joseph McCarthy could return to earth for five minutes, he’d be doing cartwheels. Demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations have never been as fashionable as they are today. In fact, don’t be surprised if Vogue's Anna Wintour soon declares them as the trend for autumn-winter 2015.

Despite the relish with which lazy Western journalism and a highly-organized NATO 'information campaign' lambasts “Putin’s Russia” as a warmongering ‘rogue’ state, the facts tell another tale. During the past 15 years, the Russian army has only entered the sovereign territory of two foreign states, with Crimea counting as one of those occasions.

In 2008, former President Medvedev sent his forces into Georgia in response to Tbilisi’s aggression against South Ossetia. After five days of fighting, Russian troops controlled much of Georgia’s territory. Nevertheless, within two months, the Kremlin had withdrawn all its soldiers. This scenario doesn’t sound very Hitler-esque.

At this time, Georgia was ruled by pro-Washington Mikhail Saakashvili, who subsequently abandoned his citizenship to obtain a Ukrainian passport. A move almost unheard of globally for a former head of state, for the precise reason that it's gravely insulting to his homeland. Saakashvili is now a wanted criminal suspect in Georgia. He remains a fugitive.

By contrast, since the turn of the century, the US has intervened in Yemen, Liberia, Haiti, Libya and Syria. In addition, ‘Uncle Sam’ has invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. A 2011 study suggests that 500,000 people have died as a result of the Iraq war. As it happens, according to the United Nations, George Bush and Tony Blair’s bloodthirsty campaign of violence was illegal under international law.
The imaginary threat

Despite the obvious fact that Washington’s military has been much busier than that of Russia so far this century, we rarely hear of “US belligerence” in the Western media. However, they are falling over themselves to decry “Russia aggression,” so much so that the phrase has become something of a catchphrase du jour.

According to American propaganda, this alleged Russian hostility is apparently focused on the goal of subjugating Eastern Europe. Indeed, Hillary Clinton, currently the bookmaker’s favorite to be the next US President, has already compared Putin to Hitler.

In order to sell the ‘Hollywood’ notion of Russia as global arch villain, the State Department needs to create targets for this imaginary Russian military jaunt around Europe. They’ve chosen the Baltic States - Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. Three countries so harmless and innocuous that the only interaction most Westerners have with them is when their citizens migrate to find work. Which they do in huge numbers.

Unlike Crimea, which was of hugely significant strategic importance (hosting Russia’s largest Black Sea base for instance), there is nothing especially interesting about any of the Baltic countries. All remain poor, to varying degrees, with Estonia the most prosperous. Lithuania has lost 32 percent of its population since 1989 and Latvia, in particular, remains riddled with corruption.

The leaders of Latvia and Lithuania tend to use Russia as a bogeyman to distract attention from their own graft and ineptitude. Also, the attention currently lavished upon them from Washington and Brussels could bring with it some much needed investment capital. Vilnius’ opportunistic President Dalia Grybauskaitë, a former member of the Communist Party, is a master of anti-Kremlin rhetoric.

Estonia’s President, Toomas Hendrik Ilves, is a very interesting character. An American, Ilves was once the head of the Estonia desk of Radio Free Europe, which was funded by the CIA in its early days. His Twitter account features a regularly updated stream of support for neocon positions and paranoia about a perceived ‘Russian threat.’
A ‘Russian threat’ that doesn’t exist.

Let’s just imagine for a moment that Russia did invade one or all of the Baltic States. What would it do with this newly acquired territory? The Kremlin would be faced with an enraged local population and a very angry wider world. That is assuming that this imagined Russian assault didn’t trigger a full-scale nuclear conflict with NATO. In which case, as the mushroom cloud envelops your nearest city, you can assume that Putin’s ‘dastardly plan’ has failed.

Even if Brussels and Washington, and this is very unlikely, rolled over and accepted Russian dominion over the Baltic countries, what then? With the greatest respect to the locals, there is little more of economic worth than fields and forests. There is no oil, no gas and no hidden deposits of rare-earth minerals.

Some NATO propaganda claims that Putin’s government wishes to use the Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia as staging posts for a wider invasion of Europe. The main problem with this theory is that it’s insane; aside from that, Russia already has a Baltic exclave, Kaliningrad. Additionally, Western media frequently runs scare stories about Russian military drills in the region. These take place on Russian territory. Now, guess what? Almost every country in the world, even neutral Switzerland, conducts armed forces training from time to time on its own soil.

The reality is that the Western media is feeding readers, viewers and listeners a lazy narrative driven by the US State Department and NATO for reasons known only to themselves. But one assumes it comes from a desire to ratchet up military spending in Europe allied to anger over Russia's stance on Syria. Now, the neocons have decided that Russia is the new bugaboo.

Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin, in the mind of the western media, is the new Saddam/Bin Laden/Joker/Riddler or whatever comic book bad guy you may fancy. If it wasn't so tragically serious, it’d be funny. However, rather than bellicose laughter, there’s a danger that this particular farce could end in tears.



please I am still asking for you guys to provide a legitimate argument vs mine or provide some sort of goo reasoning why Russia with the GDP of Italy would risk such a retarded and blatantly dumb move of invading a country like Estonia. Sadly your 'guarantees' and ideas are nothing more then empty at this point, I really want to get into this more and truly understand why people are so scared but it just seems that CIA lead anti Russian propaganda is being used well and they are effectively being created a the new boogeyman of our time. I will just leave this topic for now but please if any evidence can be brought forth to support these claims, post it, I will love to read it and take time to disseminate through the sources and try to get a new perspective. Russia kicked out all the bad oligarchs not to long ago and has been primary enemy #1 since then. They are trying their best to get their economy back in line but sadly Russia is a very poor place, the last thing they can afford right now I international outrage of a new unjustified invasion.

and in other news, my great and amazing leader of promise fulfilling destiny just handed a very nice NATO bill to Angela Germany destroying Merkel :) [submitted link]
lets hope the Russian antagonizing huge hole in the wallet of US aka NATO is disbanded soon

2017/03/27 17:55, Savu:   
Wow. Every time you talk, it's just pure Russian propaganda coming out. I don't know where you copy/pasted that from, but it's just utter boloney. I'll just comment on some of it.

1. 'reunification'. Still annexation, just sugar-coated. Armed troops taking control of a country and then doing a farce of a vote to claim it was 'will of the people'. No campaigns, no foreign monitors, no debates, nothing. Just 'democracy' at gunpoint.

2. The two options are just pure demagogy. a) is a very pro-russian way of my point 1 and b) is just made to look ridiculous so no one would choose it. How about c) A dictator improving his image among the populace with the help of state-controlled media and brainwashed people.

3. The words of Putin are totally irrelevant. He is far from a trustworthy person. ('there are no russian troops in crimea nor ukraine', few months later, hands out medals to participants of the occupation).

4. The fact that imperialist Russians consider a part of anything as part of Russia is no argument for annexation (nor is anything else). If anything, it just proves the point that Russia wants to attack Estonia because they consider 'pribaltika' part of Russia as well.

5. The fact that your failed leaders have attacked other nations is no argument for allowing Russia to attack their neighbors. Go ask how Ukrainians feel about their country being attacked, people killed and parts of their territory stolen with the argument that 'US does it too'.

6. Using 'Ukraine is a failed state' as argument of anything is again just pure bullshit. Let's attack a country, annex part of it, kill lots of people, steal everything from occupied territories, force the country to have a war for 3 years and then say that the country is failing to do well. Well done, Satan.

7. Same thing with South Ossetia. Keep up a frozen conflict. Agitate populace and provocate Georgia until they crack. Then roll in, kill and plunder and after outrage by the international government promise to leave, but not really.

Someone else can continue here. I think I got through about a quarter of this mess.

2017/03/27 18:17, Roadkill:edited 1x   
Nice copypaste skills, Zepir.

[submitted link]


Just proves our point. You're regurgitating propaganda without any critical thought of your own. I'm even beginning to doubt you really understand the issues, or even the basic geography involved.

2017/03/27 19:18, Eldaril: 
You're just now beginning to doubt, Roadkill? You're a better man than I am.

2017/03/27 21:26, Zepir:  edited 2x   
I never said they were my statements, I specifically said I agree with these statements, I do not bother linking things cause you guys never read them. Dono what the big deal is. Again look at what I said , 'I agree with these statements'

you guys are just butthurt you cannot provide a single piece of evidence to support your claims which I am sorry that follows under believing propaganda by definition. I hate repeating myself but unless you have some proof then this conversation is over and I rest my case until evidence is brought forth. Thanks. Thought it was pretty obvious when I said 'I agree with these statements' that they were not my own? Again you people nit pick and go on tangets , I dont really care :D I thoroughly investigated both sides talking points and information and literally its not supported by any facts whatsoever, thats not believing in propaganda that's called investigation with no conclusive evidence. sO????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? mmmhmm

2017/03/27 22:45, Savu:   
You link propaganda by Russia and claim that you agree with their statements that justify WAR and ANNEXATION and want us to provide proof that Russia is a threat? Do you even realize how ridiculous you are at the moment?

2017/03/27 23:05, Zepir:  edited 1x   
who is more ridiculous? The people that are arguing for something they cannot provide evidence for or the person desperately seeking the evidence and finding 0 so is not going to jump to a conclusion? Again you keep failing to mention the history behind Crimea and the long standing conflict.......... they are completely justified to do so , you have absolutely 0 proof or evidence that Russia would ever want to invade Estonia...... there is none , so until you can find some, how about not talking out of your ass?

2017/03/28 05:15, Savu:   
You say that a country has a justification for waging a war and annexing part of a neighbor due to having owned that land some decades ago for about a century? People like you are the reason wars exist.

2017/03/28 05:27, Zepir:   
ok, thank you for providing no evidence this was fun.

2017/03/28 05:38, Savu:   
What's wrong with you really? What evidence do you expect?

We have shown that Russia is a threat to it's neighbors and that means that if we don't want another conflict we should be prepared and that's what's being done.

You take it as 'warmongering NATO picking a fight with Russia'. I'm sure no western neighbors of Russia will ever start a conflict with it, but the other way around is happening all the time.

2017/03/28 05:44, Zepir:   
please then care to explain how Russia could even afford such an expense right now ? Do you realize the amount of sanctions they have on them? If you cant provide any evidence that they would want to invade Estonia then explain to me how it would even benefit them?

2017/03/28 06:16, Savu:   
The exact same reasoning could be used for Crimea. It did not benefit Russian economy to go on this adventure. They still did it. It doesn't benefit Russia to keep those frozen conflicts nearby. Yet they still do it. You need to have a different mindset to understand Russian imperialism.

So humor me - what proof do you have, that Russia will not invade any neighbors anymore?

2017/03/28 07:09, Roadkill:edited 2x   
I just did, literally. Russia wants better pipeline access to Europe, and harbours closer to the main shipping lanes than Murmansk (and who don't freeze up during winter). You really have to learn patience enough to read and comprehend what people are writing to you.

The EU has passed a legislation making it compulsory to have diversification among suppliers of natural gas and energy to the EU. And that has angered Russia more than you would believe. Plus they want to avoid paying for their gas lines running through other countries on the way to export markets.

Russia have increased their number of airspace breeches of Scandinavian countries, from zero incidents annually in the 00's to almost daily of late. I live in central Jutland, and I regularly have F16's flying formation overhead me, scrambling to head off Russian military aircraft.

Russia also has more than a century long history of wars driven largely by their need to have warm-water (that is, not icelocked during winter) harbours to provide routes for import and export. This is also the reason why they have a binding agreement with Turkey to let Russian ships through the Bosphorus in peacetime - which also explains why the hostilities between Turkey and Russia over that plane shooting on the Syrian border caused seismic ripples in international politics and trade chambers around the globe.

Trade route access for natural resources also explains why Russia violently annexed Crimea at the first opportunity, and why they will conquer the rest of Ukraine too, if given the chance. They won't stop at that, though. If they could, they would take Azerbaijan faster than you can sneeze. In fact, all the former Soviet states have good reason to be nervous. Which is why so many of them have placed an extremely huge emphasis on joining Europe and, if they can do so safely, Nato. Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Georgia are all looking for a safe harbour and protection from their big neighbour. They all possess natural and strategic resources Russia wants very badly. And everybody in the whole world knows, or ought to know, that Russia's economy is not partly, but wholly and absolutely dependent on European trade, and access to European markets for import and export. It may seem incredible that the biggest country in the world can find itself in a geographical situation where it risks, for all intents and purposes, being landlocked and isolated for several months out of every year, but there you are.

Here are a couple of articles that explain the context a bit. One is from the Atlantic, the other from Al-Jazeera. Read them, please. The Al-Jazeera one in particular, as that offers some insight into the manoeuvers Putin is making. He's going hell bent for leather to destabilize the EU, in large part because the EU has blocked the pipelines he wanted to build in the Black Sea.

[submitted link]
[submitted link]
And this Quora thread sums the Black Sea situation up nicely. [submitted link]
And here is an informative piece from the BBC that explains just why Navalny is so much more dangerous for Russia's internal stability than previous opposers to Putin and Medvedev.

He's not fighting for 'democracy', which is about as dirty a term in Russia as 'communism' is in the US, but against corruption. And he has a strong case.

[submitted link]

2017/03/28 07:24, Prist: 
Strangely enough, the very fact Zepir stated - that Russia cannot afford such expense - works for motivation. If your economy is collapsing and living standards are falling, then for democracies there is easy solution - have elections, change your government. However, in dictatorships this solution is not possible and the blame will inevitably laid at the feet of dictator, no matter how long he/she tries to avoid it by throwing underlings under the bus. Traditional solution in this case is external threat, whether real or imagined, that helps to mobilize the society and brand opposition as traitors.

Now there are different levels how this can be used by the dictator, direct aggression being the most extreme one. A country can rattle its sabers for years without taking serious action (like N Korea for example). Issue with Russia is that it has repeatedly displayed that it does not shy from direct aggression, reasons being both personal (image of strong dictator - without taking action a strongman will lose credibility among its supporters, like bully will lose respect among its gang if he constantly flails with fists but does nota ctually hit anyone) and historical (Russia used to be empire and views former parts of empire as its rightful property that for some reason are temporarily separated from the heartland and it wants to ensure its subjects do not go further away).

In capitalist societies we usually tend to interpret things through economic gain, but economic gain has never been Russia's goal. It is working with completely different concepts and has different value system that is incompatible with western ones. Add in de facto dictatorship to such system and you get volatile mix that is completely unpredictable.

Evidence that Zepir is looking for is in history and international relations - if you know the history of the area and have general overview how states work, what is the difference between democratic and totalitarian systems, what motivates those systems and what rules govern the actions of actors in international field and then combine it with actions taking place then the trends are worrying. Some of us (including me) were born under Soviet regime, we have first hand experience with our neighbor, we have learned a lot about it and we would prefer to continue our existence as free country and yes, we feel that freedom is threatened by Russia's actions.

Simplified version: it does not matter if Russia's economy can or cannot afford the war, all that matters is popularity and stability of Putin's regime.

2017/03/28 08:11, Roadkill:edited 3x   
On the other hand, to be fair, and because things are never totally black or white, Russia has not started on this journey just because they one day woke up and decided to spend the next decade or two wreaking mayhem.

Bush (lower) decided - or his hawk advisors did - in 2002, a few years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, that Russia was weakened and no longer needed to be taken into consideration. They probably also wanted to give her a good kicking while she was down, which in the history of international politics has always been just about the dumbest possible idea in any situation, when considered in the long term.

So they decided to shut down almost all intel and military operations that had anything to do with Russia, and unilaterally pull out of the global Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. They probably did this to proactively (which, in matters of military, usually means going out of your way to be stupid ahead of time) combat terrorists which they thought would be raining stolen Soviet nukes down on the US, by developing an anti-missile shield. If they had stuck to putting this up in the States, they might have gotten away with it. But these defenses have almost exclusively been erected in Europe, and seem equally aimed at Russia as well as the volatile Middle East.

If you consider only the fear of terrorist nuclear attacks (and accept it as a real danger - which I don't), I guess it makes sense for Nato and the EU to want to keep their citizens safe. But geopolitically it's an incredibly naive move. Actually, it's dumbass times stupid, cubed. You'd have to be a child not to foresee that Russia would feel put upon and pressurized into responding. Just because the Soviet Union has collapsed does not mean that Russian politics or public sentiment has become altogether different when it comes to their own sense of national security, self-image or pride.

Add to this the fact that, having caused the Soviet Union to collapse, the West did a bare minimum or even nothing to help stabilize the regions afterwards, which first allowed oligarchs to steal immense sums of money, and then to take control, with Putin at the helm.

Here's some extrapolating by people who know.

[submitted link]
And once Putin had taken over, people in control seem to have made the absolutely astonishing mistake of not taking him seriously enough.

Putin is neither dumb nor weak, and he is anything but unambitious. He is extremely intelligent, and also happens to excel in cold, strategic thinking. And has advisors with plenty of experience in such matters.

As far as he is, and has always been, concerned, the cold war is still on. It never stopped, and will never stop just because the West unilaterally (in Putin's eyes) says it did, does or will.

In fact, Putin's whole regime is built around the idea of him as a strongman, rallying the Russian people to fight the external threat.

And the West - the US in particular - have been fantastically stupid in their tunnel vision fixation on terrorism. The US has also incredibly fast become placid, seemingly lulled by a strange delusion of privilege and entitlement to being the world's leading superpower, as if that could never change and no-one should be expected to even try to challenge that status at any time.

So even when Putin has openly told western politicians and reporters how things look from his point of view, it tends to be ignored and written off as playing for the home gallery.

Here he is in 2016, summing up the situation from his point of view. I suggest you look at this, and at least try to assume he is absolutely serious, and consider the inevitable consequences and course of action. Also note the clip at the end of him in 2007, saying the exact same things to an audience of Western press.

He's been saying this for years. How anyone - let alone the western intelligence community - can be surprised by him living up to his word is beyond me. And if they allowed themselves to think he'd be content with a race of developing weapons when he knows the Russian economy means they'll inevitably lose such a race, they have been criminally inept. Of course he was going to develop other avenues of attack and influence.

[submitted link]


For the record, I demonize neither the US nor Russia in general. I just often find myself resenting having to share a world with their leaderships' chronic geopolitical hardons.

<<   <   30  31  32  33  34  35  36  

bookmark this discussion.
ignore this discussion.
top
 


 Commenting Rules:
  • we do not tolerate fake or anonymous character names!
  • use a valid MUME character name
  • offensive (sexual, racist, personal, ...) remarks will be punished
  • do not post information, which you got from MUME immortal-boards
  • comment in English only!


  • Character-Name:   anonymous-flag (don't link profile)  


    Advice:  Let the above textbox do the line-wrapping and do only use Return/Newline to end or start a new paragraph. That way your comments will look nice! If you use long text-strings without spaces ( >50 characters), they will be cut to a decent size and info will get lost.
    back