Syria September 2015 ~ What's up?

[joepistole]

As if this would make a difference for the Abkhasians and Ossetians. They did not want to be ruled by Georgians, and they were able to defend their freedom from Georgia.

Yes, it does make a difference. Abkhasia and Ossetia were Georgia's responsibility, not Mother Russia's. Mother Russia failed to respect the territorial integrity of Georgia and Ukraine. So yeah, it make a difference, a lot of difference. And the unpleasant fact for you and Mother Russia is all but 2 other nations out of 179+ nations recognized that fact. The UN recognized that fact.

I don't use any claims to back up any rights of any states for whatever.

Yeah you did.

That they were parts of Russia, then of Soviet Union, is a historical fact, and if you make claims incompatible with this fact, I can use this fact. This does not mean that I make any historical rights claims.

Didn't you just claim you didn't use claims to back up rights? Didn't I write in my last post Ukraine and Georgia were a part of the Soviet Union? If it isn't relevant, which it isn't then why do you keep bringing it up? Did I not write in my last post Georgia and Ukraine were a part of the Soviet Union? You are contradicting yourself and setting up illogical arguments, in this case a straw man.

No, Georgia has not, never. Abkhasia as well as South Ossetia have declared independence immediately after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and have never been controlled completely by Georgian troops. Of course, during the independence wars Georgian troops have been inside the territories of above republics, as usual in secessionist wars, but Georgia have never controlled their claimed terrritories.

That's pure bullshit, no one outside Mother Russia with half a brain believes that. Unfortunately for you the facts are crystal clear. Mother Russia had recognized Georgia's borders for 70 some years while under Soviet rule, but then when Mother Putin wants to annex portions of Georgia suddenly Georgia's borders become malleable. Even the Chinese don't believe this bullshit.

I do not see any aggression to condemn.

Why should I? No reason.

Yeah, why should you not be a hypocrite. The rules apply to everyone but Mother Russia. Mother Russia can invade, occupy and annex with impunity under various guises. But no one else can. Unfortunately for you and your fellow Mother Russians, the world isn't that brain dead.

LOL. Russia was neutral in these independence wars. And it was accepted by all sides as a peace force only because it was neutral.

Oh, it just supplied weapons and troops, including senior state security officials, but it was "neutral"?

During the Soviet time, Georgia's borders were simply internal administrative borders. There have been several reconfigurations of these borders, decided in Moscow, for example, giving the Armenian Karabach to Azerbaidshan (by the Georgian Stalin) and giving Crimea to Ukraine (by Ukrainian Chrushtshov), all this without even caring what the locals think about this. So, these borders were simply irrelevant administrative subdivisions.

Haven't you said repeatedly and as recently as a few paragraphs ago, that you don't make historical rights claims (e.g. "any historical rights claims.")? That sounds like an historical rights claim. Your comments here are completely irrelevant. Because when the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia recognized the territorial integrity of Georgia and Ukraine and it subsequently violated that territorial integrity.

Nonsense. But, once you consider Wikipedia as so very reliable, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sochi_agreement

Yes, nonsense.

What matters for Russia is if Russia has acknowledged their independence. Nobody cares about your claims of Russian bribery. You seem to think that it matters very much if other states acknowledge such independence. It matters to these non-acknowledged states and their citizens, because it makes it hard to travel around with South Ossetian passports. But it does not matter for Russia.

The fact remains only 2 other countries have recognized their independence. And you omitted that detail when you first brought the issue up. Omission isn't honest. You, like your Mother Russia have repeatedly tried to deceive people.

Correct, you get it. To use the main ridge of the Causasus as an administrative border is nice for those who rule in above parts, the tsar as well as the communist party. It is not nice for the Ossetian people, who are artificially subdivided into two parts.

Hmm...you think that make sense? The fact is there is nothing wrong with Georgia's borders before Russia invaded, occupied, and illegally annexed Georgian lands. Russia violated international law when it invaded and annexed Georgian lands. Ossetia wasn't Russia's issue, and Russia had no legal right to annex Georgian land by force.

Of course, Russia does not like it if somebody breaks a ceasefire and kills Russian peacekeeping forces. This is something Russia cares about. It did not care about these republics being diplomatically recognized.

Well there two sides to this story. Georgians say Russians violated the cease fire. And in any case, Russia had no legal right to invade, occupy and annex Georgian lands. Whither Russia cares about a cease fire or not is irrelevant.

And, no, Russia has not engaged Ukrainian troops. If they would, the Ukrainian civil war would have been finished in two weeks in Kiew.

You mean except for the ones who were captured by Ukrainian military forces and the ones who showed up in Crimea and demanded the surrender of Ukrainian forces or the Ukrainian ship sunk by Russian naval vessels or the dead Russian soldiers shipped back to Mother Russia.

 

[joepistole]

I don't have to show anything. You make defamatory claims, you have to prove them. So, please, the transcript of what Putin has said, in Russian and with translation, and we will see. The press conference which your NATO sources have distorted is online.

Well then, you are being dishonest. You attributed everything you disliked, everything which proved you to be wrong as NATO propaganda. You were asked to prove the evidence you dismissed came from NATO and is NATO propaganda as you have alleged.

No, you don't have to prove your assertions. But the fact is you can't prove your assertions that all the material you summarily dismissed as NATO propaganda was in fact NATO propaganda as you alleged.

PS: The the truth isn't defamatory. You who claim someone else has made defamatory claims is like the pot calling the kettle black. The fact is you cannot back up your assertions of a vast NATO propaganda conspiracy. The only propaganda here is coming from you and Mother Russia and the only one defaming anyone is you comrade.

No, it my opinion in general about wikipedia. You can copy it and use it if you like.

Whenever I think the claim is correct, I have no problem with it. A tautology. Note, I always think for myself, make an own judgement, if a claim is plausible or not. And I never use the reputation of a source itself as a positive argument. (Ok, with the exception that I value a paper published in a peer-reviewed paper higher than an unpublished one. But even this difference is not that important for me.) Reputation works for me only in the other direction - it is easy to loose reputation in my eyes, and claims made by a source which has been already identified as lying have a negative reputation.

The point was that these pro-Russian sources contained already in February information which, according to your defamations, have been denied by Putin, and admitted only later, in April or so. This shows that you have lied.

Yeah, you mindlessly accept any and all sources as long at they reinforce your beliefs and you reject them when they do not and that is evidenced by your recent posts on this issue. You without merit dismiss credible information as NATO propaganda and you can't prove it's propaganda much less that it was sourced from NATO. You use Wikipedia when it suits you and your rail against it when it doesn't. You omit data and you misrepresent data in order to satisfy your biases.

And, of course, if the Russian army, in agreement with the legal government of Crimea and Sewastopol, as well as the legal president of the Ukraine, helps to protect the order and to prevent violence, this is not an invasion and occupation of a neighbouring state.

Except that isn't true as you well know. Your "legal government" was impeached by the Ukrainian parliament and was no longer the "legal government". That's why the Ukrainian military has been and is actively engaged in fighting Russian forces. That's why those little green men didn't have any identification on their uniforms.

The US deep state has long ago learned how to control a democracy - the American one. Once they know how to control a democracy, this is a nice way to control other states too. In fact, all you need to control a democracy is media power. And media power you can simply buy - and, if bought, it gives even profit.

Yeah, it's so much easier when you don't have to deal with a free press. But that isn't how things work in the US. Unlike Mother Russia the US has a free press. In Mother Russia the media reports whatever the guy in charge wants reported. It doesn't have to worry The US also has a constitution which unlike Mother Russia, it follows. The US has a very long history of rule of law. Russia doesn't. In Mother Russia the law is whatever the guy in power says it is.

I need no messiah. And the point is not being friends, but cooperating. It is America which likes to take advantage of other states if those are weak. And Russia is weak only in your dreams. It nicely cooperates even with Germany, Northstream II is already signed, despite all the attempts of the US to use the Ukraine to create a trade war of EU against Russia.

Oh, didn't you in a recent previous call upon China to help Mother Russia in your crusade against America? You know, that whole Mother Russia is protector of the world deal? If Mother Russia cooperates nicely with other states as you have asserted, then why have those other states, including Germany, sanctioned Mother Russia for its illegal invasion, occupation and annexation of the lands which belong to its neighbors?

And were is your evidence the US likes to take advantage of states when they are weak? Where is your evidence the US attempted to create a trade war between the EU and Russia? You don't have any credible evidence, because none exists. You are just mindlessly repeating whatever the Russian state owned media tells you. Russia's former Soviet vassal states are running to the West. They don't like Mother Russia, they want better lives, and Mother Putin resents it. That's the issue. If the US wanted to take advantage of Russia's neighbors it would have admitted them, including the Ukraine, when they sought admission into NATO years ago.

Nice try, but who cares? China knows, if the US controls Russia, China is finished and will be killed.

What nice try? China knows the US has no interest in Mother Russia other than maintaining the peace and rule of international law. Per the previously recognized article, China is taking full advantage of Russia's financial distress.

Your fantasies of easy invasion of Russia have been discussed already, cheap fantasies. Colonies are too expensive, this is what France and England have learned - they have given up their colonies not because they did no longer like to rule the world, but because the costs were too high. The American model of rulership was better, cheaper, more efficient.

Except, they are not fantasies. You don't have to be a genius to know Russia would be no contest in a military conflict with the US or any Western power. Additionally, can you point to one US colony? You can't because the US has never been a colonial power. It's one of those facts again. Democracies are better than autocracies. You Russians should give it a try.

Typical case of projecting the own weakness to others. Zero game thinking is the American weakness.

I have never claimed it has. Of course, the US would be able to retaliate if Russia would make a first strike. Similarly in the other direction. So, for above sides it would be fatal to start a nuclear war. This is what has preserved peace during the Cold War, and preserves it now.

That's kind of childish don't you think? I don't know why it is, but Russians don't seem to be able to understand the Soviet Union died decades ago. The era of assured mutual destruction died with it. Perhaps it is that Russian need for bravado. Technology has made tremendous advancements as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. Just because Mother Russia is behind the technology curve, it doesn't mean the US is also. The unpleasant fact for you is Russia's military isn't much of a threat to the US and it's a provable fact. It's also true and provable the US has no interest in a military confrontation with anyone other than to defend itself and allied nations.

I'm an independent scientist. I have enough to live for myself, without being hired.

What does an independent scientist do, and how does an independent scientist put food on his table? Who pays the bills?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Perhaps a quick history refresh might be in order when comparing the evolution of the USA and Russia.
It might help put the debate in perspective...
I am no historian but.... ( I am an Australian spectator)

Compare:
USA:

• The USA became a republic after a war of independence and the American revolution in 1783 ~ approx 220 years ago.
• A fundamental declaration that "All men are born equal" was made.
• The USA has since been in a relatively steady state of growth for approximately 220 years.

Russia:

• Russia became a republic and threw of the monarchy in 1917 ~ approx 95 years ago.
• Prior to the removal of the Nicholas II, Russia suffered enormous losses many decisions/actions by that Tzar, especially from it's failure during the Russo-Japanese war and heavy losses during the onset of the first world war.

To say that Russia's population and governmental structures were thoroughly decimated, and suffering great hardship would be an understatement.


The point:
To compare 220 years of USA relative steady growth state to Russian turmoil since esp since 1917 with out taking into account the different circumstances would be folly.

Of course the USA is a dominant power in global affairs as this is what relative steady growth states generate.
Of course nations like Russia who have had to deal with a horrific and recent history of despot leaders is struggling to re-establish it's national identity given that it is only a short time since the notion of a Monarchy and subsequent Communist Soviet Union was ended.

Perhaps the USA and democratic Europe need to be mindful that "invading" Russia with Western products/ideologies and thereon promoting economic dependency will meet with strong resistance by those who wish to see Russia "eventually" stand on it's own two feet.

as I said I am no historian ... just some thoughts though...

 

[Schmelzer]

Well then, you are being dishonest. You attributed everything you disliked, everything which proved you to be wrong as NATO propaganda. You were asked to prove the evidence you dismissed came from NATO and is NATO propaganda as you have alleged.

Western mainstream press is NATO propaganda. Your sources have been Western mainstream press.

Too much? You reject even Western internet sources as "Russian state-owned propaganda"

And I have presented evidence, when challenged, that many prestigeous Western sources have distorted the evidence in the same way, by omitting the same well-known facts - facts which I have been able to find simply by following links.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sh...that-lie-for-money.151895/page-3#post-3315870

And regarding this question, I have not made an own assertion, but only rejected your assertion, as unproven. To prove that Putin never lies would be simply impossible, to prove that he lies is something you can do - many of his speeches are online, you can find the videos, sometimes you can find transcripts and translations, so, what's the problem, prove it. If you cannot, your problem, your claims remains unproven, thus, defamation.

But the fact is you can't prove your assertions that all the material you summarily dismissed as NATO propaganda was in fact NATO propaganda as you alleged.

So you think I have to learn Spanish to find out if a Spanish source your beloved Wiki refers to is NATO propaganda? And you can simply reject all my sources, which are not Western mainstream press, as Russian state-owned propaganda? Sorry, no.

Yeah, you mindlessly accept any and all sources as long at they reinforce your beliefs and you reject them when they do not and that is evidenced by your recent posts on this issue. You without merit dismiss credible information as NATO propaganda and you can't prove it's propaganda much less that it was sourced from NATO. You use Wikipedia when it suits you and your rail against it when it doesn't. You omit data and you misrepresent data in order to satisfy your biases.

So you claim I'm doing the same what you do? It is a nice method if one faces personal accusations to revert them. Very often, the result nicely fits. This is such an example. In particular, have you ever accepted a source I have given, without mindlessly dismissing it as propaganda from Russian state-owned media, except when it was obvious that it was a NATO source?

And about omitting: You have found that I have "omitted" an anonymous comment where I have cited from an article from a NATO source. This is quite normal, anonymous comments are usually less reliable than the article itself. You have been caught writing "The US has 7,700 nuclear warheads. Mother Russia has fewer than 1,800 operational warheads." with your probable Wiki source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction wrote "According to the Federation of American Scientists, an organization that assesses nuclear weapon stockpiles, in 2013, Russia possessed an estimated 8,500 total nuclear warheads of which 1,800 were strategically operational. The organization also claims that the U.S. had an estimated total 7,700 nuclear warheads of which 1,950 were strategically operational." The aim to falsify by omission is obvious - you have tried to present an essential equality (7700 vs. 8500, or 1950 vs. 1800) as a clear advantage of the US (7700 vs. 1800). And you have not given a link to your source, obviously to hide this intentional distortion.

If Mother Russia cooperates nicely with other states as you have asserted, then why have those other states, including Germany, sanctioned Mother Russia for its illegal invasion, occupation and annexation of the lands which belong to its neighbors?

Because of political pressure from the US.

And were is your evidence the US likes to take advantage of states when they are weak? Where is your evidence the US attempted to create a trade war between the EU and Russia?

So, ok, we have now seen your pattern of argumentation.

Whenever I make some claim, you cry "where is your evidence". Whenever I present evidence, you ignore it, and cry, without evidence, "You are just mindlessly repeating whatever the Russian state owned media tells you", even if it comes from internet sources located all over the world. To justify your claims, you cry "truth is not propaganda" and about "facts", without giving evidence, or, at best, a wiki quote.

Additionally, can you point to one US colony? You can't because the US has never been a colonial power.

I could name Hawaii, Puerto Rico, but forget about this, because I do not claim that US is a colonial power. It uses other, more efficient methods to control other states.

Colonies are expensive. You need military there, and this military has to control everything. The population usually hates this as foreign occupation, thus, one has to expect uprisings. With a few exceptions (oil) military control of a colony does not give much economic income.

The US model was based on democracy and owning mass media. This ownership is protected by "freedom of press" ideology, and does even give income. Military control is reduced to small bases, much cheaper, and creating much less resistance. If one does not like a certain politician, a media smear campaign is sufficient to get rid of this guy.

I don't know why it is, but Russians don't seem to be able to understand the Soviet Union died decades ago. The era of assured mutual destruction died with it.

Any evidence for this? Except "The US has 7,700 nuclear warheads. Mother Russia has fewer than 1,800 operational warheads"?

What does an independent scientist do, and how does an independent scientist put food on his table? Who pays the bills?

He does whatever he likes. The bills are paid from income generated by savings he has made in the past working as a scientist. To make such savings, as well as to live from the income generated from them now, is possible because he does not care at all about luxury. Except for the luxury to do what he likes, like developing own scientific theories (without necessity to care about grants) and travelling around the world (which contains a large number of states where life is much cheaper than in Germany).

 

[joepistole]

Perhaps a quick history refresh might be in order when comparing the evolution of the USA and Russia.
It might help put the debate in perspective...
I am no historian but.... ( I am an Australian spectator)

Compare:
USA:

• The USA became a republic after a war of independence and the American revolution in 1783 ~ approx 220 years ago.
• A fundamental declaration that "All men are born equal" was made.
• The USA has since been in a relatively steady state of growth for approximately 220 years.

Russia:
Russia became a republic and threw of the monarchy in 1917 ~ approx 95 years ago.
Prior to the removal of the Nicholas II, Russia suffered enormous losses many decisions/actions by that Tzar, especially from it's failure during the Russo-Japanese war and heavy losses during the onset of the first world war.

To say that it's population and governmental structures was decimated, and suffering great hardship would be an understatement.


The point:
To compare 220 years of USA relative steady growth state to Russian turmoil since esp since 1917 with out taking into account the different circumstances would be folly.

Of course the USA is a dominant power in global affairs as this is what relative steady growth states generate.
Of course nations like Russia who have had to deal with a horrific and recent history of despot leaders is struggling to re-establish it's national identity given that it is only a short time since the notion of a Monarchy and subsequent Communist Soviet Union was ended.

Perhaps the USA and democratic Europe need to be mindful that "invading" Russia with Western products/ideologies and thereon promoting economic dependency will meet with strong resistance by those who wish to see Russia "eventually" stand on it's own two feet.

I appreciate the astute observations, I think a historical perspective is of value. Historically Mother Russia has had great difficultly with leadership and leadership problems continue to plague Mother Russia. But at some point Russians need to become accountable for their leaders, and until they do, Russia will continue to be plagued with incompetent and corrupt leadership.

As for Western commercialism, I don't think that's Russia's problem. If anything it might help Russia by importing new ideals like freedom of the press and democracy.

 

[joepistole]

Western mainstream press is NATO propaganda. Your sources have been Western mainstream press.

My sources have not been Russian state controlled media. Additionally, you have no proof the Western "mainstream" press is NATO propaganda. You have no evidence the Western "mainstream" press is even wrong.

Too much? You reject even Western internet sources as "Russian state-owned propaganda"

As I have explained to you before, I reject specious news sources which are clearly wrong or promulgate memes which they cannot support with either evidence or reason. You on the other hand embrace them if what they are selling is consistent with your ideological agenda.

And I have presented evidence, when challenged, that many prestigeous Western sources have distorted the evidence in the same way, by omitting the same well-known facts - facts which I have been able to find simply by following links.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sh...that-lie-for-money.151895/page-3#post-3315870

Except you haven't, and the above referenced link is totally irrelevant to this discussion, not to mention the fact it doesn't prove your assertion of Western media bias. As previously pointed out to you, what you have consistently done is misrepresent data and omitted data and lied.

And regarding this question, I have not made an own assertion, but only rejected your assertion, as unproven. To prove that Putin never lies would be simply impossible, to prove that he lies is something you can do - many of his speeches are online, you can find the videos, sometimes you can find transcripts and translations, so, what's the problem, prove it. If you cannot, your problem, your claims remains unproven, thus, defamation.

What are you referencing? The fact is you summarily reject anything that is not consistent with your ideological agenda as NATO propaganda. You have have been repeatedly challenged to provide evidence for that assertion and you have repeatedly failed to produce any evidence that the Western mainstream press is NATO propaganda.

So you think I have to learn Spanish to find out if a Spanish source your beloved Wiki refers to is NATO propaganda? And you can simply reject all my sources, which are not Western mainstream press, as Russian state-owned propaganda? Sorry, no.

What does learning Spanish have to do with NATO propaganda? You have accused Western press as being NATO propaganda. So where is the evidence? If you make a claim like that you should be able to back it up with evidence, and you clearly cannot.

So you claim I'm doing the same what you do? It is a nice method if one faces personal accusations to revert them. Very often, the result nicely fits. This is such an example. In particular, have you ever accepted a source I have given, without mindlessly dismissing it as propaganda from Russian state-owned media, except when it was obvious that it was a NATO source?

LOL....ah...no. I have accused you of what you clearly have done and I have proven it.

And about omitting: You have found that I have "omitted" an anonymous comment where I have cited from an article from a NATO source. This is quite normal, anonymous comments are usually less reliable than the article itself. You have been caught writing "The US has 7,700 nuclear warheads. Mother Russia has fewer than 1,800 operational warheads." with your probable Wiki source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction wrote "According to the Federation of American Scientists, an organization that assesses nuclear weapon stockpiles, in 2013, Russia possessed an estimated 8,500 total nuclear warheads of which 1,800 were strategically operational. The organization also claims that the U.S. had an estimated total 7,700 nuclear warheads of which 1,950 were strategically operational." The aim to falsify by omission is obvious - you have tried to present an essential equality (7700 vs. 8500, or 1950 vs. 1800) as a clear advantage of the US (7700 vs. 1800). And you have not given a link to your source, obviously to hide this intentional distortion.

I omitted nothing. Further, that isn't relevant to you case. I suggest you go back and read the entire Wiki article. The US has many more operational nuclear weapons which have not been deployed, but could be.

Because of political pressure from the US.

Oh, and where is your evidence for that assertion? As with the vast majority of your assertions, you have none. As with all fascist regimes, they don't need or want evidence. Mother Russia doesn't need or want evidence and reason, Mother Russia needs a boogieman for folks like Putin to achieve power and then remain in power.

As I have told you many times before, the West operates differently from Mother Russia. The US isn't in any way like Mother Russia.

So, ok, we have now seen your pattern of argumentation.

Whenever I make some claim, you cry "where is your evidence". Whenever I present evidence, you ignore it, and cry, without evidence, "You are just mindlessly repeating whatever the Russian state owned media tells you", even if it comes from internet sources located all over the world. To justify your claims, you cry "truth is not propaganda" and about "facts", without giving evidence, or, at best, a wiki quote.

LOL, yeah, things are so much easier when you can just make things up or mindlessly repeat what you have heard or read from Russian state owned media sources. This ain't Russia and you are not Putin. You have made numerous assertions which you cannot support with credible evidence. You are obfuscating. I asked you where is your evidence that the US always takes advantage of weaker states as you had asserted?

I could name Hawaii, Puerto Rico, but forget about this, because I do not claim that US is a colonial power. It uses other, more efficient methods to control other states.

Yeah, you could claim Hawaii and Puerto Rico but you haven't because you know you would be wrong and I would very quickly point that out. And what would these "other, more efficient methods" be exactly and where is the evidence to support your assertion?

Colonies are expensive. You need military there, and this military has to control everything. The population usually hates this as foreign occupation, thus, one has to expect uprisings. With a few exceptions (oil) military control of a colony does not give much economic income.

That is true. You should tell that to Mother Putin. He apparently didn't get the memo.

The US model was based on democracy and owning mass media. This ownership is protected by "freedom of press" ideology, and does even give income. Military control is reduced to small bases, much cheaper, and creating much less resistance. If one does not like a certain politician, a media smear campaign is sufficient to get rid of this guy.

Well, it is true the US model is based on democracy. But unlike Mother Russia, the state doesn't own the media or control the media. Media is owned by private entities. I don't understand your military references. It makes no sense to me.

I don't think you understand the concept of a free press and how it works. Anyone can print or say anything. But they are accountable for what they say. If they lie or misrepresent, they lose credibility (e.g. Fox News). Political groups can and do place ads which smear others and it isn't pretty. In the US and in all Western countries citizens are trusted with figuring it all out. In Mother Russia, the state figures it out for Russians. The Russian state doesn't trust its citizens to be able to sort through the information and derive their own decisions. And people like you promulgate that belief. I think you and those like you are selling the Russian people short. Russian people don't need predigested news. They need all the news and are quite capable of functioning well without a sanitized state controlled press. Russia's lack of a free press allows corruption to flourish and incompetent corrupt leaders to thrive. That is Russia's really big problem.

He does whatever he likes. The bills are paid from income generated by savings he has made in the past working as a scientist. To make such savings, as well as to live from the income generated from them now, is possible because he does not care at all about luxury. Except for the luxury to do what he likes, like developing own scientific theories (without necessity to care about grants) and travelling around the world (which contains a large number of states where life is much cheaper than in Germany).

So one day he is a geologist, the next a physicist, the next and economist?

 

[Schmelzer]

A lot of simple boring repetitions of what has already answered and primitive namecalling deleted.

But unlike Mother Russia, the state doesn't own the media or control the media. Media is owned by private entities.

Of course, this is the point of the oligarchy. The oligarchs own the tools which allows to control the politicians.

I don't think you understand the concept of a free press and how it works. Anyone can print or say anything. But they are accountable for what they say. If they lie or misrepresent, they lose credibility (e.g. Fox News). Political groups can and do place ads which smear others and it isn't pretty. In the US and in all Western countries citizens are trusted with figuring it all out. In Mother Russia, the state figures it out for Russians. The Russian state doesn't trust its citizens to be able to sort through the information and derive their own decisions.

This is what the propaganda tells you. The point is that it does not matter what everybody can print, but it matters what the big mass media print. And these are nicely controlled by a few oligarchs. In Russia, they have been controlled by a few oligarchs too, during the Yeltsin time. Some are owned by oligarchs today too - but by oligarchs who have accepted Putin's offer to stay out of politics in exchange for not pursuing their criminal past. So, these media do not propose pro-Western propaganda. Some oligarchs - Gussinski, Beresowski, Chodorkowski - have not accepted this offer, and correspondingly lost their property. Their media empires are now your "state-owned media". This is the whole difference. Everybody is as free as in the US to write and print what he likes (in reality even much more, because there is no political correctness pressure). Only a few media empires, formerly owned by three pro-Western oligarchs, are now owned by the state. Big difference? Not really.

It is a big difference only for the US deep state, who does no longer control enough Russian media to be able to control Russian politics.

In my opinion, any mass media have a low level of reputation. As American, as European, as Russian. You trust only big media of NATO states. So, there is nothing we above consider as reputable.

 

[joepistole]

A lot of simple boring repetitions of what has already answered and primitive namecalling deleted.

Except throughout this entire discussion the only one doing the name calling gig is you comrade. The only name calling you needed to delete, was your own.

Of course, this is the point of the oligarchy. The oligarchs own the tools which allows to control the politicians.

One of the problems I have with you is the inconsistency in your arguments and proclamations and the deception therein. The bottom line here is Russia doesn't trust its citizens with information. It controls the information its citizens receive. Western nations on the other hand do trust their citizens with the free flow of information.

Russia, as you have iterated, rationalizes its control of information by arguing if the state doesn't control information some nasty oligarch will control the information so the state will control it. That's a silly argument. It makes absolutely no sense. It boils down to trust me but not this other unnamed oligarch.

In the West, there are a number of views from a number of sources. No one person or one entity controls information or the free press or any industry in the West. One of the most successful aspects of Western powers is the separation of powers versus states like Russia where all power is concentrated in one man and a free press is integral to that separation of powers. It keeps powers separated. It exposes corruption. That separation of power is one of the many things which differentiates successful Western powers from Mother Russia. It's one reason why Western powers have been so much more successful than Mother Russia.

This is what the propaganda tells you. The point is that it does not matter what everybody can print, but it matters what the big mass media print. And these are nicely controlled by a few oligarchs. In Russia, they have been controlled by a few oligarchs too, during the Yeltsin time. Some are owned by oligarchs today too - but by oligarchs who have accepted Putin's offer to stay out of politics in exchange for not pursuing their criminal past. So, these media do not propose pro-Western propaganda. Some oligarchs - Gussinski, Beresowski, Chodorkowski - have not accepted this offer, and correspondingly lost their property. Their media empires are now your "state-owned media". This is the whole difference. Everybody is as free as in the US to write and print what he likes (in reality even much more, because there is no political correctness pressure). Only a few media empires, formerly owned by three pro-Western oligarchs, are now owned by the state. Big difference? Not really.

Well here is the thing, it ain't propaganda. It's the truth. Russia and American right wing extremist, use labels to avoid addressing the problems and falsehoods in their ideological beliefs. Just because your beliefs are not consistent with reality, it doesn't mean reality ain't real.

No one entity controls the media. In the West laws mean something. Laws are followed. Laws are not subject to the whims of dictators, in part because we don't have dictators in the West. There are large media organizations. But it's a large country. It's a large world. Unlike Mother Russia, monopolies and oligarchies and in particular media monopolies are illegal.

It is a big difference only for the US deep state, who does no longer control enough Russian media to be able to control Russian politics.

Except the US nor any other Western nation has ever controlled Russian media. Western states don't own the media in their own countries. So why would they want to own Russian media? It makes no sense. That's is Russian propaganda, because it simply isn't true. At one time, for brief period of time, Russia did have a free press, but it was short lived. Putin has total control over Russian media whither the state owns it or not.

"Two of the three main channels are majority owned by the state. First Channel is 51% publicly owned, while Rossiya is 100% state-owned through the All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company (VGTRK). NTV is a commercial channel, but it is owned by Gazprom-Media, a subsidiary of Gazprom of which the state owns 50.002%. These three channels have often come under criticism for being biased towards the United Russia party and the Presidential Administration of Russia. They are accused of providing disproportionate and uncritical coverage of United Russia and their candidates. The channels do, however, provide large amounts of free airtime to all opposition election candidates, as required by law. During the Russian presidential election, 2008, the four presidential candidates all received 21 hours of airtime on the three main channels to debate each other and present their views.[20] According to research conducted by Professor Sarah Oates, most Russians believe that news reporting on the three national television channels is selective and unbalanced, but view this as appropriate. The responders to the study made it clear that they believe the role of state television should be to provide central authority and order in troubled times.[21]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Russia

In my opinion, any mass media have a low level of reputation. As American, as European, as Russian. You trust only big media of NATO states. So, there is nothing we above consider as reputable.

Well that is your opinion and you are welcome to it. But not all media outlets are the same. In the US, we have Fox News. It's a right wing Republican propaganda machine. We have Republican talk radio which spews right wing propaganda all day and all evening long. But then we also have CNN, ABC, MSNBC and others which broadcast unbiased news. CNBC broadcasts a mixture non biased reporting and right wing (i.e. Republican) propaganda. And there are many others. You get a good mixture of reporting. Fox News and right wing talk radio are probably most similar to your Russian state owned media. It's scripted news.

I trust only news sources which present news completely and truthfully. I don't for a moment trust Fox News or Fox Business. I don't trust Republican talk radio for even a moment. Though I do like to listen, just to see how silly and stupid they are and see what they might try next. You don't need to fear information. But you do need to be a critical consumer of information. We all need to be critical information consumers. Our brains are wired for short cuts and that makes us vulnerable to manipulation.

The problems you have is you cannot prove your allegations and beliefs. You float unfounded conspiracies, just as American right wing television, radio and print do. You cannot prove your vast NATO conspiracy nonsense. All that NATO conspiracy nonsense does is allow you to feel good about dismissing many inconvenient facts and it makes you feel more important than you really are. It inflates your ego. It appeals to your nationalism, and that is how the Russian state manipulates you. And like I said, we see the same thing in the US (e.g. Fox New and Republican Party entertainment). But in the US there are other options available to information consumers. In Mother Russia, there are not.

 

[Schmelzer]

The bottom line here is Russia doesn't trust its citizens with information. It controls the information its citizens receive. Western nations on the other hand do trust their citizens with the free flow of information.

This his how NATO propaganda presents this. But, in reality, what I see in Russian TV (if I see it, which is not often) are quite open discussions, where the Western point of view can be defended and is defended by some participants of the discussion. This is something I do not see in German TV (if I see it).

Russia, as you have iterated, rationalizes its control of information by arguing if the state doesn't control information some nasty oligarch will control the information so the state will control it. That's a silly argument. It makes absolutely no sense. It boils down to trust me but not this other unnamed oligarch.

This is not something Russia rationalizes, or uses as an argument. It is as I see the situation. And the situation is simply that those who own the big media have a very large political power in a modern democracy, simply because an organized smear campaign can kill almost every politician. So, who wants to win political power has to fight for media power. That's all. And Putin has been the winner in this fight. In Europe, it is the US deep state, the oligarchy, which controls the media. In Russia, it was also the West who controlled the media, via the pro-Western oligarchs Gussinski, Beresowski and Chodorkowski. So everything was fine. Nobody cared about murdered journalists or so. Then came Putin and has taken the media empires away from these oligarchs. So, there is no more a strong American media power in Russia. After this, the West started to whine about freedom of press in Russia.

This does not mean that there is more freedom in Western press. It means only that the Russian media are not controlled by the West, but by the Russians, the Russian state as well as some Russian oligarchs who are not under Western control. How much of free discussion a particular media mogul allows, is a completely different question.

In the West, there are a number of views from a number of sources. No one person or one entity controls information or the free press or any industry in the West.

This is similar in Russia. Of course, you will not believe it, and will name your NATO propaganda sources which whine about missing freedom of press in Russia "fact" or "truth" as usual, but you have probably never seen Russian TV or read Russian papers.

Well here is the thing, it ain't propaganda. It's the truth. [propaganda deleted]

If one starts to claim such things, there is no necessity to read what follows, it can be nothing but propaganda.

Except the US nor any other Western nation has ever controlled Russian media.

I have seen some Russian media during the Yeltsin time, 1:1 like Western media, the same propaganda, the same lies.

Western states don't own the media in their own countries.

They own a lot, for example in Germany a lot of TV is state-owned. BBC is also state-owned. But this is not the point. Most Western media are owned by oligarchs.

So why would they want to own Russian media? It makes no sense.

They don't want to own, they want to control. This is a difference. And they have controlled, because the Russian media have distributed Western propaganda.

But then we also have CNN, ABC, MSNBC and others which broadcast unbiased news.

ROTFLBTC. This makes it obvious that you are simply an uncritical NATO believer. Everybody who believes in unbiased news is, by definition, an uncritical believer. There is no such animal as unbiased news.

A critical person knows from the start that there will be some bias in the news, any news, and the question is only how important and how relevant this bias is.

The problems you have is you cannot prove your allegations and beliefs.

You do not even try, all you do is to repeat your mantra it ain't propaganda. It's the truth. People with at least some experience know that this is a certain indication that what follows is a lie. So, for me, the only acceptable use of it ain't propaganda. It's the truth would be a satirical one, in reference to a lie which is so obvious that everybody is able to understand that to name such nonsense a truth cannot be meant in a serious way.

 

[Schmelzer]

Here yet another actual source which links Turkey to the gas attacks in Syria: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/turkish-lawmakers-ankara-tied-to-use-of-sarin-in-syria/

Of course, this is a non-NATO-source, therefore completely unreliable for NATO-propagandist joepistole. For non-sheeps, the main point:

Two Turkish lawmakers from the Republican People’s Party (CHP) have provided documents showing that the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) was linked to the use of chemical agents by militants operating in Syria, Press TV reports.

Which is, for those who have cared instead of trusting Obama, nothing new but simply additional evidence against the main suspect.

 

[Schmelzer]

And yet another interesting article, http://sana.sy/en/?p=59548

I don't remember if I had made the point here or only in other places where I participate in discussion about Russia/Syria, but a known theme in NATO propaganda but not reality is that Russia is seriously harmed by the sanctions and, therefore, one can expect that it will be ready to accept a lot of things in exchange for an end of the sanctions. I have always argued that I would not expect that Putin would be ready to make any, even minor, compromise on anything in exchange for lifting the sanctions. The point is that Putin is not really interested in lifting the sanctions. Why? Because he would be, obviously, forced to lift the countersanctions too. But these countersanctions are, in fact, in Russian strategic interest. They support the development of Russian agriculture. It needs some time, until the Russian agriculture becomes strong enough to survive a reappearance of Western competitors. Russian firms have invested now into the development of Russian agriculture, and if sanctions, as well as agricultural countersanctions, would be lifted today, this would be problematic for these investments. Similarly, for those things which Russia is not interested to develop itself, where it switched to other states for import (like Argentinian steaks or so) Putin is not interested to harm these new economic connections too. As well, he will not whine if those firms who have been based on European imports disappear completely - this is not the type of industry Russia needs.

So, the point is that the article supports this position.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russia refuses to link between halting its military aid to Syria in the fight against terrorism and a possible lifting of economic sanctions imposed on it by the West.

In other words, Russia couldn't care less about the sanctions. Don't hope to get anything at all for lifting them.

Another point I would like to make is to explain how to use sources. This source is SANA, the news agency of the Syrian state, IOW, Assad's news agency. My actual personal opinion about it is that I have not seen open lies, but have not seen information about military successes of IS, Al Nusra and other insurgent forces. Thus, a clear bias, in no way neutral. But I see no reason to suspect that it will falsify official statements made by Russian officials. I could easily cross-check if the claim is correct, by looking at official sites of the Russian state. But I think this is a loss of time. If I would be a professional journalist, I would have to do this, and certainly would do this, but I'm not. The point that to falsify such a news would be easy to detect, and would only endanger the reputation of SANA, without giving them any real advantage, is sufficient.

In other words, in this particular case I trust SANA, even if in general SANA has only a quite low level of trust, much lower than http://www.almasdarnews.com/ I have cited in the last post, which seems to be in favor of the Syrian army, but regularly reports also about military victories of the other side.

 

[joepistole]

Here yet another actual source which links Turkey to the gas attacks in Syria: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/turkish-lawmakers-ankara-tied-to-use-of-sarin-in-syria/

Of course, this is a non-NATO-source, therefore completely unreliable for NATO-propagandist joepistole. For non-sheeps, the main point:

Which is, for those who have cared instead of trusting Obama, nothing new but simply additional evidence against the main suspect.

Of course it is a pro Assad source which is probably owned by Assad. Here is your problem, you have yet to cite even one credible sources to validate your assertions. The best you can do is what you have done, cite specious sources who are either owned or controlled by the Russian state or those heavily dependent upon the Russian state.

Yeah, it definitely isn't a NATO source. NATO, unlike your Mother Russia, isn't in the news or propaganda business. It's in the defense business.

 

[joepistole]

This his how NATO propaganda presents this. But, in reality, what I see in Russian TV (if I see it, which is not often) are quite open discussions, where the Western point of view can be defended and is defended by some participants of the discussion. This is something I do not see in German TV (if I see it).

Actually, it isn't NATO propaganda, because NATO, unlike Mother Russia, isn't in the propaganda business. The source, as previously noted, is you and the Russian state. Both you and Russia have attempted to explain away and rationalize Russian state control of its media by explaining the media could mislead the Russian population. Thus it is necessary for the state to own and control Russian state media. I suggest you go back and read your previous posts.

If Russia didn't feel its citizens were incapable of handling a free press their arguments for control of the nation's press would be null and mute. As I explained before, Russian state owned and controlled media is a lot like Fox News in the US. It's carefully scripted and acted in order to advance a political meme. It's carefully orchestrated to manipulate its viewers. Fox News represents itself as "fair and balanced" but it's far from fair and balanced. It's the defacto propaganda arm of the Republican Party. They misrepresent information. They have commentators and guests who outright lie. They do as you have done by omitting information. So just because they appear to present the different opinions, it doesn't mean they do it fairly or honestly. And that is one reason why Republicans have been adamantly against the restoration of The Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine was a policy which required broadcasters to present each side of major issues fairly and honestly. What Fox News, Republican talk radio, and Russian state controlled media do is NOT and CANNOT be honestly construed as fair and balanced.

'The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the Commission's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

This is not something Russia rationalizes, or uses as an argument. It is as I see the situation. And the situation is simply that those who own the big media have a very large political power in a modern democracy, simply because an organized smear campaign can kill almost every politician. So, who wants to win political power has to fight for media power. That's all. And Putin has been the winner in this fight. In Europe, it is the US deep state, the oligarchy, which controls the media. In Russia, it was also the West who controlled the media, via the pro-Western oligarchs Gussinski, Beresowski and Chodorkowski. So everything was fine. Nobody cared about murdered journalists or so. Then came Putin and has taken the media empires away from these oligarchs. So, there is no more a strong American media power in Russia. After this, the West started to whine about freedom of press in Russia.

This does not mean that there is more freedom in Western press. It means only that the Russian media are not controlled by the West, but by the Russians, the Russian state as well as some Russian oligarchs who are not under Western control. How much of free discussion a particular media mogul allows, is a completely different question.

This is similar in Russia. Of course, you will not believe it, and will name your NATO propaganda sources which whine about missing freedom of press in Russia "fact" or "truth" as usual, but you have probably never seen Russian TV or read Russian papers.

If one starts to claim such things, there is no necessity to read what follows, it can be nothing but propaganda.

I have seen some Russian media during the Yeltsin time, 1:1 like Western media, the same propaganda, the same lies.

They own a lot, for example in Germany a lot of TV is state-owned. BBC is also state-owned. But this is not the point. Most Western media are owned by oligarchs.

They don't want to own, they want to control. This is a difference. And they have controlled, because the Russian media have distributed Western propaganda.

The fact is the Russian government doesn't believe Russians are capable of handling a free press, that unlike their Western counterparts, Russians are not capable of processing news from unsanctioned, uncontrolled sources. That is their and your justification for not allowing Russian's access to a free press. You claim without state control Russians would be vulnerable to manipulation by oligarchs or foreigners.

ROTFLBTC. This makes it obvious that you are simply an uncritical NATO believer. Everybody who believes in unbiased news is, by definition, an uncritical believer. There is no such animal as unbiased news.

Well that is what you want to tell yourself. That's what you need to believe in order to rationalize your beliefs. But that doesn't make it so. If you have any evidence to back that assertion up, now is the time to show it.

What I find fascinating in our discussions is that you claim to be a scientist. Yet, you are so quick to believe things without so much as a shred of evidence.

A critical person knows from the start that there will be some bias in the news, any news, and the question is only how important and how relevant this bias is.

Well, that isn't true. What is true is how people perceive news is subject to bias as demonstrated by you. Some news is disbelieved and rejected without evidence because it doesn't conform to an individual's biases. It's like trying to convince a religious believer his religious beliefs are wrong. It's not a rational discussion.

You do not even try, all you do is to repeat your mantra it ain't propaganda. It's the truth. People with at least some experience know that this is a certain indication that what follows is a lie. So, for me, the only acceptable use of it ain't propaganda. It's the truth would be a satirical one, in reference to a lie which is so obvious that everybody is able to understand that to name such nonsense a truth cannot be meant in a serious way.

Hmm....and you think that makes sense? The fact is you cannot prove most of your assertions. You don't have credible evidence or reason. What you have are unsupported ideological beliefs.

 

[joepistole]

And yet another interesting article, http://sana.sy/en/?p=59548

I don't remember if I had made the point here or only in other places where I participate in discussion about Russia/Syria, but a known theme in NATO propaganda but not reality is that Russia is seriously harmed by the sanctions and, therefore, one can expect that it will be ready to accept a lot of things in exchange for an end of the sanctions. I have always argued that I would not expect that Putin would be ready to make any, even minor, compromise on anything in exchange for lifting the sanctions. The point is that Putin is not really interested in lifting the sanctions. Why? Because he would be, obviously, forced to lift the countersanctions too. But these countersanctions are, in fact, in Russian strategic interest. They support the development of Russian agriculture. It needs some time, until the Russian agriculture becomes strong enough to survive a reappearance of Western competitors. Russian firms have invested now into the development of Russian agriculture, and if sanctions, as well as agricultural countersanctions, would be lifted today, this would be problematic for these investments. Similarly, for those things which Russia is not interested to develop itself, where it switched to other states for import (like Argentinian steaks or so) Putin is not interested to harm these new economic connections too. As well, he will not whine if those firms who have been based on European imports disappear completely - this is not the type of industry Russia needs.

So, the point is that the article supports this position.

In other words, Russia couldn't care less about the sanctions. Don't hope to get anything at all for lifting them.

Another point I would like to make is to explain how to use sources. This source is SANA, the news agency of the Syrian state, IOW, Assad's news agency. My actual personal opinion about it is that I have not seen open lies, but have not seen information about military successes of IS, Al Nusra and other insurgent forces. Thus, a clear bias, in no way neutral. But I see no reason to suspect that it will falsify official statements made by Russian officials. I could easily cross-check if the claim is correct, by looking at official sites of the Russian state. But I think this is a loss of time. If I would be a professional journalist, I would have to do this, and certainly would do this, but I'm not. The point that to falsify such a news would be easy to detect, and would only endanger the reputation of SANA, without giving them any real advantage, is sufficient.

In other words, in this particular case I trust SANA, even if in general SANA has only a quite low level of trust, much lower than http://www.almasdarnews.com/ I have cited in the last post, which seems to be in favor of the Syrian army, but regularly reports also about military victories of the other side.

Yes, I know you place a lot of trust - assuming you are not a state employed propaganda agent - in Russian state controlled media sources. But here is one of your problems, your assertions are at odds with statements issued by various Russian state agencies. Russia's central bank has publicly stated that as a result of Western sanctions, it has been spending Russia's foreign currency reserves in order to support the ruble and Russian economy. It a previous post, you were shown the ruble has lost half its value since Western sanctions were imposed on Mother Russia. And thus far, Western sanctions have been light. The West could cut off Russia's access to the international payments system. That would bring Russia to its economic knees in short order. So Russia's now under the "economic light" version of Western sanctions and its economy, according to the Russian central bank, will shrink by about 5% this year.

Russian counter sanctions are for show and are in fact laughable, and only exist for folks like you. They have little if any impact on Western countries. Western sanctions, have a larger negative impact on Western countries that Russia's counter sanctions have on any Western country. Russia's counter sanctions negatively affect Russians more than they do Western powers.

Yes, Putin, is telling Russians they are going to go it alone. They are going to develop and manufacture everything they get from the West. They are going to be self sufficient. How well did that work out for you the last time you guys tried that strategy (i.e. the Soviet Union). I suggest you read, Adam Smith's, "The Wealth of Nations".

Will Putin be deterred or has Putin been deterred by Western sanctions? Well, Putin has backed off his aggression in Ukraine. He was brought to the negotiating table and agreed to a cease fire under threat of further Western sanctions. He hasn't withdrawn his troops and surrendered annexed lands. I expect this will be a long slow burn for Mother Russia. Putin will not relinquish power and he cannot be seen as being weak by Russians. So it will be a long slow burn for Mother Russia. Russia will continue to decline as it did during the Soviet era. Russians are good at suffering. Unfortunately for Mother Russia, many of its former Soviet client states don't share the Russian love of or penchant for poverty and unstable and corrupt governance.

 

[Schmelzer]

Of course it is a pro Assad source which is probably owned by Assad. Here is your problem, you have yet to cite even one credible sources to validate your assertions.

As I have already said, I do not care at all to find a source which you would accept as reliable. This would restrict my research to NATO propaganda sources (which, of course, according to you do not make propaganda at all, but distribute only pure Truth, LOL). As well, I do not care about claims about who owns or controls it. For the simple reason that it is usually impossible to verify who really controls it (which is different from who formally owns it) and which internal policy those who control it follow.

What I care about if I get a new source? I care about what they write, in comparison with others. In particular, I care about their use of words, which usually point to their bias. Then I care about how much information which is averse to their (suspected) bias they give. This is not easy, once one has to distinguish things not written because they are unreliable from things not written because they don't like the news. But following a news source, say, about one week, is sufficient to get an impression. My conclusion from this is that the source is pro-Assad, but nonetheless reliable about the real military situation, and writes in particular quite early also about failures of the Assad side.

Both you and Russia have attempted to explain away and rationalize Russian state control of its media by explaining the media could mislead the Russian population.

The fact is that US control of the media is fatal if the US does not like the government. Then, you get a powerful color revolution, which can result in a civil war.

What follows is not at all that the state has to control all media. But that one should prevent that the media are owned by American puppets.

For this purpose, state ownership of some part of the media is certainly helpful. But it would be extremely stupid if the state would use this ownership to lie. (Which is what communist time media have done, and what German state-owned media and BBC actually do.) This would give the other side a large advantage. In Soviet time, even jamming Western radio station like Radio Liberty or BBC has not helped, whatever lies they have told (they have) was believed because the lies of the Soviet media were so obvious that nobody (not even those who claimed that) believed them, so that BBC was the most reliable source. What the Russians are doing is much more clever, they have, in this domain, learned from the West. Instead, the West has thought that, once the Cold War was won, they can do what they like, do not have to care about competitors, and lies today in a way which is quite easy to detect.

So, the situation today is almost the reverse one: The Russian media, state-controlled or not, allow almost everything, and you have no problem at all to find out, based on Russian media, what is the position of the West, and what are the arguments of Western propaganda. Instead, one can easily find out, simply by comparison with what the Russian side actually claims, that the Russian positions are not presented in the Western media at all, that the Western media simply lie about Russia.

They do as you have done by omitting information. So just because they appear to present the different opinions, it doesn't mean they do it fairly or honestly. And that is one reason why Republicans have been adamantly against the restoration of The Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine was a policy which required broadcasters to present each side of major issues fairly and honestly. What Fox News, Republican talk radio, and Russian state controlled media do is NOT and CANNOT

I don't care at all about Fox News, it does not even exist for me, and what you claim about Russian media is NATO propaganda and in no way based on any acquaintance with real Russian media. But it is really funny that you believe that some state-enforced "Fairness Doctrine" can solve the problem of biased media. It cannot, even in principle. All a "Fairness Doctrine" can reach is to establish censorship: Everything declared "unfair" will be forbidden.

Or do you really think that whoever considers himself unfairly represented in the media - from Russian politicians to pedofiles - would obtain a possibility to get a fair representation? Who would decide about what is fair representation - given that it is even unknown what is the truth, which is what all the discussions are about, and even more vague and unclear what would be a fair representation of false positions of all the other people involved?

 

[joepistole]

As I have already said, I do not care at all to find a source which you would accept as reliable. This would restrict my research to NATO propaganda sources (which, of course, according to you do not make propaganda at all, but distribute only pure Truth, LOL). As well, I do not care about claims about who owns or controls it. For the simple reason that it is usually impossible to verify who really controls it (which is different from who formally owns it) and which internal policy those who control it follow.

Yes, I have noticed, you don't care to back up your assertions with evidence. You have absolutely no evidence the Western press is NATO propaganda.

What I care about if I get a new source? I care about what they write, in comparison with others. In particular, I care about their use of words, which usually point to their bias. Then I care about how much information which is averse to their (suspected) bias they give. This is not easy, once one has to distinguish things not written because they are unreliable from things not written because they don't like the news. But following a news source, say, about one week, is sufficient to get an impression. My conclusion from this is that the source is pro-Assad, but nonetheless reliable about the real military situation, and writes in particular quite early also about failures of the Assad side.

Yeah, why should you care about the veracity of your sources. Obviously you don't care about the truthfulness of your sources.

The fact is that US control of the media is fatal if the US does not like the government. Then, you get a powerful color revolution, which can result in a civil war.

What follows is not at all that the state has to control all media. But that one should prevent that the media are owned by American puppets.

For this purpose, state ownership of some part of the media is certainly helpful. But it would be extremely stupid if the state would use this ownership to lie. (Which is what communist time media have done, and what German state-owned media and BBC actually do.) This would give the other side a large advantage. In Soviet time, even jamming Western radio station like Radio Liberty or BBC has not helped, whatever lies they have told (they have) was believed because the lies of the Soviet media were so obvious that nobody (not even those who claimed that) believed them, so that BBC was the most reliable source. What the Russians are doing is much more clever, they have, in this domain, learned from the West. Instead, the West has thought that, once the Cold War was won, they can do what they like, do not have to care about competitors, and lies today in a way which is quite easy to detect.

So, the situation today is almost the reverse one: The Russian media, state-controlled or not, allow almost everything, and you have no problem at all to find out, based on Russian media, what is the position of the West, and what are the arguments of Western propaganda. Instead, one can easily find out, simply by comparison with what the Russian side actually claims, that the Russian positions are not presented in the Western media at all, that the Western media simply lie about Russia.

I don't care at all about Fox News, it does not even exist for me, and what you claim about Russian media is NATO propaganda and in no way based on any acquaintance with real Russian media. But it is really funny that you believe that some state-enforced "Fairness Doctrine" can solve the problem of biased media. It cannot, even in principle. All a "Fairness Doctrine" can reach is to establish censorship: Everything declared "unfair" will be forbidden.

Or do you really think that whoever considers himself unfairly represented in the media - from Russian politicians to pedofiles - would obtain a possibility to get a fair representation? Who would decide about what is fair representation - given that it is even unknown what is the truth, which is what all the discussions are about, and even more vague and unclear what would be a fair representation of false positions of all the other people involved?

As previously pointed out to you the US doesn't control its media. It's that freedom of the press thingy - remember? Mother Russia does. Mother Russia doesn't trust its citizens to be able to understand the news. So the Russia state needs to own and control the media lest Russians should begin to think things the state doesn't like or maybe think for themselves.

This has nothing to do with pedophiles. This has everything to do with the freedom of the press and for people to have access to unfettered news and information. Russian news sources, like Fox News, are not by any stretch "fair and balanced". They are propaganda agents.

 

[Schmelzer]

Yes, I know you place a lot of trust - assuming you are not a state employed propaganda agent - in Russian state controlled media sources.

No, you don't know, because I don't. And I have even explained this, already several times. My trust level for Russian state-controlled media is a little higher than that of NATO propaganda media, but, in general, not much higher, and it depends on what is claimed and if I know the particular source. If somebody links a state-owned Russian site, which I don't know, it is on the "unknown source" trust level.

But here is one of your problems, your assertions are at odds with statements issued by various Russian state agencies. Russia's central bank has publicly stated that as a result of Western sanctions, it has been spending Russia's foreign currency reserves in order to support the ruble and Russian economy. It a previous post, you were shown the ruble has lost half its value since Western sanctions were imposed on Mother Russia. And thus far, Western sanctions have been light. The West could cut off Russia's access to the international payments system. That would bring Russia to its economic knees in short order.

Too late. China has already started its own international payment system, the Russians also have already an internal payment system, so the only effect of cutting SWIFT would be that payments from and to Russian banks would use the Chinese system. It was a very stupid idea to cry loudly about this possibility without actually doing it.

So Russia's now under the "economic light" version of Western sanctions and its economy, according to the Russian central bank, will shrink by about 5% this year.

Combined with a heavy reduction of debts, which have to be paid, because it became much harder to extend the credits. So, yes, this has caused problems, but as the result Russia is more stable now. You cannot hit it again with the same weapon.

Russian counter sanctions are for show and are in fact laughable, and only exist for folks like you. They have little if any impact on Western countries. Western sanctions, have a larger negative impact on Western countries that Russia's counter sanctions have on any Western country.

Don't tell this the producers of the sanctioned agricultural products. But this is not really a point, the claim who is more affected is far too political that one can expect a neutral answer from anybody. And a serious discussion with you would be impossible anyway, all you can be expected to give is repetition of Western propaganda, of type Russia is close to bankrupt and so on.

Yes, Putin, is telling Russians they are going to go it alone. They are going to develop and manufacture everything they get from the West. They are going to be self sufficient. How well did that work out for you the last time you guys tried that strategy (i.e. the Soviet Union). I suggest you read, Adam Smith's, "The Wealth of Nations".

First, no, Putin does not tell this. Then, thanks, I already know it, I know even Ricardo's theorem. But, given the Western confrontational strategy, were you cannot be sure what happens with a contract with a Western firm during the next year, it simply increases security if one decreases the dependence on imports. So, insecurity caused by irrational Western politics is nothing taken into account in Ricardo's theorem.

Will Putin be deterred or has Putin been deterred by Western sanctions? Well, Putin has backed off his aggression in Ukraine.

No. Simply because there was no aggression, and because Putin has been in favor of negotiations from the start. There was a point where he has decided to send weapons to the Novorossians, but this decision has been made after the sanctions, and continues up to now. [other irrelevant fantasies deleted]

PS: The next posting contains only repetitions and irrelevant fantasies,

...

nothing even worth to quote, even more to answer.

 

[joepistole]

No, you don't know, because I don't. And I have even explained this, already several times. My trust level for Russian state-controlled media is a little higher than that of NATO propaganda media, but, in general, not much higher, and it depends on what is claimed and if I know the particular source. If somebody links a state-owned Russian site, which I don't know, it is on the "unknown source" trust level.

Well, unfortunately for you, you have pages of prior posts which say otherwise. You are not being honest. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, NATO isn't in the news business. It isn't a news agency, nor does it own or control news agencies as does your beloved Mother Russia. What you have done is cite Russia controlled sources and discounted everything else by labeling them as NATO propaganda, a charge that you have been repeatedly asked to prove and have repeatedly failed to even attempt to prove.

Too late. China has already started its own international payment system, the Russians also have already an internal payment system, so the only effect of cutting SWIFT would be that payments from and to Russian banks would use the Chinese system. It was a very stupid idea to cry loudly about this possibility without actually doing it.

Well, actually no. China's system only applies to yuan cross border transactions. But here again, we see you looking to China to save your Russian derrieres. As I previously wrote, if you want to be China's bi..., so be it. Because of Russian's aggression and the resulting increasing international isolation and status as a pariah state, Russia has fewer and fewer options. You are counting on China to buy your oil and natural gas and to fix all that ails you. China has no love of Mother Russia, and China will most certainly take advantage of Russia's problems as demonstrated by the 2008 border agreement, the oil deal which commits Mother Russia to construct oil wells and pipelines for oil which can only be sold to China, and by Russia's decision to sell military equipment to China that Russia had previously refused to sell to China. And I'm sure there is more to come.

Combined with a heavy reduction of debts, which have to be paid, because it became much harder to extend the credits. So, yes, this has caused problems, but as the result Russia is more stable now. You cannot hit it again with the same weapon.

Then you admit your prior post to the contrary was wrong. Western economic sanctions have adversely impacted Mother Russia's economy. Russia's economy is shrinking. If shrinking equates to stable in Russian, then Russia is stabilizing. But to the rest of the world a rapidly shrinking economy isn't considered stable. What you are doing is repeating almost verbatim Putin's explanation of current events.

Don't tell this the producers of the sanctioned agricultural products. But this is not really a point, the claim who is more affected is far too political that one can expect a neutral answer from anybody. And a serious discussion with you would be impossible anyway, all you can be expected to give is repetition of Western propaganda, of type Russia is close to bankrupt and so on.

The truth isn't Russian propaganda. As I said before, how well did the "go it alone" strategy work for Mother Russia the last time she tried it (i.e. the Soviet era). Mother Russia seems doomed to repeat the mistakes of her past.

First, no, Putin does not tell this. Then, thanks, I already know it, I know even Ricardo's theorem.

Do you now, but then you don't know the correct name. I assume you mean the Ricardian Equivalence and if that is the case, then you should also know it has been widely and resoundingly debunked. And Putin does "tell this", and you have "told this" in a very recent post. Putin has told Russians and others his strategy is to go it lone and build or grow in Mother Russia what he can no longer access from foreign countries.

But, given the Western confrontational strategy, were you cannot be sure what happens with a contract with a Western firm during the next year, it simply increases security if one decreases the dependence on imports. So, insecurity caused by irrational Western politics is nothing taken into account in Ricardo's theorem.

Western powers have confronted Russia's aggression, not with aggression but with isolation. You need to get your facts straight. Western politics are not irrational. On the contrary, they are very rational. They have confronted Russia's aggression with economic sanctions. It is disturbing that Putin has done the same things Hitler did and even offering the same excuses. That's pretty obvious. There are many reasons for Russia's economic distress but Putin's illegal actions are chief among them.

No. Simply because there was no aggression, and because Putin has been in favor of negotiations from the start. There was a point where he has decided to send weapons to the Novorossians, but this decision has been made after the sanctions, and continues up to now. [other irrelevant fantasies deleted]

Except he hasn't. Putin wasn't in favor of negotiations before or when he invaded and annexed Crimea. He wasn't in favor of UN peace keepers or observers. Novorosia is an archaic term for portions of Ukraine. Putin created the name Novorossia in its current context. Putin renamed Eastern Ukraine Novorossia...oops. The correct name, the name Russia previously used for the area is Eastern Ukraine. And as previously pointed out to you, the leaders of the Eastern Ukrainian "rebels" were Russian FSB officers. Putin supplied weapons, and personnel, including Russian State Security officers.

Putin can fool Russians like you, but he can't fool the world.

PS: The next posting contains only repetitions and irrelevant fantasies,

nothing even worth to quote, even more to answer.

LOL...then why did you invent them.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The fact is the Russian government doesn't believe Russians are capable of handling a free press, that unlike their Western counterparts, Russians are not capable of processing news from unsanctioned, uncontrolled sources. That is their and your justification for not allowing Russian's access to a free press. You claim without state control Russians would be vulnerable to manipulation by oligarchs or foreigners.

Given the history I mentioned earlier and the fact that there are many still alive today in Russia who endured theses times, and given that a traumatized and totally "disrupted" population is indeed vulnerable to manipulation ( as Putin well knows ) the careful micro management of media would be appropriate don't you think?
I do not mean to be critical but there is a need to put the general population education levels, literacy, emotional stability etc in to perspective.
For a country that has been through radical political change so often in the past 100 years it would be extremely easy to perpetuate that cycle if too much freedom is granted too soon ( see results in Libya or events that transpired in the former republic of Yugoslavia when Tito was no longer a player, for a example)

Transferring "power" from autocratic governments to the common people is no easy transition especially if people have been under oppressive subjugation for a millennia or two.

The problems that China faced with such a massive essentially rural population moving towards modernization, industrialization and global commerce were utterly staggering when you think on it. Problems that China appears to be managing surprisingly well IMO...

 

[joepistole]

Given the history I mentioned earlier and the fact that there are many still alive today in Russia who endured theses times, and given that a traumatized and totally "disrupted" population is indeed vulnerable to manipulation ( as Putin well knows ) the careful micro management of media would be appropriate don't you think?
I do not mean to be critical but there is a need to put the general population education levels, literacy, emotional stability etc in to perspective.
For a country that has been through radical political change so often in the past 100 years it would be extremely easy to perpetuate that cycle if too much freedom is granted too soon ( see results in Libya for a example)

That's the argument the Russian state has and continues to make. But, I don't agree with it, because it locks the country into a never ending cycle of autocracy, corruption, and abuse. Transition from autocracy to democracy requires good leadership and unfortunately Russia has rarely if every had it. Russia has never had a Washington, a Jefferson, a Lincoln, or an FDR.

In order to justify Russia's control of information they need good leaders and a game plan and they have neither. Poland, East Germany, Latvia and Estonia have transitioned nicely from autocracy to democracy and a free press and it didn't take them that long to make the transition. It doesn't take 25 years to transition from autocracy to democracy and a free press. Russian's aren't intellectually that slow or that emotionally unstable.