Russophobia explained.

I read your post, but I didn't see the line: "Putin is planning on killing all of us Brits."

 

Alright then, if you wanna get into semantics - quite a few of us Brits??

 

A jew and this killed nurse has been brutally pasted in original photo with german soldiers, it so obvious, especially when you can see the booth fakes(original picture is somewhere in net too). And the question here is about that some people can not recognize obvious fakes,especially when they like theese fakes. This lack of critical thinking is the main advantage for russian propaganda, who can told anything and people will believe.

 

That's what the Dumbing Down Project over the last 3 decades was all about - 'Turn adults into children and they'll believe everything you say.' So as far as the entire western world is concerned, it's MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

 

My point is you didn't mention killing ANY brits in your opening post.

 

Of course not. There are no regular Russian troops in the territory of Ukraine. Noone is attacking Ukraine from the side of Russia or its allies. The territory of Georgia was also not captured and occupied.
It is Ukraine which is trying to destroy the people who didn't accept Maidan coup and its nationalist ideology. This is why the conflict is only there and not on the border of Ukraine with Crimea or northeastern part of Ukraine, or northern part of Ukraine. If Russia wanted to invade Ukraine there would be no point to try breaking the only part of it in Donbass. It has no military sense. Russia could send its forces from the territory of Belarus or at least Poltava. A couple of strong blows would encircle the army in Donbass at times close to conflict in Georgia. But it doesn't happen. Why? Because there is no Russian invasion. The only side which is attacking is the kievan side.
Crimea is a different issue. The thing is that if you regard Ukraine as a state with interests - it makes a mess of understanding the situation. The fact is that there is no state in this territory since the times of Maidan. There are people who act as if they were a president, a parliament etc. But that is not true. The only power in Ukraine is the power of world powers who rule the territory to their advantage. The US interest was to draw Putin's attention from Syria and Maidan failed to do that. The plan was to put them under the tracks of Russian armors and justify the strengthening of NATO in the east with 'Russian aggression'. It would make the Europeans pay to the US huge money for their protection, weaken Russia and let the 'Assad-must go' game to the succesfull aim with ISIS all over the ME. Crimea was a key point. If Crimea was in the hands of NATO they would control the Black sea and any time they would be able to create a threat to Russian mainland with their Tomahawks. This would put Russia into position of NK and force it to react every time to any appearance of NATO ships in the Black Sea. It could also change the rules in the region. At the moment NATO ships cannot stay in the Black sea longer than a certain period of time. Crimea controls the black sea with anti-ship ground-based missiles and in case of a real war the ship would be sunk before it fires a considerable amount of rockets. Crimea is the safety of Russia. Not the land or resources. It was a defensive move.
Georgia had a conflict with South Ossetia for decades since the collapse of the USSR. Russian peacekkeepers were at the border and there was peace those days. It was American puppet Saakashvili who started the aggressive revaunchist retake of land attacking Russian peacekeepers as well. Russian operation was not against Georgia but against the aggressor. When the aggressor lost the ability to attack the operation ended and the chance for Georgia to reunite with Ossetians was lost. Russia now respects the sovereignty of South Ossetia and people are safe there. Russia hasn't received any territory, taxes or resources. It was also a defensive move. If Georgians won and performed some genocide lots of refuges would come to North Ossetia (territory of Russia) to their relatives and all the people of Caucases would find themselves under propaganda that Russia is too weak to protect them of anyone's aggression. That would worsen the vulnerability to terrorist attacks as well. We paid there and are still paying for the lives of our citizens. As for Georgia they are free to obey whomever they want or to make the state on their own. It is purely their choice.

In this case the rude and unpolite and even biased list is close to the truth. The difference between the US and Russia's list of wars is the aim. The US kills for political hegemony and resources for economy. Russia fights for its safety and lives of the people (excluding the wars under the USSR when soviet regime was supporting any person who could spell 'Lenin' and 'Marx')

Well. Why not? The history of Russian wars has aggressive wars for resources, territory and political reasons of supremacy. But the list is shorter and it happened in times when the western countries were colonizing the whole world destroying numbers of natives. It was a diferent epoque. And we are talking about the CURRENT form of a state. Russian Empire performed lots of wars which can be seen as aggressive because of state religion. The USSR had lots of wars because of ideology. Russian Federation doesn't have state religion or ideology and haven't any aggressive doctrines or wars. But if we take the USA then we will see that the current form of the state uses idea of 'help' to install democracy in tyranic regimes has been used for decades to justify aggressive wars. That is a difference.

Russia started to construct another military base for Black Sea Fleet in Novorossiysk. It used to be quite a discussion what to use this base for after Crimea rejoined Russia. The case was not about any revanche or getting the base somewhere we didn't have it. It was an answer to the plans of the USA for the regime. If not Maidan Crimea would be a part of Ukraine.

Yes it is and it has always been so. The west doesn't even understand another logics except for war for resources. This is the main reason of Crimean war against Russia in 19th century. China is different. They have their own vast territory rich of resources and even their northern provinces are not that populated. The threat from China is around zero at the moment. But the west is a great and vital threat to Russians.

When I see a single example of any western political regime treating the countries in an alliance the same way as the USSR and leaving the country in case of population opinion on conditions which were made by USSR I would agree to stop considering the western regimes as the bloodiest and the most aggressive side in the history of humanity. But for now the US is demanding the occupied countries to pay for the right to be occupied and have military bases, which are one of the primary targets for nukes in case of a war and the US doesn't even think of removing its military bases from Japanese islands no matter what the population thinks of it. You are free to have any opinion you like or told. But you have nothing to back your critics about USSR and Russia.

 

But it still refers to the Russian connection? I mean threads do drift a bit sometimes, and it isn't as if I've gone off topic?

 

So just confirm. Are you saying that the UK is demonising Russia? Is so, how?

 

By lying about Russia's intentions, but without any evidence whatsoever to back it up? Sounds like 'demonising' to me.

 

Yeah, I've always wondered why governments speak about countries as if they're a threat, even if they're a close partner - for example, here in Australia, our government talks about the threat from China as they grow into a super power, even though they are out biggest trade partner. The irony is just ridiculous.

 

1. The power used against the students was considered a crime by Yanukovich regime. There was an investigation about it. It was not finished, but if Poroshenko called the behavior of nationalist batallions raping and stealing from Donbass population a crime - I would have a different opinion about Ukraine as a state.
I mean that Yanukovich was a weak president. But Maidan brought much worse elite to power than it used to be.
2. People don't have a right for civil disorders. No matter what. If a person starts to fight a policemen he can be shot if it is convenient to police. This is a rule in any country. Including Russia or the USA or even Spain. It is good when the regimes don't use weapons to stop the disorders like it was in Russia or Spain. But even if it is like it used to be in the US - it is still fine with the law.
3. Yanukovich was corrupt. Every Ukrainian elite after the collapse of the USSR (and before it occasionally) was corrupt. If someone wanted to perform a legal genocide of Ukrainians he could set a death penalty for corruption and execute every government official some days or hours after appointment. I don't regard being corrupt in conditions of Ukraine as a sane argument to destroy the possibility of a state.

Well. The demand should come through referendum. That's how democracy works. If I gather a thousand of terrorists, come to Kremlin and shooting policemen at sight will demand that Russia joins ISIS it won't be a victory of democracy. This mechanism is described (or should be described in constitution of Ukraine). BTW there is no EuroIntegration of Ukraine and it was a greatest lie. The Euro-Association is a document which regulates the trade. And only the trade. And it is extremely bad for Ukraine which got nothing in exchange for its own market and resources. Yanukovich started this lie, but when he counted the expenses he stopped it to continue the negotiations and to bargain. If he didn't lie it could have turned differently. But I am not a fan of Yanukovich.

He is not in the territory of Russia. And he could be not involved into the situation. There has never been a resultative investigation and non-biased court trial about the issue. The photos of this guy with the criminals performing civil disorders can be misleading. He could have negotiated with the guys to stop the disorder as he himself speaks. I don't trust him and questioning him seems to be a nice idea. But there are plenty of people involved into this crime who are living in the territory of Ukraine. I don't see any reason to support only the version that it was set up only by maidan supporters or by Kremlin. Both sides could be involved. But judging on the results and on the facts known I feel that I can blame the kievan politicians about at least part of this terrible crime which would stay in history books forever.

I would start with Parubiy and Turchinov. These guys came to power literally on the blood and corpses around Maidan. Mr. Kiva is also a nationalist who was put at the head of a socialist party. There is a number of deputies in Rada as well. They mostly come to sessions in national shirts and are busy with stopping every speaker who speaks Russian and not Ukrainian.

The story around the rebels in Donbass is for sure connected with Kremlin just the same way as the Maidan supporters from western states. If there was no action of Maidan and all of a sudden there would happen referendum in Crimea and rebellion in Donbass I would agree with 'Russian aggression'. Then it would be a coup sponsored and initiated by Russia. But Kremlin didn't make the first move. Putin waited for Ukrainian state and people to react and when he got the danger for Russia and Russians of Ukraine he made his move. If he didn't - his rating would be around Poroshenko's or Yatsenyuk's. It's hard to say now if this action multiplied the blood in the territory of Ukraine or not, but Putin was not the guy who started it. He might have had plans (although in the documentary he denies it), but having plans and starting them is a big difference.
As for propaganda in Russia - I don't need it, but it is needed for those who otherwise would give in to western propaganda which legally exists in Russia. This is how the modern media works in new war conditions. It is not good. But I'd rather calm down some of my countrymates who hate Ukrainians as a nation than fight with the same people in the streets for the freedom of our own country.

The numbers who participate in the war is not that much. The number of nationalists and even fascists in Ukraine is also quite small. I believe that they haven't had more than a thousand people in Maidan and they probably had about 30 000 people in Donbass campaign. Having 11 000 people under the circumstances is not funny at all. The great medieval battles sometimes had less people in the field than only Boroday mentioned. The war is different. It is not like the WWII.
And it doesn't really matter what is the citizenship of Saakashvili or Girkin. It all happens in the territory of Ukraine, which nation no longer has any interests in the world politics and is played by the great powers to their interests... It's bad. Very bad. Extremely bad... for you. If we were a part of commonwealth or had status of allied republics I would demand completely different actions from my state. But as for now I see no reason to demand any other policy. The direct against the Ukraine will be better for Ukrainians and westerners, but it will be worse for Russia. So, I don't see the reason to push the government towards an operation like in Syria. On the other hand we can't agree with Ukrainian propaganda and take all the responsibility for someone elses crimes and pay for that. It also doesn't make sense. The only thing which is reasonable to demand is freezing the conflict till the times when the very life in Ukraine under the nationalists becomes unbearable. Then we need to pick the moment and to perform about the same what was done in Crimea or if the Ukrainians establish an independent government and set the aims which don't contradict Russia's vital interests - set friendly relationship with it. So far it is good that EU and US is paying and taking responsibility of all tha mess that happens in Ukraine. They lose the money and nationalists lose life and perspectives, while Russians see Ukraine as an example of what could have happened to Russia.

 

It's to keep their military establishments happy with unending grants, using 'threat' to justify it to the taxpayers. In other words, keep a population frightened and it won't care how much the government gives the military, even if it means increasing general taxation to do it?

 

The soldiers are not looking in the camera. They surround somrthing of interest. A jewish priest looks as if he belongs to the picture, but the barrel and a woman not that much. I don't insist that any of these pictures is a fake, but obviously one of them is fake. Wermacht soldiers made a lot of crimes in WWII and this could be an example of it. Using a critical thinking I can't come to other conclusions. There is something in the center for sure. But what it is... Those days the quality of photos were much lower than today.

 

What if government increased defense spending without the threats? Are you generally against big defense spending?

 

Being a taxpayer myself I'm obviously against any increases of general taxation if they're unnecessary, and that includes military government departments 'frightening the horses' in order to get more than what they actually need.

 

You can tell this to people, who had never seen,what is happening on Russia media. But i have aces to russian television even from soviet times and time by time i watch, what's happening on it. So i feel competent enough to have an opinnion about this all. When on state owned television chanels(its compitly all big federal chanels in russian state) day after day hate speech goes on, when this kind of **** about crusified russian childrens in Ukraina comes from television on regular bases, this is not a rumors but propaganda campaign, wich has goal to brainwash its auditory and generate hate to other states and nations. And this campaign is sucessable. Afrer WW2 some german propagandists was hanged because of this, i hope there will be a time, when her russian collegs will came to same end, because that kind of brainwashing campaing is criminal activity.

Great, they occupied parts of Ukraine, they brainwash their citizens and russians in Ukraine, they send in Ukraine irregular combat units and in some stages of conflict even regular army, but attacking side after all this is... Ukraine. Men, you had lost contact with reality.

 

I don't know nothing about this project. Problems in Russia with critical thinking comes from the totalitarian soviet times, or even times before. Individual initiative and thinking was never in hight value in Russia.

 

So you're saying that the UK and the West are under significant threat from Russia?

 

They will not bomb London tomorrow or next year, if you meant that. Russia realizes, that it is much weaker militarily and economically than West as a monolithic structure. So i think that her long term goal is desintegration of EU and NATO and instability in western countries. Its because when Russia deals with bloks like EU, they are weaker player, when Russia deals with separate Eurupiean countrie, they are strongr player compare with seperate Europiean country. Also Putin undetstands, that he can not offer population of Russia hight Europiean living standarts, so it would be nice to downgrade Euroupa to Russia level. Othervise his regime is in permanent danger from people, who asks "why we cant live like Europe?"
To acheve this goal, Russia wages something like partisan war using corrupt officials in Europe, using far left and far right eurosceptic movments, use fake news and propahanda inside Europe to discredit for exampe goverment or EU, they allso use cyber attacks. All that is bad for stability and welth in Europe is good for Russia goals. Ideal world for Putin would be 19. century, where great powers divided world in sphers of influence and Russia will be among these great powers of course. For example Ukraina for Russia will be good only as vassal state, otherwise ukrainians are bloody nazi who wants to drink blood of russian childrens.

And yes, did you know that in all historical catastrophes of Russia guilt lies on Britany?

 

It is good that you feel competent but the state has only a couple of newspapers and VGTRK "Rossiya" in property. It also has shares of other TV channels and finances broadcasting abroad. The rest channels are privately owned. And I don't find any hatred towards Ukrainians in our media. The attitude which is made if you look at these channels is more of disgust than hatred. In general the news about Ukraine are bad. But even in Ukraine all the good news are concentrating on your 'counterstrikes' against Russia, problems of Russia, because of Ukraine and possible integration to EU... You don't have any good news for Russia except for some victories of your sportsmen maybe.

When a Russian here is flamebaiting with you it is all about political conflict, but I really doubt that any of these guys would harm a Ukrainian only because of his nationality.

I wouldn't like Ukrainian propagandists to be hanged, although propaganda of hatred is really a bad crime. Sacking would be enough IMHO. As for propaganda... you have 3-5 examples which is repeated several times as if it was a rule.
The story about crucified boy was told in the news by a refugee from Donbass. The woman was scared and she told the rumour as if she saw it with her own eyes. The repression from the side of Ukrainians who want to become a part of EU towards Ukrainians who want to become a part of Russia is a fact. And basically all the million of refugees that we have in Russia have a reason to flee or to fight. I don't blame the woman and probably it is really a fault of journalists. If I was them I wouldn't refer to her words and put it in prime time over a popular TV news. But this case is not propaganda. It is just the case of misunderstood information. I am sure that Ukrainian army doesn't have a routine for killing civilians in the zone of conflict. But I am sure that they make crimes and go unpunished with them. When it is all over the rapists, thieves and murderers could be executed. As for journalists... I wouldn't hang them and doubt that it would happen.

Well. Let's look at the facts. The attacking side is the side which attacks. OK? Tell me about the battles where Ukrainian side had to defend against an attack from the side of whomever it was. I don't know of any. I remember the attack on Slavyansk. I remember the battle for Donetsk and Lugansk, but I don't see any attacking moves from the side you make war with (again whomever it is Russia or local militia). These people needed just the rules which would permit them not to fall under the nationalist ideology with Bandera-worshipping and dreaming about becoming a part of EU. They could have stayed Ukrainian..., if any in this territory was interested to have Ukraine not in EU or Russia but on its own. Since there is no such aim - it won't happen. Thus I don't see any use of treaties or agreements. This is why Kremlin and Washington are discussing terms of peace in your territory. It's sad... When it was early 90s I was sure that Ukraine as a mini-Russia without debts and diffictulties and necessity to have the burden of quite a big military would prosper by this time using soviet production resources. I was afraid that Russia will either never make it or get late with it. But it turned differently... Russia is a sovereign power and Ukraine is expecting the decision about its life or death from other states. Which propaganda can change this sad fact?

 

Russia doesn't need a weak EU. The EU currently (China is only starting) our biggest trade partner. The instable partner doesn't pay well for our resources and doesn't invest and co-operate. We need a stable EU. Of course not strong, but stable. The instability is needed not among partners but among competitors. EU is not making raw materials. They make goods as China and the US. So if you look for the side which will benefit from European instability you should look at these two. The problems of EU are out of reach for Russia and out of its interests.

We don't have that much people. Russians don't live like people from Germany, because Russia is not Germany. Historically, economically, geographically we are different and thus we live differently. Some young guys really ask this question. When they grow up and learn a thing or two they will understand more and stop asking this stupid question. It's their choice whether they want to live in EU, Australia or to stay home and make Russia a little bit better.
Demonising Russia works pretty well but it won't last long. Everything passes...

 

Which speaks to the ill-treatment much of Europe received at the hands of Stalin and his successors in the USSR. If the Soviets were as wonderful as some people claim those countries would have never flocked to NATO after they freed themselves from the Kremlin's clutches.

 

Of course it is. Not only are there regular Russian troops in Crimea, Moscow annexed that territory. Good grief, man - how can you deny that fact?

As for Eastern Ukraine, Putin has confessed to the presence of Russian military forces in that area. Refusing to acknowledge them as "regular" troops has just been a way for Putin to dance around the unpopular prospect of Russian soldiers fighting in that region.

Bull...

LOL - So now you admit it.

Very good, I give you credit for finally acknowledging the truth, and I'll be fair by responding that those are the main reasons why most countries and empires go/went to war.

I don't know about that - the lists are pretty impressive:

List of wars involving Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia

Wars involving the Soviet Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia

Of course, those lists are just as flawed as the list of wars involving the U.S. that was cited earlier, but as I mentioned previously I'm not the least bit interested in getting into some pointless pissing match that doesn't prove anything.

Putin started to lay the groundwork for invading in Ukraine in 2008. The Maidan protests were just a convenient yet still unjustifiable excuse for invading Ukraine, annexing the Crimean Peninsula and securing the Black Sea Fleet's base in Sevastopol. Had the protests never happened Putin would have drummed up some other excuse.

As for the Kremlin's Plan B in Georgia, I was referring to this:

LOL - The lack of understanding is all yours.

I can't do anything about the paranoia that is rampant in Russia so there's no point in disabusing you of the phantom threat of invasion that exists only in the imaginations of the credulous saps who mindlessly and obediently lap up the Kremlin's war propaganda.

As for China, it does not pose a threat to Russia in the near term, but it will after you and I are long gone.

I have facts to back my criticism of Russia. Your criticisms of the U.S. are backed by opinions, propaganda and in some cases pure falsehoods, such as the nonexistent "occupation" of the nations that lease us bases at our own expense overseas. Then there's the bogus clam that we would not think of leaving a foreign base if the host nation demanded our withdrawal. The U.S. withdrawal from Clark AB and NS Subic Bay in the Philippines is probably the most famous proof to the contrary and there are lesser known examples, and that doesn't even get into the overseas base closures that we have initiated on our own to reduce costs.

 

So true....it's rather mind boggling of how many "useful idiots", or kremlin cheerleaders there are here.

 

They're the Internet version of crab lice...



There goes the neighborhood!