Huge Submarine disaster at Murmansk

I'll go with a black colour...it symbolizes African continent and will most likely help you to develop pathos. What ever your personal choice is, make sure you don't get your underwear in knot!

No dead mammals, no reliable sources, no radiation leak story.

 

The sources were there . I could have posted ten times the amount . Example , Norwegian TV gave the incident a lot of coverage .
I have a friend who lives in the Channel Isles who has a girl friend in Murmansk . I have set her on , to play the Detective .
But the most important thing is to drive all those very serious Russian men crazy . They are like fish !!!!!!

 

I would not be surprised if you said that Jesus whispered in your ear .

 

Nothing more dangerous than a man who is political based on religious conviction .
Very sincere and very deaf and narrow in outlook .
Putin is a good example , as was Biair and George Bush -- our phrase is ,
" Can't see the wood for the trees "

 

Yes of course you're right as usual

But. If you said that you saw the penguins soaring in the sky. I would not be surprised again

 

The only thing I manage to gather from your post is that you like Mario Puzo! Everything else needs to be proved.

 

If Mario Puzo has anything to do with it... then perhaps.....

the Camorra or Naples mafia made a deal with those evil Russians to dispose of the surplus polonium from the Litvinenko affair in Murmansk because the Somalian pirates were charging too much for dumping rights in their waters?

I'm sure it's only a question of time before we read the expose by Luke Harding in the Guardian.

 

Strange you should say that , but let me tell you of something odd that just happened ......................

 

At some stage I always ask the questions ,
Who are they ?
Are they worth it?
Have I got better things to do ?
As I say , Don't flog the dead horse unless it softens the meat ( ray , 2012 )

 

Ray.This tune is well suited for your sensational story

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLFA7Pp5BrQ&feature=related"]LOONEY TUNES OPENING 2 - YouTube[/ame]

 

So help me understand something here:

If "10 years of Putin transformed Russia into a poor Banana Republic" then the preceding 10 years under Yeltsin / Berezovsky must have been a roaring success and a time of great prosperity and progress for Russia and ordinary Russians?

The Russian State obviously benefitted enormously from Jeffrey Sachs and Harvard Boys "advice", the Chubais privatisations "added wealth to the economy" and "rewarded citizens" by transferring the State's assets to the oligarchy?

I do say old chap... could it be me living in the parallel reality universe or ......

 

Not ten, but fife years were enough to transform Russia to a prosperous strong democratic State.Unfortunately Putin has chosen an other way, today's Russia has not industry, science and good education anymore, without that necessities no one country can be wealthy.

 

LOL!
Buona sera, NGO; come stai?

 

The one who speaks whatever he wants, has to listen to what he doesn't. ( Lena, 2012.)

 

Which five years under which ruling class are you referring to? I know the country reasonably well. Those conditions (prosperous, strong democratic Russian State) don't exist and have never existed as far as I'm aware.

If you meant that it's possible to turn a country into a strong, prosperous democratic state in 5 years.... well, I think you'd be a tad optimistic.

You need to differentiate between the Soviet Union and Russia. The Soviet Union did indeed have good science, industry and good education and certainly those things are necessities.

However, the SU broke up, the country was looted and gutted by a parasitic oligarchic class in Russia working in conjunction with so-called "Economic Advisors" from Western Countries who were in fact nothing else but thieves and asset strippers.

This destruction occurred in the 1990's under Yeltsin, a man lauded by the Western media and political establishment for being a wonder "democrat" while he was no such thing. The 1996 "election" which was rubberstamped by the OSCE was a giant shambles, a massive con. The Communists actually won the vote but the results were rigged to declare Yeltsin the winner.

I mean, think about it, why would a suddenly broken and impoverished population vote for the very man and people under which the country was being gutted and turned into a living nightmare with out-of-control corruption, ultra violent mafia on the streets, salaries and wages not being paid for months on end, state industries and assets being transferred into private ownership etc etc etc??

It makes no sense and the election result was a con. That is why the Al Gore's of this world praised Yeltsin so much as "the best hope for democracy in Russia". These political classes, these plutocrats, they are almost all the same. Corrupt white toothed grinning gangsters.

It makes absolutely no sense that Putin could somehow have been responsible for the dissolution of the USSR or the near collapse of Russia in the aftermath of the USSR's dissolution.

He arrived on the scene around 1999, long after the damage had already been done, the wealth transferred to Western Countries, many industries gutted or collapsed or sold of, State Assets were privatised, a newly created Oligarchic Class of Criminals controlled the economy, Western "investments" (made via corrupt State sales and auctions) effectively stole more assets etc etc etc.

You need to keep in mind that a decade of destruction (circa 1991 - 2000) doesn't take 10 years to repair. It probably takes closer to 20 or more years. And that is when things are going well! In Russia's case conditions aren't optimal, it faces many problems both externally and internally which slows down the rebuilding process.

There is a massive difference between 1990's era Russia and > 2000's era Russia. The country is a lot more stable, people are getting paid, at least some efforts are being made to rebuild certain industries, extract taxes from others and so forth. Yes, there is a lot of corruption still, a lot of malpractices still and so forth but Putin isn't a one-man-band despite what that rag the Economist may claim.

He is not all-seeing, all-doing and almighty. He makes mistakes. He doesn't have complete control over all the players. The current President (Medvedev) seems to be a rather nasty piece of work and working very much contrary to the Russian National Interest despite his pious "anti-Corruption" and "liberalisation" drives. Why Putin keeps this character around is a mystery to me.

Putin certainly isn't perfect and has his faults but Russia isn't Switzerland or Luxembourg. One cannot just go around demanding to "change the leadership" because "under democracy the solutions will automatically provide themselves". There doesn't seem to be any realistic or viable alternative to him at the moment. It's a complex and diverse country which is controlled via a network of clans, oligarchs and State Apparatus (intelligence, military etc) types.

To keep a lid on and control over all these players isn't as simple as it seems. I'm very sceptical that many of the current crop of politicians out there marketing themselves as the New Messiah's are going to be able to do this. They simply don't have the network of necessary contacts, levels of influence, respect, command enough fear and so forth.

Under these kinds of "leaders" it's more likely that things may start unravelling (something which the Westerners are of course very keen on since they've had their beady eyes on Russian Land and Resources for Centuries).

In my opinion it's a case of the devil you know vs the devil you don't and whilst imo things have certainly not progressed in a direction I would have liked to see under Medvedev, Putin's return may herald in some changes. At the very least things should remain relatively stable.

A completely new leadership structure there is an unpredictable entity in a very unpredictable and anarchic country. I'm not convinced that such an adventure would be worth the risk at this time.