Re: Russia
Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 11:43 pm
An excellent article. I highly recommend it.
Another day in the Universe
https://www.onthenatureofthings.net/forum/
https://www.onthenatureofthings.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=400
An excellent article. I highly recommend it.
Thank You VERY Much for your post, YMix.YMix wrote:An excellent article. I highly recommend it.
Much to my own surprise, Russia surged sea lift by reflagging Turkish commercial ships to support its increasing troop presence and base expansions.
A British inquiry has concluded that the Russian government was behind the 2006 poisoning death of former Russian security agent Aleksandr Litvinenko and that President Vladimir Putin "probably approved" the killing.
The findings, issued on January 21, said that there is a "strong probability" that it was carried out by Russian citizens Dmitry Kovtun and Andrei Lugovoi acting under orders from Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB).
British investigators concluded that Litvinenko, 44, had ingested radioactive polonium-210 while drinking tea in a luxury London hotel with Kovtun and Lugovoi. He died in a London hospital three weeks later, on November 23, 2006.
The article suggests Litvinenko was a double agent.Typhoon wrote:British Inquiry Implicates Russia, Putin In Death Of Ex-Agent Litvinenko
A British inquiry has concluded that the Russian government was behind the 2006 poisoning death of former Russian security agent Aleksandr Litvinenko and that President Vladimir Putin "probably approved" the killing.
The findings, issued on January 21, said that there is a "strong probability" that it was carried out by Russian citizens Dmitry Kovtun and Andrei Lugovoi acting under orders from Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB).
British investigators concluded that Litvinenko, 44, had ingested radioactive polonium-210 while drinking tea in a luxury London hotel with Kovtun and Lugovoi. He died in a London hospital three weeks later, on November 23, 2006.
Good observation.YMix wrote:The article suggests that Cameron is trying to paint Putin as a murderer in order to sink Corbyn. This is about domestic politics, not an actual investigation.
I don't agree. If this was a one-off incident, then perhaps.Nonc Hilaire wrote:Good observation.YMix wrote:The article suggests that Cameron is trying to paint Putin as a murderer in order to sink Corbyn. This is about domestic politics, not an actual investigation.
I wasn't referring to Putin's regime. I don't think Cameron gives a fu*k about the fact that some random Russian agent was killed by his former pals. His interest is limited to how he can use this investigation. To wit:Typhoon wrote:I don't agree. If this was a one-off incident, then perhaps.
Actually, said my wife - who should know - the Soviet Union in its latter years did have anti-American caricatures, but they were not personalized. It was the stereotypical "Uncle Sam" who was the target, not any actual person like a US president. So this is more acid than the mellower years of the USSR.Typhoon wrote:Just like in the former SU.
Interesting. That personalization parallels what has happened here, IIRC. Pre-Clinton, no sitting POTUS ever criticized his successors. Pre-Obama, no sitting POTUS ever denigrated a specific newscaster/commentator/news channel, or a candidate running for POTUS in an election in which he was not participating.Alexis wrote:
Actually, said my wife - who should know - the Soviet Union in its latter years did have anti-American caricatures, but they were not personalized. It was the stereotypical "Uncle Sam" who was the target, not any actual person like a US president. So this is more acid than the mellower years of the USSR.
Well, to be fair, at that time, there weren't any US troops in Ukraine, nor any US-supported coup in Kiev.
its the death of ideology, the death of ism's.Simple Minded wrote:Several years ago I noticed that Republican and Democrat was no longer shown on campaign signs, only the candidate.
Change in social mood, and thus marketing, or the magnitude of the ego's involved?
I can see that. When the "defined ideologies" are no longer used as guidance, or nor difference between the two discerned (especially by us tri's ), the value of the label is little, and perhaps even a negative. Better to market as "Vote for Fred, he's not as evil as Joe!"YMix wrote:It's an effect of the duopoly system. Instead of designating political ideologies, Republican/Democrat mean Friend/Enemy because the system lacks alternatives.
http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Simple Minded wrote:I can see that. When the "defined ideologies" are no longer used as guidance, or nor difference between the two discerned (especially by us tri's ), the value of the label is little, and perhaps even a negative. Better to market as "Vote for Fred, he's not as evil as Joe!"YMix wrote:It's an effect of the duopoly system. Instead of designating political ideologies, Republican/Democrat mean Friend/Enemy because the system lacks alternatives.
According to some, more self-define as I than D or R now.
I think the idea of personalities/celebrity as brands is also a factor. We are all brands who publish now.
William Perry, who was defence secretary in Bill Clinton’s administration from 1994 to 1997, emphasised that in the past five years it has been Vladimir Putin’s military interventions in Ukraine, Syria and elsewhere that have driven the downward spiral in east-west relations.
But Perry added that during his term in office, cooperation between the two countries’ militaries had improved rapidly just a few years after the fall of the Soviet Union and that these gains were initially squandered more as a result of US than Russian actions.
“In the last few years, most of the blame can be pointed at the actions that Putin has taken. But in the early years I have to say that the United States deserves much of the blame,” Perry said, speaking at a Guardian Live event in London.
“Our first action that really set us off in a bad direction was when Nato started to expand, bringing in eastern European nations, some of them bordering Russia. At that time we were working closely with Russia and they were beginning to get used to the idea that Nato could be a friend rather than an enemy... but they were very uncomfortable about having Nato right up on their border and they made a strong appeal for us not to go ahead with that.”
In his memoir, My Journey at the Nuclear Brink, Perry writes that he argued for a slower expansion of Nato so as not to alienate Russia during the initial period of post-Soviet courtship and cooperation. Richard Holbrooke, the US diplomat, led the opposing argument at the time, and was ultimately supported by the vice-president, Al Gore, who argued “we could manage the problems this would create with Russia”.
Perry said the decision reflected a contemptuous attitude among US officials towards the troubled former superpower.
“It wasn’t that we listened to their argument and said he don’t agree with that argument,” he said. “Basically the people I was arguing with when I tried to put the Russian point... the response that I got was really: ‘Who cares what they think? They’re a third-rate power.’ And of course that point of view got across to the Russians as well. That was when we started sliding down that path.”
Perry considered resigning over the issue “but I concluded that my resignation would be misinterpreted as opposition to Nato membership that I greatly favoured – just not right away”.
He sees the second major misstep by Washington DC as the Bush administration’s decision to deploy a ballistic missile defence system in eastern Europe in the face of determined opposition from Moscow. Perry said: “We rationalised [the system] as being to defend against an Iranian nuclear missile – they don’t have any but that’s another issue. But the Russians said ‘Wait a bit, this weakens our deterrence.’ The issue again wasn’t discussed on the basis of its merits – it was just ‘who cares about what Russia thinks.’ We dismissed it again.”
Indeed.noddy wrote:its the death of ideology, the death of ism's.Simple Minded wrote:Several years ago I noticed that Republican and Democrat was no longer shown on campaign signs, only the candidate.
Change in social mood, and thus marketing, or the magnitude of the ego's involved?
we are back to the good ole days, strong king or weak king.
the proof of this theory will be the post putin outcome.Typhoon wrote:Indeed.noddy wrote:its the death of ideology, the death of ism's.Simple Minded wrote:Several years ago I noticed that Republican and Democrat was no longer shown on campaign signs, only the candidate.
Change in social mood, and thus marketing, or the magnitude of the ego's involved?
we are back to the good ole days, strong king or weak king.
NY Rev Books | Putin: The Rule of the [Mafia] Family
Simple substitution of colors and symbols for words.Simple Minded wrote:Interesting. That personalization parallels what has happened here, IIRC. Pre-Clinton, no sitting POTUS ever criticized his successors. Pre-Obama, no sitting POTUS ever denigrated a specific newscaster/commentator/news channel, or a candidate running for POTUS in an election in which he was not participating.Alexis wrote:
Actually, said my wife - who should know - the Soviet Union in its latter years did have anti-American caricatures, but they were not personalized. It was the stereotypical "Uncle Sam" who was the target, not any actual person like a US president. So this is more acid than the mellower years of the USSR.
Well, to be fair, at that time, there weren't any US troops in Ukraine, nor any US-supported coup in Kiev.
Several years ago I noticed that Republican and Democrat was no longer shown on campaign signs, only the candidate.
Change in social mood, and thus marketing, or the magnitude of the ego's involved?
Putin cracked a joke, hinting that America’s top diplomat may have brought money “to haggle with.”
“But today when I saw the footage of you going down the plane and carrying your luggage I was a bit upset… On the one hand, it’s quite a democratic way of conduct, but on the other hand, I thought, probably, the situation in the United States is not that good. There is no one to assist the Secretary of State carry his luggage,” Putin said.
“Then I thought there was something in that briefcase of yours you couldn’t trust anyone else with. Probably you brought some money to haggle with on key matters”.
Hoping, actually . . .Heracleum Persicum wrote:e6XjqvlbDfg
Putin cracked a joke, hinting that America’s top diplomat may have brought money “to haggle with.”
“But today when I saw the footage of you going down the plane and carrying your luggage I was a bit upset… On the one hand, it’s quite a democratic way of conduct, but on the other hand, I thought, probably, the situation in the United States is not that good. There is no one to assist the Secretary of State carry his luggage,” Putin said.
“Then I thought there was something in that briefcase of yours you couldn’t trust anyone else with. Probably you brought some money to haggle with on key matters”.
.