The K M Links Game - January 2025 Week 1
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Putin; An Agressor ?
Vladimir, tell is like it is, why don't we listen?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I'm hugely impressed by this speech. In answer to the OP - I don't know why we don't listen. I began listening in a cynical vein - I haven't found much to trust from Putin so far - but there was a ring of truth there.
He is cutting to the nub - and that needs doing and listening to. Thank you Khandro. (How go the local immigrants? :) )
He is cutting to the nub - and that needs doing and listening to. Thank you Khandro. (How go the local immigrants? :) )
I really can't hear much wrong with the speech. It pretty much echoes what a lot of ABers have said over the last year or so. I am no pinko commie but Putin can tell it as it is. Far better than the incumbent token muppet in the White House and Dave.
It would appear ,in as many weeks if the press can be believed,that ISIL are on the back foot. Not only strategic air strikes but the Russians have utilised a super battle field weapon. A flame throwing missile launcher.Pretty awesome kit which helps cultivate the desert by the amount of manure left by ISIL in the wake of its use. Well done Putin.
It would appear ,in as many weeks if the press can be believed,that ISIL are on the back foot. Not only strategic air strikes but the Russians have utilised a super battle field weapon. A flame throwing missile launcher.Pretty awesome kit which helps cultivate the desert by the amount of manure left by ISIL in the wake of its use. Well done Putin.
He is portrayed in the western media as a bit of a joke. His electioneering stunts, aimed at a different audience, are mocked. And we all accept what we are fed, and don't take him seriously.
That is the first speech of Putin's I have listened to, and it was intelligent and well argued. And he delivered a few unpalatable truths to the gathered journalists, it would be interesting to see what they wrote when they went away from it.
The CIA have a $1billion annual budget to aid Syrian rebels. Unfortunately much of the hardware ends up going to ISIS. A shipment of 150 Toyota pickup trucks sent by the CIA to the rebels began appearing in ISIS propaganda videos within weeks. ISIS benefits from donations from Saudi Arabia, but the US does nothing to stop it. ISIS also sells Iraqi oil on the world market, and buy weapons from the Saudis, who get them from the US. The people dealing in ISIS Iraqi oil are known but no are allowed to carry on trading. Oil Tankers are huge and easy to track, but we are never told where they go, and where the oil ends up. We do not need the oil, there is currently oversupply and a glut of cheap on world markets, so we could prevent the movement of ISIS oil without harming our economies. We could easily stop ISIS and their mercenary armies by blocking their finances from the illicit oil trade, but we don't.
That is the first speech of Putin's I have listened to, and it was intelligent and well argued. And he delivered a few unpalatable truths to the gathered journalists, it would be interesting to see what they wrote when they went away from it.
The CIA have a $1billion annual budget to aid Syrian rebels. Unfortunately much of the hardware ends up going to ISIS. A shipment of 150 Toyota pickup trucks sent by the CIA to the rebels began appearing in ISIS propaganda videos within weeks. ISIS benefits from donations from Saudi Arabia, but the US does nothing to stop it. ISIS also sells Iraqi oil on the world market, and buy weapons from the Saudis, who get them from the US. The people dealing in ISIS Iraqi oil are known but no are allowed to carry on trading. Oil Tankers are huge and easy to track, but we are never told where they go, and where the oil ends up. We do not need the oil, there is currently oversupply and a glut of cheap on world markets, so we could prevent the movement of ISIS oil without harming our economies. We could easily stop ISIS and their mercenary armies by blocking their finances from the illicit oil trade, but we don't.
What Putin neglects to mention in this self-serving, rambling spiel, is that Syria was at peace and people were peacefully protesting, until his ally Mr Assad started shooting and bombing the *** out of them, an inhuman response which is presumably quite in keeping with his own moral standards
If you want to pinpoint the essential difference between Obama's US and his country, it is that in Egypt the US turned against its ally Mubarak when his actions went beyond the pale, while Russia stuck doggedly behind Assad. Indeed, there's little doubt that had Russia, and their companions in the upholding of state repression China, not obstructed UN resolutions on Syria in the early stages, the situation in Syria would not have come to the pass it has. Impossible to say, but a useful bet.
As for "telling it like it is", you should try reading a book called "Nothing is True and Everything is Possible" by Peter Pomerantsev, about Russian domestic media (they have to tone it down a bit for foreign audiences, eg with RT) but it sums up the Russian mentality about the printed and broadcast word, namely: "it's true because it is written" rather than "I write it because it is true" :-)
If you want to pinpoint the essential difference between Obama's US and his country, it is that in Egypt the US turned against its ally Mubarak when his actions went beyond the pale, while Russia stuck doggedly behind Assad. Indeed, there's little doubt that had Russia, and their companions in the upholding of state repression China, not obstructed UN resolutions on Syria in the early stages, the situation in Syria would not have come to the pass it has. Impossible to say, but a useful bet.
As for "telling it like it is", you should try reading a book called "Nothing is True and Everything is Possible" by Peter Pomerantsev, about Russian domestic media (they have to tone it down a bit for foreign audiences, eg with RT) but it sums up the Russian mentality about the printed and broadcast word, namely: "it's true because it is written" rather than "I write it because it is true" :-)
See my comment above:
You have to look at what they are actually doing rather than what they SAY they are doing.
Look at MH17, for example: Russian TV ran a news conference the morning of the Dutch safety report, containing, frankly, a barrel of lies about what had happened. Not the ranting of some journalist, but actually from the manufacturers of the BUK missile: they must have known that what they were saying was nonsense, but truth doesn't matter: we're on TV, and therefore we're right :-)
Listening to the Putin video link you get something slightly different: waffle, platitude, some things that would be hard to disagree with as it is hard to fathom what he actually means. But frankly it says more about the complexes of the person speaking than delivers any great truth
You have to look at what they are actually doing rather than what they SAY they are doing.
Look at MH17, for example: Russian TV ran a news conference the morning of the Dutch safety report, containing, frankly, a barrel of lies about what had happened. Not the ranting of some journalist, but actually from the manufacturers of the BUK missile: they must have known that what they were saying was nonsense, but truth doesn't matter: we're on TV, and therefore we're right :-)
Listening to the Putin video link you get something slightly different: waffle, platitude, some things that would be hard to disagree with as it is hard to fathom what he actually means. But frankly it says more about the complexes of the person speaking than delivers any great truth
Ichi, you're always repeating the fallacy that the civil war in Syria was a result of Assad 'bombing, killing' peaceful protestors. You ought to read the following before regurgitating 'western' propaganda. The US were fomenting trouble with the aim of regime change years before 'your', spontaneous, Arab Spring protests.
http://
http://
// On Sunday, 26 October 2008, the CIA conducted a paramilitary raid on the town of Sukkariyeh in eastern Syria. The raid involved "about two dozen U.S. commandos in specially equipped Black Hawk helicopters", according to reporters for the New York Times.
Following the raid, the Times revealed the existence of a secret 2004 military order authorizing actions by the CIA and the Special Forces in 15–20 countries, including Syria. U.S. officials acknowledged that they had conducted other raids in Syria since 2004, but did not provide details. //
The uprising in 2011 was encouraged and funded by the CIA. The crackdown has to be seen in the context of a foreign power destablising the country.
Following the raid, the Times revealed the existence of a secret 2004 military order authorizing actions by the CIA and the Special Forces in 15–20 countries, including Syria. U.S. officials acknowledged that they had conducted other raids in Syria since 2004, but did not provide details. //
The uprising in 2011 was encouraged and funded by the CIA. The crackdown has to be seen in the context of a foreign power destablising the country.
Thank you for that interesting link svejk, which I am only mildly suspicious of given its provenance.
Nonetheless, regardless of whether the US was involved in undermining the regime of President Assad in the years leading to 2011, the fact remains that the Syrian uprising was wholly peaceful and was brutally put down by the Syrian president. You can build a slurry pit but it won't be much use without the slurry to put in it, and the slurrymeister was the Syrian President.
And in any event, without wishing to indulge in too much "whataboutery",any perceived inteference by the US in the foreign affairs of other countries, for whatever reason, kind of pales into insignificance when you look at what Mr Putin has been up to in his neighbours' backward (further wikileaks documents available if interested!)
So if Mr Obama or Mr Bush are on dubious ground here it's rock solid cimpared to Mr P's :-)
Nonetheless, regardless of whether the US was involved in undermining the regime of President Assad in the years leading to 2011, the fact remains that the Syrian uprising was wholly peaceful and was brutally put down by the Syrian president. You can build a slurry pit but it won't be much use without the slurry to put in it, and the slurrymeister was the Syrian President.
And in any event, without wishing to indulge in too much "whataboutery",any perceived inteference by the US in the foreign affairs of other countries, for whatever reason, kind of pales into insignificance when you look at what Mr Putin has been up to in his neighbours' backward (further wikileaks documents available if interested!)
So if Mr Obama or Mr Bush are on dubious ground here it's rock solid cimpared to Mr P's :-)
ichkeria; Where do you get your information from - Fox News?
Do you really believe that one day Assad suddenly started to bomb his own people for no reason? What happened was this; In March 2011 within the context of the Arab Spring massive protests and demonstrations broke out in several cities in Syria against the regime of President Bashar Al-Assad. Especially the Free Syrian Army (FSA), consisting of opponents of Assad, posed a threat to the regime. Currently, the country finds itself in a civil war, fearing the threat of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Bashar Al-Assad is still keeping hold of the reigns, supported because of his efforts in women’s rights, establishing an independent foreign policy and maintaining stability in Syria. Syria finds itself in a war within a war in which the FSA and Assad are on the same side concerning the fight against IS, but against each other with regard to the political situation. Now, Assad is working together with the international community in fighting ISIS, whereas the international community supported the FSA in its war against Assad; which only contributes to the complexity of the situation in Syria.
Do you really believe that one day Assad suddenly started to bomb his own people for no reason? What happened was this; In March 2011 within the context of the Arab Spring massive protests and demonstrations broke out in several cities in Syria against the regime of President Bashar Al-Assad. Especially the Free Syrian Army (FSA), consisting of opponents of Assad, posed a threat to the regime. Currently, the country finds itself in a civil war, fearing the threat of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Bashar Al-Assad is still keeping hold of the reigns, supported because of his efforts in women’s rights, establishing an independent foreign policy and maintaining stability in Syria. Syria finds itself in a war within a war in which the FSA and Assad are on the same side concerning the fight against IS, but against each other with regard to the political situation. Now, Assad is working together with the international community in fighting ISIS, whereas the international community supported the FSA in its war against Assad; which only contributes to the complexity of the situation in Syria.
"ichkeria; Where do you get your information from - Fox News? "
Er, no: the BBC, Sky, ITV, France 24, the English-speaking press.
Of course Assad didn't start to bomb his own people "for no reason". He did what any self-respecting dictator does in his position, although in his case rather more ruthlessly and openly than most: fought like the devil to hold onto power. Don't forget that this chap is not a western-style democratically elected leader governing with at least a modicum of consensus. His power was based on tribal loyalty, and the apparent stability which he, like many other dictators, brought to the region.. A stability moreover supported by the west, even if they didn't like him much. If the US, rather idiotically, sought to undermine his authority, then plainly it was not with the intention of bringing instability to the region. It was a very long time before the west started doing what we are all doing now with regard to IS/IS/IL: ie demanding their actual removal due to their crimes against humanity. Assad's legitimacy was based solely on force and the apparent stability and prosperity of his people. Once the latter started to waver he was in trouble.
It's interesting that you refer to the conflict in Syria as a "civil war", which is correct, of course, but it is not what your hero Mr Putin sees it as: for him it's a battle between a "legitimate government" and "terrorists", whereas, for example, the conflict in Ukraine IS a civil war to him, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Er, no: the BBC, Sky, ITV, France 24, the English-speaking press.
Of course Assad didn't start to bomb his own people "for no reason". He did what any self-respecting dictator does in his position, although in his case rather more ruthlessly and openly than most: fought like the devil to hold onto power. Don't forget that this chap is not a western-style democratically elected leader governing with at least a modicum of consensus. His power was based on tribal loyalty, and the apparent stability which he, like many other dictators, brought to the region.. A stability moreover supported by the west, even if they didn't like him much. If the US, rather idiotically, sought to undermine his authority, then plainly it was not with the intention of bringing instability to the region. It was a very long time before the west started doing what we are all doing now with regard to IS/IS/IL: ie demanding their actual removal due to their crimes against humanity. Assad's legitimacy was based solely on force and the apparent stability and prosperity of his people. Once the latter started to waver he was in trouble.
It's interesting that you refer to the conflict in Syria as a "civil war", which is correct, of course, but it is not what your hero Mr Putin sees it as: for him it's a battle between a "legitimate government" and "terrorists", whereas, for example, the conflict in Ukraine IS a civil war to him, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Yes, 20 minutes that feels more like 90 (!)
Yes I watched this at the time: a fascinating contrast with President Obama.
One speaker confident and assured. The other shifty, and rambling.
How ironic he started by harking back to the Yalta conference, and a defence of the UN and his rather pathetic attempt to justify Russia/The Soviet Union's long history of using its security council veto.
"One should not play with or manipulate words" he says at one point
Ha ha ha ha ha!
There was a nasty internet rumour that he only came to New York to try and get his vast fortune unlocked from US banks, but I don't believe that :-)
Yes I watched this at the time: a fascinating contrast with President Obama.
One speaker confident and assured. The other shifty, and rambling.
How ironic he started by harking back to the Yalta conference, and a defence of the UN and his rather pathetic attempt to justify Russia/The Soviet Union's long history of using its security council veto.
"One should not play with or manipulate words" he says at one point
Ha ha ha ha ha!
There was a nasty internet rumour that he only came to New York to try and get his vast fortune unlocked from US banks, but I don't believe that :-)
Of course, something that has been entirely left out of this narrative is that Russian security services have also been funnelling their own terrorists from the Caucasus into Syria - actively strengthening ISIS by sending them experienced terrorists.
(in Russian)
http://
(in English):
http://
I can see why Putin's speech may sound impressive to people who have not heard him speak before. Putin is a competent political strategist and has had some 15 years honing his skills at political spin.
Of course, it is not wrong to suggest that the Western media reports inaccurate things about Russia, or that we are given an exaggerated image of the country's strength. It is, however, just as credulous and stupid to entirely buy into the opposing view offered by Putin.
(in Russian)
http://
(in English):
http://
I can see why Putin's speech may sound impressive to people who have not heard him speak before. Putin is a competent political strategist and has had some 15 years honing his skills at political spin.
Of course, it is not wrong to suggest that the Western media reports inaccurate things about Russia, or that we are given an exaggerated image of the country's strength. It is, however, just as credulous and stupid to entirely buy into the opposing view offered by Putin.
The Novaya Gazeta article is interesting, but I am not sure I agree with its conclusion, or supposed relevance.
Something like 1500 Brits have left our country to go and get themselves killed fighting for ISIS. The Novaya Gazeta report seems to amount to 22 cases (or maybe slightly more). And the accusation seems to be that some 'very dangerous' people are encouraged to go to Syria from Russia, and several have been documented as having been killed.
Is this really evidence of Russia being duplicous? And the fact that far more Brits have not been prevented from fighting for ISIS, is that proof the UK is ten times more dublicous than Russia?
Something like 1500 Brits have left our country to go and get themselves killed fighting for ISIS. The Novaya Gazeta report seems to amount to 22 cases (or maybe slightly more). And the accusation seems to be that some 'very dangerous' people are encouraged to go to Syria from Russia, and several have been documented as having been killed.
Is this really evidence of Russia being duplicous? And the fact that far more Brits have not been prevented from fighting for ISIS, is that proof the UK is ten times more dublicous than Russia?
"Of course, something that has been entirely left out of this narrative is that Russian security services have also been funnelling their own terrorists from the Caucasus into Syria - actively strengthening ISIS by sending them experienced terrorists.
"
Yes this was something I mentioned before: there was a Royal United Services report which concluded the same thing. The reasoning behind it, they thought, was to keep them away from the Caucasus and hopefully get them killed.
"
Yes this was something I mentioned before: there was a Royal United Services report which concluded the same thing. The reasoning behind it, they thought, was to keep them away from the Caucasus and hopefully get them killed.
There is a huge amount of naivety around when it comes to people's ideas of Russian policy. Some of the things they do defy belief, and yet it happens
This, don't forget, is a country whose own FSB were caught red-handed trying to blow up an apartment block full of Russian citizens in Ryazan, so the idea that they would baulkk at sending their own "terrorists" to fight abroad is hardly outlandish
This, don't forget, is a country whose own FSB were caught red-handed trying to blow up an apartment block full of Russian citizens in Ryazan, so the idea that they would baulkk at sending their own "terrorists" to fight abroad is hardly outlandish
Latest Posts
Crosswords17 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles21 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles31 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles38 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.