You're right I am influenced by history books, maybe you should crack one open and read up on Crimea and Russia.

This is relevant:
Styxhexenhammer666 - Muh OK Hand Sign White Power: Legacy Media/ADL Get Trolled Again

Maybe Russia's a little bit unusual in that they annex territory. Other countries, such as the USA, try to install despots of their choosing.

Much the same thing, I think ...

Sundial... your statement is ignorent to say the least.. it's nothing of the same thing...

Part of USA was Russian too. Should Alaska just be made Russian when it's convinient for Putin, or?...

The fact that you think starting a war with another country and annexing part of it because that country doesn't want to be ruled by people closer to Russia than Europe... Liying in the process that you're not involved... pff, come in... it just happend ... Crimeea was ceased since a half a century ago... how is that an argument for anything?

Ok I'll take the bait - and I realise I am going deeper into the rabbit hole. When all this drama started in 2014 between Ukraine and Russia - majority in Crimea were already Russian leaning with of course though there are also ethnic Ukrainians there. What was the cause of all the drama anyways? A pro-Russian leaning president was ousted (but nobody seems to ask how, and automatically assumes it is legit - Russia states otherwise so two different opposing views right there). Then a referendum is called in Crimea - west automatically does not recognise it - though I bet they would probably recognise it if the people voted 'the right way' and voted not to allow annexation. It is all tit-for-tat anyways. I am sure that there was Russian influence in the referendum just like there was western influence in the Maidan incident.

So ok maybe I should address the elephant in the forum , why am I so 'pro-Putin' or 'pro-Russia.' I am not pro-Putin - the guy looks like he has a stick up his ass, and would never take a joke, I do not agree with his domestic policies, which I haven't talked about because I am not focused on that anyways. I am not pro-Russian either, but I do have obvious concerns where things are going, I just happen to see Russia as the more sane player on the world stage recently, I have already mentioned the chessgame in the Middle East, but in this case I will mention again Europe and particularly that 'benevolent' 'freedom loving' entity NATO that for some reason, still needs to absorb more members that happen to have borders with Russia.

If you have seen a map at this point where NATO is positioned, well wouldn't it be fairly easy to think that NATO is starting to surround your borders (if you were Russia?). How do you think Russia sees this, not as a potential threat? Do you really think they are just that naive? Now Russia states they have no interest in interfering with others internal affairs; ok but cases obviously state other wise - but why only the spotlight on them? What about NATO? What is this need to still expand? Is the Soviet Union still around or something?

Interesting article: Putin promises countermeasures in response to NATO expansion

Also from wikipedia: NATO Russia Relations

Ok so why am I on the Russia camp then? Well gee let me see here..... NATO keeps encroaching, Russia brought this to their attention; NATO kept expanding anyways to the ire of the Russians, this kept going on until we are now at the lowest since the Cold War. There wasn't a problem, so NATO HAD to create one, other wise again what is the point of NATO after the collapse of the USSR? *cough*money*cough* *cough**cough*. s'cuse me..

Now of course there is also complaints that Russia is modernising her forces; but its ok for NATO expand for whatever reason - and the US has it's panties in a twist because they spotted a Russian sub 30 miles off the US coast. So? NATO has been ever closer to Russia - and even conducting exercises, but how dare the Russians be 30 miles off the US coast? Maybe we should let Russia conduct exercises close to our southern border in Mexico, lets see how that will go? It is perfectly fine though for NATO to be conducting exercises in the Baltics, or in the Black Sea - its all good there, pay no attention. OK.....

Now - there is this, please pay attention boys and girls because this is rather crucial to my argument k?:


The image on the left is a missile (assuming it is an ICBM) from Russia's Victory Day Parade of this year, and on the right this years DPRK military parade with their own missiles; and now the very heart of my argument - the piece de la resistance - the missiles in one of these pictures have a fairly high failure rate, never mind that on the backs of the truck are also fakes. Now boys and girls can you guess which one that is?

Also unlike the DPRK - Russians do not saber rattle that much, so you know what I am going to not only take their word but conclude for myself that Russian missiles are not only rather accurate and more than reliable; but call me crazy but in this case I do not want any proof because well, there are already other ways I can die, the threat of death from a nuclear war is not another thing I want on my list of ways to die. Russia does not bluff; and has already made it clear that they will not get into any conventional excursions. So if this somehow makes me pro Putin or pro Russia for pointing these details out, fine whatever you are no different than parroting the same obnoxious hysteria of not only the media *cough*Maddow*cough* , but also politicians like Mccain.

I thought the Cold War was over, I was a kid during the last years of that - and you know what, call me crazy , insane - whatever, but I do not want to really know how it was 'back in those days.' ....


Or what? The hell does Alaska have to do with the current situation? Its not my problem that the Tsar sold off Alaska.

You know - I'll just leave this here again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Cq4z7GU_40

Explain please.

//same as last post... Sorry for the double posting... I'm on the phone

Jeebiz... that president was ousted after people protested for 6 months.... and it wasn't pretty... do you know how he got elected (or rather forced in to office??)

I think it's great! I watch FOX News most of time, but I do watch Morning Joe on MSNBC. It gets my blood pressure up and helps me start my day! And it's fun to watch Mika cry everytime she's proven wrong! But those snotty commentators from the Washington Post etc. are living in another universe or plane of reality, what they say is just mind-blowing!

Ohh, and off-course Ukraine shouldn't exist if an youtube video says so...

And was does Alaska have to do with this?... what, the argument that the territory once belonged to Russia doesn't apply anymore?

Again I do not care about what the average Russian thinks about Alaska or Putin. You are the only one bringing up Alaska which is not in any way relevant to the events in Europe.

As I pointed out many times over, and now I am forced to yet again - who is antagonizing the Russians? Do you really believe that one day Russia decided after the collapse of the USSR, to just troll the rest of the world? No mention still about NATO's further expansion - but Russia is the asshole, k - sure..... Let me ask you again do you think I am defending Russia because I want to? I just see events happening as they go and point out what I see.

Ok - who was responsible for fomenting the protests? Was it not the west? I sure do love the double standards here. Russia is accused of meddling - but it is ok for the west to do so.

You brought up Alaska - not me - I was and still am focused on Europe. As for the youtube video - nothing that was mentioned is false, and whether or not Ukraine will exist is not really my problem - it is the problem of the Ukrainians whether or not they want to exist. They are a buffer state plain and simple - what they choose to do has consequences, if they want to cast their lot with Europe and NATO thats fine - it won't be my problem what happens to them after, take that however you will I do not care. I do not have to justify my views. Russia is not the problem here, NATO is and on a more wider scale GOING BACK to the topic of this particular thread - the west is still using the old style Russians under the bed narrative.

I am not defending Russia because I like Putin - I just see events that are clearly provoking Russia - and yet most still have the nerve to say Russia is the one being belligerent. The truth is BOTH sides are being belligerent not just Russia - but nobody seems to want to focus on why events are the way they are, but automagically paint Russia as the problem, and the media (ALL) on this side of the pond (FOX, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and yes CNN) - are the ones responsible for the image people see about Russia.

Same with Syria. I still have yet to see any credible sources about the 'gas' attack recently or the ones in 2013. Western outlets still like to throw the sarin narrative, again never mind that it is well, kinda really dangerous - so dangerous that less than what a teaspoon is fatal? Yet images show 'rescuers' without any sort of hazmat suits.

It is not difficult just to see the results of what is happening and at this point, I look at the Russians as actually being the more sane ones on the world stage. I do not care if that bothers you. Keep calling me a Russian shill for all I care, it changes nothing. Do I have control over events elsewhere? No of course I do not, but why should I not comment? This is how I see things so far, and there are things I could be wrong about - and I will gladly accept that, because there are things I'd actually rather not be right about, but there are some things that need to be put into context historically - however none of that is done - since everything right now is just painted as 'this is happening, raise the alarm' - without any sort of actual background. It is rather easy then to just get sucked into that sort of thinking.

You have not given me any reason yet to change my view, nor do I think I have changed yours and that is fine - this is my views and perspective(and thread) - and that is also the main point of the topic, it is all about perspective too.


Many have pointed out that she is just there to look pretty, and so sadly she pretty much fulfills the stereotypical dumb blonde on tv. Sensationalism will always trump(no pun intended) actual news.

Smokey, in keeping with the principles of this forum, "I invite you to please elaborate." Instead of (ad hominem) merely calling me "ignorant," please say why you think that (particularly, what?) is "nothing of the same thing?"

Looks like there's plenty of water left in the ol' Internet water cooler. May I pour you a glass?

And yet, do we need to 'defend' Russia? Why single-out this nation for special treatment? (Granted, granted, part of the Western media still embraces Duck and Cover 2. (P.S.: Don't miss this link ...)

Actually, if the President of the United States™ decided to authorize a cruise-missile attack – recommended to him by his Commanders – in response to what the POTUS said was "a nerve-gas attack," I am actually inclined to believe him. I happen to think that the Officeholder – whoever (s)he may be – is possessed of the best-available intelligence and is gravely aware of the responsibilities that come with the powers of the Office. I choose to give the POTUS the benefit of the doubt.

No one need be a "shill" for a nation – any nation. And, I'm not sure that any "nation on the world stage" is terribly sane.

"... but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.™"

Propaganda is designed to be "sucked into." However, it is also very easy to be "sucked into" (other) thoughts about "propaganda, itself!" Fortunately, media doesn't need cheerleaders, either.

Well again, as I pointed out NATO - and don't worry I am giving Syria as much attention as I am Russia as I also stated in the Syria thread.

I will still voice my concerns - because we are told the same thing over and over until it loses it's original intent. Does the story 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf' not have any significant meaning to all this?

Maybe not MORE sane, but what I see Russia doing on the world stage at this point is trying to keep things together. I support their role in Syria - why? Because I do not want Syria to go the same way as Libya and Iraq, because of the same old story time-and-time again. Sorry but I do not see Russia going around toppling government because of 'muh weapons' under the guise of 'muh freedoms'.


I really wish more people today would follow your example, particularly those cretins at Berkeley. Though I suppose it is poetic that freedom of expression dies there, from whence it was born.

Media (old guard) are the cheerleaders of war. Again everyone has biases, so do I and so do the youtubers I have linked to here - but I just choose to listen to a bias that at least is not corporate owned for the most part. This is all about perspective as I also stated before.

Just be careful that the terribly-experienced "media forces" that you decry ... do not play you! That's all. "Choose your 'biases' very carefully," and with your eyes wide open.

These days, anytime I find myself "being drawn to any sort of "needing-to-be-defended position," I am instinctively suspicious of ... "exactly why do I think so?" "Is this truly my thought, or might it in fact be someone else's?"

(Or, maybe, it's just that I'm getting too damn old for this ...)