SURVEY: Is Russia the enemy?

[buick]

clearly the EU doesn't consider Russia an enemy, a significant portion of their energy imports are from Russia (i voted for the second option):

 

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/EU_imports_of_energy_products_-_recent_developments#Main_suppliers_of_natural_gas_and_petroleum_oils_to_the_EU

 

 

Edited July 8, 2018 by buick

[Kieran00001]

19 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@Kieran00001

 

Lighthouses hold some significance with regard to sovereignty:

 

China’s Lighthouses in the Spratlys

https://thediplomat.com/2015/10/chinas-lighthouses-in-the-spratlys/

 

And anyway, this poll is about Russia.

 

 

With regard to 'upholding' their sovereignty according to what you posted, upholding sovereignty is not what most would consider threatening, unlike the likes of annexing the Crimea, my point was to highlight how vastly different it is to build a lighthouse on an island that several countries would like to lay claim to and nicking a part of a country.

[dick dasterdly]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

My enemy probably ISN'T the people that my so called leaders are telling me are my enemy. My leaders don't have my best interests at heart.

Interesting that the EU leaders are sucking up to China and Iran, which probably are not my friends.

"My enemy probably ISN'T the people that my so called leaders are telling me are my enemy. My leaders don't have my best interests at heart."

 

Couldn't agree more!  We see 'our enemy' change frequently, as a result of our 'leaders' changing their minds to suit their interests....

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

"My enemy probably ISN'T the people that my so called leaders are telling me are my enemy. My leaders don't have my best interests at heart."

 

Couldn't agree more!  We see 'our enemy' change frequently, as a result of our 'leaders' changing their minds to suit their interests....

Exactly. Saddam used to be the USA's big buddy when he was fighting Iran, then it all changed, and he became the great enemy.

[dick dasterdly]

I'm always amazed that so few recognise this, and can only assume that some feel somehow 'safer' believing any tripe 'sold' to them by their govts.? Edit - even though said tripe is an 'about face' to previous preferences!

 

'1984' springs to mind.... but obviously those believing all the propaganda are too intelligent to fall for such tactics....

Edited July 8, 2018 by dick dasterdly

[JHolmesJr]

9 hours ago, bristolboy said:

I absolutely agree.

What better way to judge a nation than by how well it hosts a sporting event.

Just like those fantastic Berlin Olympics of 1936 showed the truth about Germany.

 

 

Typical liberal sarcasm...the berlin olympics were all about hitler trying to show aryan physical supremacy.

Russia hosted world cup and is showing the world how it is a legitimate member of planet earth.

 

[Kieran00001]

2 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I'm always amazed that so few recognise this, and can only assume that some feel somehow 'safer' believing any tripe 'sold' to them by their govts.?

 

It is amazing that some believe any old tripe sold to them by the government of a country that is a long term foe of their country, it would be hilarious if it wasn't so worrying.

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, Kieran00001 said:

 

It is amazing that some believe any old tripe sold to them by the government of a country that is a long term foe of their country, it would be hilarious if it wasn't so worrying.

 I apologise, I edited my post as you were posting.

[Kieran00001]

3 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Typical liberal sarcasm...the berlin olympics were all about hitler trying to show aryan physical supremacy.

Russia hosted world cup and is showing the world how it is a legitimate member of planet earth.

 

 

The deliberate targeting of civilians in Russian supported Syria has resulted in the deaths of 500,000 people in clear breach of international law, just what is that this 'legitimate' word means to you?  Clearly not what it actually means!

[Odysseus123]

16 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I'm always amazed that so few recognise this, and can only assume that some feel somehow 'safer' believing any tripe 'sold' to them by their govts.?

Is the "tripe" just sold by governments?Plenty of private "think tanks",interest groups,political parties,media sources etc..all do the same.

 

Most of them are carefully crafted to deliver a tailored package to their perceived "customer" base.

 

And this tailoring continues on a minute by minute basis as the "hits" roll in on social media.

 

The creation of a sense of crisis and the anxiety it provokes breeds a very fevered environment promoting more hits and likes and the peddling of fear and hate, which has become a very profitable money spinner indeed.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Odysseus123

[Kieran00001]

 

You would have to be very dim indeed not to realise that Russia is using the World Cup to deflect from their rightfully tainted image.  Above we see Ramzan Kadyrov being paraded around on the pitch like a hero despite his regime seeing children forced into marriage, women forced to wear Islamic dress, school girls have their phones taken from them should they try to contact a boy, the man who said, "I swear by Allah that I will give to live on this earth in Chechnya only to those who lead their children home. They must either bring home their children bastards, to be planted or kill them. If do not kill, you will be the evil of the children. I swear by Allah! We will not even detain them, plant, and just kill them on the spot. After that will not allow even pronounce their names."  Somehow I don't imagine any of the supporters of Russia would be silent on this were they not blinded by their love for Putin.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

4 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

I voted YES, but with the caveat that I consider that a YES for the current Russian government under Putin.

 

So you had no 'problem' with russia before putin?

 

There certainly were years, during the 1980s and Gorbachev's time, where it looked like the beginnings of a true democracy were beginning to take root in Russia. Sadly, that was short-lived.

 

As I said before, I don't make judgments about nationalities generally speaking. I make judgments about governments and their policies.

 

It's possible for Russia to change from its historic roots, and from its current authoritarian and expansionist policies. Just as its possible that Trump and Co. could steer the U.S. toward playing a much darker role in the world by supporting or colluding with authoritarian dictators and abandoning its democratic alliances, not to mention eroding civil rights and personal freedoms at home.

 

Edited July 8, 2018 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[dick dasterdly]

7 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

Is the "tripe" just sold by governments?Plenty of private "think tanks",interest groups,political parties,media sources etc..all do the same.

 

Most of them are carefully crafted to deliver a tailored package to their perceived "customer" base.

 

And this tailoring continues on a minute by minute basis as the "hits" roll in on social media.

 

The creation of a sense of crisis and the anxiety it provokes breeds a very fevered environment promoting more hits and likes and the peddling of fear and hate, which has become a very profitable money spinner indeed.

If I remember correctly, there was a very interesting series of documentaries (MANY years ago on brit. television) called something along the lines of 'the politics of nightmares/fear'?

[Odysseus123]

1 minute ago, dick dasterdly said:

If I remember correctly, there was a very interesting series of documentaries (MANY years ago on brit. television) called something along the lines of 'the politics of nightmares/fear'?

I don't recall but I reckon the best "influence on governments" would be if everyone just turned off the social media,engaged their brains and left them in total silence for about 24 hours..think of the nightmares then!

[CanuckThai]

It's good to be at the top of the food chain (wish I was there)

 

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/money-and-power/a14480615/vladimir-putin-net-worth/

Edited July 8, 2018 by CanuckThai

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Don't believe the hype.  China occupied that island in the Spratly's and started construction, and the US started watching with fear as they have a number of interests in the area, they saw from their spy-planes a large round building being constructed and it hit the headlines that China was building a missile silo, the US started buzzing them with bombers, China sent war ships and installed anti aircraft guns on the beach, the US backed off, China finished their construction of their round building, it was a light house, its quite nice, isn't it?  It also helps all the worlds ships not run aground on the Spartly's, wasn't that considerate of them?  Unfortunately the US are too desperate not to lose face to admit that they were wrong.

 

 

Your comment above doesn't match the reality that's lately been reported in the news:

 

https://thediplomat.com/2018/06/chinas-new-missiles-in-the-spratlys-may-be-a-turning-point/

 

Quote

 

Last month, U.S. intelligence sources revealed that around the same time as that show of overt might, China quietly deployed advanced anti-ship cruise missiles and anti-air missiles to bases on three disputed features in the Spratly Islands. In contrast to China’s earlier incremental moves in the South China Sea, this deployment motivated the United States and an expanding coalition of partners to impose new consequences on China and commit to a greater military presence in the region.

 

Even when China installed point-defense weapons on the islands in 2016, official responses were largely muted because the systems’ short ranges did not pose a threat to warships steaming a few miles offshore or aircraft high overhead.
 

The new missiles China has reportedly deployed, including YJ-12B anti-ship cruise missiles and HQ-9B anti-air missiles, do. Some variants of the YJ-12B are thought to be able to strike surface ships at ranges up to 250 nautical miles, and the HQ-9B can target aircraft 100 nautical miles away. Deployed on the three largest Spratly islands China occupies, these missiles could target nearly any ship and most aircraft in the southern half of the South China Sea.

This radically changes the strategic environment in the South China Sea. These missiles mean that China’s bases in the Spratlys are no longer theoretical military threats but real ones. This, combined with reports that China has also installed military jamming equipment on the islands (which it may have already used against passing U.S. aircraft), led to a swift response from the United States and many of its partners.

 

 

Edited July 8, 2018 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Kieran00001]

1 minute ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Your comment above doesn't match the reality that's lately been reported in the news:

 

https://thediplomat.com/2018/06/chinas-new-missiles-in-the-spratlys-may-be-a-turning-point/

 

 

 

What your report misses out is what happened just before they, "quietly deployed advanced anti-ship cruise missiles and anti-air missiles", which was the US buzzing their lighthouse construction with nuclear capable bombers, it would be extraordinarily biased to attempt to pretend that China deployed defences on the island without prior provocation.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

8 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

What your report misses out is what happened just before they, "quietly deployed advanced anti-ship cruise missiles and anti-air missiles", which was the US buzzing their lighthouse construction with nuclear capable bombers, it would be extraordinarily biased to attempt to pretend that China deployed defences on the island without prior provocation.

 

Please, don't be absurd. China has been militarizing those islands for the past several years, and that was publicly and independently confirmed more than a year ago.

 

It was that prior militarization, contrary to the prior public promise from the Chinese government to not militarize the island,  that the flyover of the U.S. bombers and recent naval shipping patrols was responding to.
 

Quote

 

In 2015, Chinese President Xi Jinping pledged that China had no intention of militarizing its bases in the South China Sea. However, in December 2016, satellite imagery showed air defense weaponry installed on several of the Chinese-controlled islands. In January 2018, Chinese state-owned media suggested that the People's Liberation Army would have to increase its presence in the region, and blamed the United States for the growing pace of military activity in the South China Sea. 
 

By the time of that warning, China had already deployed significant military resources to the area, according to high-resolution surveillance photographs obtained by the Philippine Daily Inquirer. The images appear to show two troop transport ships and one amphib docked at Mischief Reef in late December, one 100mm cannon installed atop a building at McKennon Reef in November, and guided missile frigates stationed off Mischief Reef and Subi Reef late in the year. 

 

 

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/china-acknowledges-militarization-of-its-spratly-island-bases#gs.xtLC4g8

 

https://www.spatialsource.com.au/gis-data/satellite-images-reveal-completed-military-bases-spratly-islands

 

From March 2018:

Quote

Satellite images provided by DigitalGlobe and analysed by European Space Imagery show strong military construction with a deep water port, completed aerodromes, hangars, military barracks and communications infrastructure on the Subi and Mischief reefs.

 

It's not like those were just built in the past few months prior to the abovementioned March 2018 report.

 

 

Edited July 8, 2018 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Kieran00001]

46 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Please, don't be absurd. China has been militarizing those islands for the past several years, and that was publicly and independently confirmed more than a year ago.

 

It was that prior militarization, contrary to the prior public promise from the Chinese government to not militarize the island,  that the flyover of the U.S. bombers and recent naval shipping patrols was responding to.
 

 

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/china-acknowledges-militarization-of-its-spratly-island-bases#gs.xtLC4g8

 

https://www.spatialsource.com.au/gis-data/satellite-images-reveal-completed-military-bases-spratly-islands

 

From March 2018:

 

It's not like those were just built in the past few months prior to the abovementioned March 2018 report.

 

 

 

They didn't militarise until some time in 2016, they did say they would not to militarise in 2015 but then they were subjected to the US air force buzzing them with nuclear capable bombers in December 2015, and they changed their minds petty quickly, and who could blame them? 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/19/south-china-sea-us-bomber-angers-beijing-with-spratly-islands-flypast

 

 

[The Deerhunter]

20 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Insidious is invading a country under the pretence of a falsified nuclear weapons threat. 

But we are not talking about Russia here, are we?   now, ON TOPIC,  It us Putin who is the worry.  Without his attempting to rebuild the USSR, Russia would not be a big problem.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

I'm always amazed that so few recognise this, and can only assume that some feel somehow 'safer' believing any tripe 'sold' to them by their govts.? Edit - even though said tripe is an 'about face' to previous preferences!

 

'1984' springs to mind.... but obviously those believing all the propaganda are too intelligent to fall for such tactics....

It all depends on who is believing what propaganda. 

 

 

Out of curiosity:

 

How often do you tune into RT or visit their website?

 

[Bluespunk]

1 minute ago, The Deerhunter said:

But we are not talking about Russia here, are we?   now, ON TOPIC,  It us Putin who is the worry.  Without his attempting to rebuild the USSR, Russia would not be a big problem.

Option 2 would indicate I am ON TOPIC. 

 

By the way, read on and you will see my views on putin. 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, Curt1591 said:

"Insidious" pretty much describes most governments. 

I definitely describes all Russian propaganda.

[The Deerhunter]

Just now, Bluespunk said:

Option 2 would indicate I am ON TOPIC. 

 

By the way, read on and you will see my views on putin. 

Seen and noted as expected. 

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, The Deerhunter said:

But we are not talking about Russia here, are we?   now, ON TOPIC,  It us Putin who is the worry.  Without his attempting to rebuild the USSR, Russia would not be a big problem.

Russia is not a big problem. 

The Kleptocrats who have control of Russia are the problem (aided and abetted by their 'free thinking' Shrills in the west).

[Aussieroaming]

5 hours ago, zydeco said:

Who do you trust?

I will trust any politician that can pass a polygraph test. If you think that governments dont lie to you in order to protect you, then you are more trusting than I. I dont know if the allegations raised against the Russians are true or false, hence I choose  to distrust both Russia and the Western propoganda team. I dont trust any of them.

[Dumbastheycome]

10 minutes ago, Aussieroaming said:

I will trust any politician that can pass a polygraph test. If you think that governments dont lie to you in order to protect you, then you are more trusting than I. I dont know if the allegations raised against the Russians are true or false, hence I choose  to distrust both Russia and the Western propoganda team. I dont trust any of them.

I agree in general terms.But  that Governments   "don't lie in order to  protect" I can  not  agree. ( And  yes,  I do understand  the  context/ wording intended).

The   vested interests  of those   motivated  to  attain  political influence I perceive as  being  more interested  in protection of their  own interests . 

How  many  Shepherds   don't  eat   mutton ? 

[Kieran00001]

20 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Insidious is holding a referendum that has two options, break away your country and join ours or break away from your country and go it alone and be at the mercy of the country you could have joined to avoid a conflict.

 

A few people expressing confusion at this comment. I was concerned some might have thought it was about Brexit and so I thought I should make myself clear. I made it in reference to the Crimea referendum where Russia gave them two options, leave Ukraine and join Russia or leave Ukraine and become a separate state, they did not give them the option to remain in Ukraine, hence why the referendum was declared illegal by Ukraine, the UN, EU, US and others.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Kieran00001

[Morch]

3 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

I'm always amazed that so few recognise this, and can only assume that some feel somehow 'safer' believing any tripe 'sold' to them by their govts.? Edit - even though said tripe is an 'about face' to previous preferences!

 

'1984' springs to mind.... but obviously those believing all the propaganda are too intelligent to fall for such tactics....

 

You seem to embrace one set of propaganda narrative, while (lamely) trying to discredit another. How's that much different then what you criticize?

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Odysseus123 said:

Is the "tripe" just sold by governments?Plenty of private "think tanks",interest groups,political parties,media sources etc..all do the same.

 

Most of them are carefully crafted to deliver a tailored package to their perceived "customer" base.

 

And this tailoring continues on a minute by minute basis as the "hits" roll in on social media.

 

The creation of a sense of crisis and the anxiety it provokes breeds a very fevered environment promoting more hits and likes and the peddling of fear and hate, which has become a very profitable money spinner indeed.

 

And, amazingly, quite a bit of these players aren't Western, or not supporting what's commonly considered Western "values". I think some posters are a bit unrealistic as to the level of influence which could be asserted this way by a government effort, weighed in comparison to the capabilities of private think tanks, interest groups, political parties and media sources.