The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Russian Reaction BlogTeasers
Open Thread 11: ROG n' Crosstalk

I don’t really have much to add beyond what I said on RT Crosstalk, and what Alexander Mercouris wrote here and here.

The month long reprieve Trump had gained with his Syrian human sacrifice is over, and the Swamp creatures are back, baying for his blood with renewed zeal.

expanding-brain-of-louise-menschWhat is most remarkable, and cannot be stressed enough, is that there is still no evidence of Trump having colluded with Russia.

But no matter. So far as the MSM is concerned the Russian Occupation Government already rules the White House through its intermediates, Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and TASS photojournalists. Trump spilled all of “our greatest ally’s” secrets to them personally and now that means America’s European allies are no longer going to share intelligence with them (according to one anonymous “European official,” anyway). Because the details of Islamic State plans for laptops on international flights is the sort of arcane knowledge that can overturn the global geopolitical chessboard. /s

The firing of Comey was obviously an act of petty revenge against him for taking down Flynn and getting too deep into the secrets of ROG. No matter that Flynn’s connections with Russian state structures remain entirely speculative, while it is openly known that he acted a paid up lobbyist for Turkey. And it obviously can’t have a more mundane explanation, such as Comey’s lack of interest in shoring up the incessant leaking that is incapicitating the Trump administration.

This is all so transparently obvious. But we are living in an era when a woman who by her own admission has her mind destroyed by hard drugs and believes Putin murdered Andrew Breitbart and funds BlackLivesMatter gets op-eds in The New York Times.

This is the fake reality that fake news has created, but with enough time and “manufactured consent,” fake reality has a way of becoming “actual existing” reality.

predictit-impeach-trump-odds-2017Here are a few facets of this reality. As of this week, for the first time, a near majority of Americans – 48% to 41% – want to see Trump impeached according to the latest poll from Public Policy Polling.

PredictIt is now giving 25% odds that Trump will be impeached in 2017. This is highest than at any other time this year, even thoug there is now just a bit more than six months to go.

As of the time of writing, it is giving implied odds of about 30% for Trump not being President by the end of the year, and 45% odds of not being President by the end of 2018.

I suspect these figures are plausible. While removing Trump from office via impeachment is probably unrealistic – for that, 2/3 of the Senate will also have to vote to convict him (for what?) – Trump Derangement Syndrome has become so endemic that it theatenss to make the country essentially ungovernable. This could give establishment Republicans the excuse to pressure Trump to resign (perhaps with the threat of a 25th Amendment coup, as Ross Douthat has recently suggested).

Obviously I wish Trump the best of luck against the Swamp golems but things really aren’t looking good for him.

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. The French establishment was long ago prepared for a Le Pen and so they managed to spit her out before she got into the belly of the Beast. Trump was too famous, too rich, too clever and too shameless for the American establishment to catch in time. Oh how they tried! But he’s now in their collective belly. They’re now trying to vomit him out.

    Many months ago I thought Trump was like a political vermifuge. I think that now more than ever. That’s why we get all this moaning and groaning from the Beast. Either they manage to expel him or he leaves Washington shaking in a cold sweat on the floor but in much better health. Lots of tears, drama and trauma coming either way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/open-thread-11/#comment-1875800
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. I laughed when David Swanson (8.04) said there were racists in Charlottesville yesterday with torches “for Robert E Lee and slavery apparently” (ie Richard Spencer and co).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    Yeah I liked that too. It sure shows the value of spectacles and political stunts when done well. In a way, what's remarkable is that their protest was so remarkable. It shows how accustomed everyone has become to White men being absolutely supine or otherwise cucky.
  3. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    We need to get the Narrative out as to why Jewish Globalists hate Russia so much.

    Most Americans know NOTHING of what happened in the 90s.

    If the looting of Russia in the 90s became better-known, then people can connect the dots as to why globalist Jews hate resurgent Russia so much.

    The problem is not that Russia is evil. The problem is that US is in the clutch of Evil Globalists who want to use US power to destroy Russia and what it stands for.

    That is why there is such hostility against Russia.

    Of course, there are now many non-Jewish Democrats who are bleating about Russia. For them, it’s just a way to get Trump. They will grab at anything. Otherwise, Russia means nothing to them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    I'd say one of the biggest stumbling blocks for the current Russian government's image in the Anglophone West is the belief "Putin kills journalists". I've seen this come up more times than I can name.
    , @neutral
    I think its more simple than that, they need an enemy or how else can one justify the billions spent on the security apparatus ? Picking Muslims or China as an enemy is not good for them because it causes all kinds of PC problems.
  4. @Anon
    We need to get the Narrative out as to why Jewish Globalists hate Russia so much.

    Most Americans know NOTHING of what happened in the 90s.

    If the looting of Russia in the 90s became better-known, then people can connect the dots as to why globalist Jews hate resurgent Russia so much.

    The problem is not that Russia is evil. The problem is that US is in the clutch of Evil Globalists who want to use US power to destroy Russia and what it stands for.

    That is why there is such hostility against Russia.

    Of course, there are now many non-Jewish Democrats who are bleating about Russia. For them, it's just a way to get Trump. They will grab at anything. Otherwise, Russia means nothing to them.

    I’d say one of the biggest stumbling blocks for the current Russian government’s image in the Anglophone West is the belief “Putin kills journalists”. I’ve seen this come up more times than I can name.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Can you really blame any sane person from wondering just what the hell is really going on in Russia, when this Wikipedia entry actualy includes a total of over 365 journalists killed in Russia from 1993 - 2009? All the stats are based on info gleaned from the website, 'journalists in Russia' https://web.archive.org/web/20110726211634/http://journalists-in-russia.org/journalists/index/incident:homicide/job:director see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia
  5. @Matra
    I laughed when David Swanson (8.04) said there were racists in Charlottesville yesterday with torches "for Robert E Lee and slavery apparently" (ie Richard Spencer and co).

    Yeah I liked that too. It sure shows the value of spectacles and political stunts when done well. In a way, what’s remarkable is that their protest was so remarkable. It shows how accustomed everyone has become to White men being absolutely supine or otherwise cucky.

    Read More
  6. I don’t quite understand how your accent is thicker than Dmitri Babich’s after living in the US & UK since adolescence, but I suppose Russian-expats are an insular bunch. Looking bored and uncomfortable during your co-panelist’s talks of racism and sexism talks there hehe.

    Where you denigrating Sputnik International or Sputnikipogrom earlier?

    Read More
  7. @Cagey Beast
    I'd say one of the biggest stumbling blocks for the current Russian government's image in the Anglophone West is the belief "Putin kills journalists". I've seen this come up more times than I can name.

    Can you really blame any sane person from wondering just what the hell is really going on in Russia, when this Wikipedia entry actualy includes a total of over 365 journalists killed in Russia from 1993 – 2009? All the stats are based on info gleaned from the website, ‘journalists in Russia’ https://web.archive.org/web/20110726211634/http://journalists-in-russia.org/journalists/index/incident:homicide/job:director see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    It's called a "crime wave", started already under Gorbachev (why is he not transliterated Gorbachov?), reaching its peak under Yeltsin, initially staying elevated under Putin, then slowly dropping since his first term. The number of journalists murdered is now around 1-2 per annum.
    , @guy
    Why do you constantly spread propaganda? This is Unz, too, not plebbit, so no one cares.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    I call it a good start.
    , @anon
    yes - the oligarchs killed scores of journalists during their rise and the oligarchs who did it are now paying shills to blame Putin for what the oligarchs did
    , @Philip Owen
    Local politics. Journalists were employed by contenders to dig up dirt on their rivals.
    , @Cyrano
    In Russia you have freedom of the oppressed who have suffered from the press and then they decided to oppress the press to the point that they even managed to lay some of them to rest. In the US you have freedom of the press, even though nobody can tell when did the press ever fought against anybody – and if they didn’t how the hell did they won their freedom. So in the US the press is free mostly from the constraints that telling the truth imposes.
  8. I really don’t think the Dems have the votes to impeach Trump. As you correctly noted, it takes a full 67 votes in the Senate to remove a president from office. That’s never once happened in US history. Remember that Trump’s voters are still, as a rule, fiercely loyal to him. Any Republicans who sign on to the lynching party will be in serious primary-trouble in 2018. Besides, if the public starts to believe that the investigation, etc., have turned into a partisan witch-hunt, the Dems are risking a serious backlash if Trump survives the impeachment ordeal. Remember what happened with Clinton in the 90s? His highest public-approval scores ever occurred after he survived impeachment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @neutral
    The obvious difference is that Clinton had almost all the media behind him, Trump has almost all the media against him. So what matters now is how much mind shaping power the oldstream media has now, I would like to be an optimist here and say that they have lost their power compared to what they used to have. There is however the now a big push to censor big sites like Facebook or Youtube, of course in the name of "hate speech" or protecting us from some contrived threats, this by far the biggest threat now, if they can shut down what people say there then they are back to where they used to be.
  9. @Mr. Hack
    Can you really blame any sane person from wondering just what the hell is really going on in Russia, when this Wikipedia entry actualy includes a total of over 365 journalists killed in Russia from 1993 - 2009? All the stats are based on info gleaned from the website, 'journalists in Russia' https://web.archive.org/web/20110726211634/http://journalists-in-russia.org/journalists/index/incident:homicide/job:director see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia

    It’s called a “crime wave”, started already under Gorbachev (why is he not transliterated Gorbachov?), reaching its peak under Yeltsin, initially staying elevated under Putin, then slowly dropping since his first term. The number of journalists murdered is now around 1-2 per annum.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Things have indeed improved in this area as over the last few years, but there are still plenty of suspicious murders committed during Putin's tenure that will continue to haunt the man for the rest of his life.
  10. @Anon
    We need to get the Narrative out as to why Jewish Globalists hate Russia so much.

    Most Americans know NOTHING of what happened in the 90s.

    If the looting of Russia in the 90s became better-known, then people can connect the dots as to why globalist Jews hate resurgent Russia so much.

    The problem is not that Russia is evil. The problem is that US is in the clutch of Evil Globalists who want to use US power to destroy Russia and what it stands for.

    That is why there is such hostility against Russia.

    Of course, there are now many non-Jewish Democrats who are bleating about Russia. For them, it's just a way to get Trump. They will grab at anything. Otherwise, Russia means nothing to them.

    I think its more simple than that, they need an enemy or how else can one justify the billions spent on the security apparatus ? Picking Muslims or China as an enemy is not good for them because it causes all kinds of PC problems.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Picking Muslims or China as an enemy is not good for them because it causes all kinds of PC problems.
     
    And even more importantly, they have money, lots of money.
    , @Anon
    No, if Russia had remained in the hands of Jewish oligarchs like Berezhovsky and was rum amok with homomania, this anti-Russian hysteria would not exist.
  11. @Seamus Padraig
    I really don't think the Dems have the votes to impeach Trump. As you correctly noted, it takes a full 67 votes in the Senate to remove a president from office. That's never once happened in US history. Remember that Trump's voters are still, as a rule, fiercely loyal to him. Any Republicans who sign on to the lynching party will be in serious primary-trouble in 2018. Besides, if the public starts to believe that the investigation, etc., have turned into a partisan witch-hunt, the Dems are risking a serious backlash if Trump survives the impeachment ordeal. Remember what happened with Clinton in the 90s? His highest public-approval scores ever occurred after he survived impeachment.

    The obvious difference is that Clinton had almost all the media behind him, Trump has almost all the media against him. So what matters now is how much mind shaping power the oldstream media has now, I would like to be an optimist here and say that they have lost their power compared to what they used to have. There is however the now a big push to censor big sites like Facebook or Youtube, of course in the name of “hate speech” or protecting us from some contrived threats, this by far the biggest threat now, if they can shut down what people say there then they are back to where they used to be.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    The obvious difference is that Clinton had almost all the media behind him, Trump has almost all the media against him.
     
    Good point. Clinton also had Israel by his side. Does Trump? At least one commentator over at CounterPunch thinks that Netanyahoo now has it in for Trump: http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/18/fast-and-furious-now-theyre-really-gunning-for-trump/

    Bernd, over at Moon of Alabama, is also very pessimistic about the situation: http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/05/the-special-council-investigation-will-be-bad-for-trump.html

    I confess it could go either way; but in order for things to go well, Trump has to really get his head in the game and quit making so many boo-boos.
  12. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @neutral
    I think its more simple than that, they need an enemy or how else can one justify the billions spent on the security apparatus ? Picking Muslims or China as an enemy is not good for them because it causes all kinds of PC problems.

    Picking Muslims or China as an enemy is not good for them because it causes all kinds of PC problems.

    And even more importantly, they have money, lots of money.

    Read More
  13. @Mr. Hack
    Can you really blame any sane person from wondering just what the hell is really going on in Russia, when this Wikipedia entry actualy includes a total of over 365 journalists killed in Russia from 1993 - 2009? All the stats are based on info gleaned from the website, 'journalists in Russia' https://web.archive.org/web/20110726211634/http://journalists-in-russia.org/journalists/index/incident:homicide/job:director see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia

    Why do you constantly spread propaganda? This is Unz, too, not plebbit, so no one cares.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Names, dates, places are to be swept aside under the rubric of 'propaganda'?...Give me a break!
  14. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @neutral
    I think its more simple than that, they need an enemy or how else can one justify the billions spent on the security apparatus ? Picking Muslims or China as an enemy is not good for them because it causes all kinds of PC problems.

    No, if Russia had remained in the hands of Jewish oligarchs like Berezhovsky and was rum amok with homomania, this anti-Russian hysteria would not exist.

    Read More
  15. @guy
    Why do you constantly spread propaganda? This is Unz, too, not plebbit, so no one cares.

    Names, dates, places are to be swept aside under the rubric of ‘propaganda’?…Give me a break!

    Read More
  16. @reiner Tor
    It's called a "crime wave", started already under Gorbachev (why is he not transliterated Gorbachov?), reaching its peak under Yeltsin, initially staying elevated under Putin, then slowly dropping since his first term. The number of journalists murdered is now around 1-2 per annum.

    Things have indeed improved in this area as over the last few years, but there are still plenty of suspicious murders committed during Putin’s tenure that will continue to haunt the man for the rest of his life.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Take a closer look at the Wikipedia list - most of those journalist deaths are plain homicides (the correlation with journalist murders and homicide rates makes the case).

    There are rumors even in the US about "Clinton bodybags." Seth Rich would undoubtedly be touted as a victim of the Putin regime had he been murdered in Moscow.
  17. @neutral
    The obvious difference is that Clinton had almost all the media behind him, Trump has almost all the media against him. So what matters now is how much mind shaping power the oldstream media has now, I would like to be an optimist here and say that they have lost their power compared to what they used to have. There is however the now a big push to censor big sites like Facebook or Youtube, of course in the name of "hate speech" or protecting us from some contrived threats, this by far the biggest threat now, if they can shut down what people say there then they are back to where they used to be.

    The obvious difference is that Clinton had almost all the media behind him, Trump has almost all the media against him.

    Good point. Clinton also had Israel by his side. Does Trump? At least one commentator over at CounterPunch thinks that Netanyahoo now has it in for Trump: http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/18/fast-and-furious-now-theyre-really-gunning-for-trump/

    Bernd, over at Moon of Alabama, is also very pessimistic about the situation: http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/05/the-special-council-investigation-will-be-bad-for-trump.html

    I confess it could go either way; but in order for things to go well, Trump has to really get his head in the game and quit making so many boo-boos.

    Read More
  18. @Mr. Hack
    Can you really blame any sane person from wondering just what the hell is really going on in Russia, when this Wikipedia entry actualy includes a total of over 365 journalists killed in Russia from 1993 - 2009? All the stats are based on info gleaned from the website, 'journalists in Russia' https://web.archive.org/web/20110726211634/http://journalists-in-russia.org/journalists/index/incident:homicide/job:director see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia

    I call it a good start.

    Read More
  19. @Mr. Hack
    Things have indeed improved in this area as over the last few years, but there are still plenty of suspicious murders committed during Putin's tenure that will continue to haunt the man for the rest of his life.

    Take a closer look at the Wikipedia list – most of those journalist deaths are plain homicides (the correlation with journalist murders and homicide rates makes the case).

    There are rumors even in the US about “Clinton bodybags.” Seth Rich would undoubtedly be touted as a victim of the Putin regime had he been murdered in Moscow.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    'Most' but not all. There are plenty of cases that fall under the the category of 'politically motivated' murders. There's always that nasty episode involving Anna Politkovskaya, that goes unresolved, as do so many others...

    Although far fewer assasinations were attributed to the Clinton team, I wouldn't doubt that some of the murers were indeed made with the blessings at the top. The Clintons, like Putin, have many skeletons in their closets. Why defend Putin? I'm not defending the Clintons!

    , @Jim Christian

    Seth Rich would undoubtedly be touted as a victim of the Putin regime had he been murdered in Moscow.
     
    Fair enough, Anatoly, but do we then attribute every death of Soviet/post-Soviet journalists due to car accident, disease, fall on the ice to Putin's hit squads? It's Wikipedia, they're compromised. Hundreds of reporters murdered? I find it difficult to believe especially because it's Wiki.

    I find offensive and false especially because the WashPost ignores Seth Rich, defends Hillary on her server, especially because of the manufactured "scandals" blaring forth from WashPost. Their entire narrative is bullshit now. They've overplayed, over reached and it's clear now that it's all false, they simply try to hard to push that bullshit up the hill.

    God damn Jeff Bezos, the WashPost and everyone that enables them by ordering from Amazon.
  20. He would’ve been okay if he had some sort of base, preferably organized base: the unions, some strong branch of organized religion, something. One man no man.

    FDR had something like this too (“They are unanimous in their hate for me–and I welcome their hatred”), but he had support. To have support, one needs consistency and a simple, clear message. This guy, Trump, got nothing so far. The wall? No visas for Muslims? No one cares. He goes too wide too shallow. Good for getting elected, bad for getting a strong following.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    He would’ve been okay if he had some sort of base, preferably organized base
     
    He has a base - admittedly not an organized one.

    The media are creating the conditions for civil war - or at least non-violent autiste retaliation against the media - which would be easy enough - think "Fight Club."
  21. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Mr. Hack
    Can you really blame any sane person from wondering just what the hell is really going on in Russia, when this Wikipedia entry actualy includes a total of over 365 journalists killed in Russia from 1993 - 2009? All the stats are based on info gleaned from the website, 'journalists in Russia' https://web.archive.org/web/20110726211634/http://journalists-in-russia.org/journalists/index/incident:homicide/job:director see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia

    yes – the oligarchs killed scores of journalists during their rise and the oligarchs who did it are now paying shills to blame Putin for what the oligarchs did

    Read More
  22. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Mao Cheng Ji
    He would've been okay if he had some sort of base, preferably organized base: the unions, some strong branch of organized religion, something. One man no man.

    FDR had something like this too ("They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred"), but he had support. To have support, one needs consistency and a simple, clear message. This guy, Trump, got nothing so far. The wall? No visas for Muslims? No one cares. He goes too wide too shallow. Good for getting elected, bad for getting a strong following.

    He would’ve been okay if he had some sort of base, preferably organized base

    He has a base – admittedly not an organized one.

    The media are creating the conditions for civil war – or at least non-violent autiste retaliation against the media – which would be easy enough – think “Fight Club.”

    Read More
  23. @Anatoly Karlin
    Take a closer look at the Wikipedia list - most of those journalist deaths are plain homicides (the correlation with journalist murders and homicide rates makes the case).

    There are rumors even in the US about "Clinton bodybags." Seth Rich would undoubtedly be touted as a victim of the Putin regime had he been murdered in Moscow.

    ‘Most’ but not all. There are plenty of cases that fall under the the category of ‘politically motivated’ murders. There’s always that nasty episode involving Anna Politkovskaya, that goes unresolved, as do so many others…

    Although far fewer assasinations were attributed to the Clinton team, I wouldn’t doubt that some of the murers were indeed made with the blessings at the top. The Clintons, like Putin, have many skeletons in their closets. Why defend Putin? I’m not defending the Clintons!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    Calm down, Mikola. You made your point, everybody is greatly impressed, your work is done here.
    , @Cagey Beast
    The people who have been saying for years that "Putin kills journalists" have since shown themselves to be so contemptuous of fact-finding and honesty that I believe their claims now much less than I might have, say, back around the time of the Sochi Olympic Games.

    My point was that the claim about murdering journalists is out there but I don't know of anyone who's gone through the list to refute them.

  24. @Mr. Hack
    'Most' but not all. There are plenty of cases that fall under the the category of 'politically motivated' murders. There's always that nasty episode involving Anna Politkovskaya, that goes unresolved, as do so many others...

    Although far fewer assasinations were attributed to the Clinton team, I wouldn't doubt that some of the murers were indeed made with the blessings at the top. The Clintons, like Putin, have many skeletons in their closets. Why defend Putin? I'm not defending the Clintons!

    Calm down, Mikola. You made your point, everybody is greatly impressed, your work is done here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris N
    They can't stop. Otherwise they won't meet their norm for trolling and won't get their hryvnias from i-army.org. Or maybe they are simply mentally ill and too obsessed with "peremoga-ing" Russia.
  25. @Mr. Hack
    Can you really blame any sane person from wondering just what the hell is really going on in Russia, when this Wikipedia entry actualy includes a total of over 365 journalists killed in Russia from 1993 - 2009? All the stats are based on info gleaned from the website, 'journalists in Russia' https://web.archive.org/web/20110726211634/http://journalists-in-russia.org/journalists/index/incident:homicide/job:director see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia

    Local politics. Journalists were employed by contenders to dig up dirt on their rivals.

    Read More
  26. @anon

    He would’ve been okay if he had some sort of base, preferably organized base
     
    He has a base - admittedly not an organized one.

    The media are creating the conditions for civil war - or at least non-violent autiste retaliation against the media - which would be easy enough - think "Fight Club."

    You’re welcome!

    Read More
  27. @Mr. Hack
    'Most' but not all. There are plenty of cases that fall under the the category of 'politically motivated' murders. There's always that nasty episode involving Anna Politkovskaya, that goes unresolved, as do so many others...

    Although far fewer assasinations were attributed to the Clinton team, I wouldn't doubt that some of the murers were indeed made with the blessings at the top. The Clintons, like Putin, have many skeletons in their closets. Why defend Putin? I'm not defending the Clintons!

    The people who have been saying for years that “Putin kills journalists” have since shown themselves to be so contemptuous of fact-finding and honesty that I believe their claims now much less than I might have, say, back around the time of the Sochi Olympic Games.

    My point was that the claim about murdering journalists is out there but I don’t know of anyone who’s gone through the list to refute them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Okay, okay, I get it. All of the oligarchs in Russia from 1993 to 2009 were involved in ordering the deaths of dozens of journalists, except for the head oligarch himself, Vladimir Putin. You have to admit though, that somebody out there did a really good job in framing Putin for at least one of these murders (Anna Politkovskaya), for the brunt of her well researched and written scathing attacks were directed towards this former KGB officer. And this individual (or group) must have been really good, because to this day ' "The sponsor of Anna's murder has not been found"
  28. @Cagey Beast
    The people who have been saying for years that "Putin kills journalists" have since shown themselves to be so contemptuous of fact-finding and honesty that I believe their claims now much less than I might have, say, back around the time of the Sochi Olympic Games.

    My point was that the claim about murdering journalists is out there but I don't know of anyone who's gone through the list to refute them.

    Okay, okay, I get it. All of the oligarchs in Russia from 1993 to 2009 were involved in ordering the deaths of dozens of journalists, except for the head oligarch himself, Vladimir Putin. You have to admit though, that somebody out there did a really good job in framing Putin for at least one of these murders (Anna Politkovskaya), for the brunt of her well researched and written scathing attacks were directed towards this former KGB officer. And this individual (or group) must have been really good, because to this day ‘ “The sponsor of Anna’s murder has not been found”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    Why would Putin or his inner circle need to kill a journalist or minor opposition figure when they've held such a strong hand playing the democratic and constitutional game? The only reason would be if a dangerous secret would die with that person. In other words, if that person continuing to talk would throw a vital project off the rails. That seems to have been the case with Dr. David Kelley in the UK but was it the case with Anna Politkovskaya or Boris Nemtsov? If not, it would make more sense for Putin to continue to be a good sport with his critics. That is clearly how he presents himself and he has given us ample evidence over the years to back up the claim. Just look at the many times he's taken hostile questions from members of the media. If he killed journalists to "send a message", would he repeatedly send the opposite message too? If the many instances of Putin being a good sport were rigged, wouldn't it become obvious? Or is this 4D chess too?
  29. @Mr. Hack
    Okay, okay, I get it. All of the oligarchs in Russia from 1993 to 2009 were involved in ordering the deaths of dozens of journalists, except for the head oligarch himself, Vladimir Putin. You have to admit though, that somebody out there did a really good job in framing Putin for at least one of these murders (Anna Politkovskaya), for the brunt of her well researched and written scathing attacks were directed towards this former KGB officer. And this individual (or group) must have been really good, because to this day ' "The sponsor of Anna's murder has not been found"

    Why would Putin or his inner circle need to kill a journalist or minor opposition figure when they’ve held such a strong hand playing the democratic and constitutional game? The only reason would be if a dangerous secret would die with that person. In other words, if that person continuing to talk would throw a vital project off the rails. That seems to have been the case with Dr. David Kelley in the UK but was it the case with Anna Politkovskaya or Boris Nemtsov? If not, it would make more sense for Putin to continue to be a good sport with his critics. That is clearly how he presents himself and he has given us ample evidence over the years to back up the claim. Just look at the many times he’s taken hostile questions from members of the media. If he killed journalists to “send a message”, would he repeatedly send the opposite message too? If the many instances of Putin being a good sport were rigged, wouldn’t it become obvious? Or is this 4D chess too?

    Read More
  30. Why would Putin or his inner circle need to kill a journalist or minor opposition figure when they’ve held such a strong hand playing the democratic and constitutional game?

    Maybe his game wasn’t as ‘democratic’ in the early 2000′s as it is now, when his grip on power was still consolidating? If the order wasn’t given from the Putin camp, then from where? Politkovskaya’s main harangue was directed straight at Putin, and she was becoming quite the international author and figure. But then again, I’m pretty sure that Putin wouldn’t stoop to any such perverse methods in silencing his opposition figures, being clearly of a much higher moral mold, separating him from the other irascible oligarchs whom he was trying to control :-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    If the order wasn’t given from the Putin camp, then from where?

    Looking at her Wikipedia page I'd say she could have developed many enemies. "The assassination occurred on Vladimir Putin's birthday, and some people noted the coincidence" says Wikipedia*. This reminds me of Boris Nemtsov's very photogenic assassination. These sorts of cute, too perfect touches make me wonder if the killers were enemies, rather than friends of Putin? The governing class of the West has a downright occult belief in the power of "iconic" images and narrative hooks such as these. I think being a famous opponent of Putin can be bad for one's health but not in the way one might think. Killing an opponent of Putin in a colourful way is a great way to harm Putin himself. In other words, sacrifice a pawn to put Putin into check.

    I don't know much about Russia but I do know the West is currently run by people who believe passionately in the low cult of the Narrative and the Optics of things. It's actually one of the interesting differences between East and West right now, from what I can tell. Russians and other former East Bloc people don't seem to have adopted this low cult yet or, at the least, they're decades "behind" our high priests. But that's another topic.

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Anna_Politkovskaya#Assassination

  31. @Mr. Hack

    Why would Putin or his inner circle need to kill a journalist or minor opposition figure when they’ve held such a strong hand playing the democratic and constitutional game?
     
    Maybe his game wasn't as 'democratic' in the early 2000's as it is now, when his grip on power was still consolidating? If the order wasn't given from the Putin camp, then from where? Politkovskaya's main harangue was directed straight at Putin, and she was becoming quite the international author and figure. But then again, I'm pretty sure that Putin wouldn't stoop to any such perverse methods in silencing his opposition figures, being clearly of a much higher moral mold, separating him from the other irascible oligarchs whom he was trying to control :-)

    If the order wasn’t given from the Putin camp, then from where?

    Looking at her Wikipedia page I’d say she could have developed many enemies. “The assassination occurred on Vladimir Putin’s birthday, and some people noted the coincidence” says Wikipedia*. This reminds me of Boris Nemtsov’s very photogenic assassination. These sorts of cute, too perfect touches make me wonder if the killers were enemies, rather than friends of Putin? The governing class of the West has a downright occult belief in the power of “iconic” images and narrative hooks such as these. I think being a famous opponent of Putin can be bad for one’s health but not in the way one might think. Killing an opponent of Putin in a colourful way is a great way to harm Putin himself. In other words, sacrifice a pawn to put Putin into check.

    I don’t know much about Russia but I do know the West is currently run by people who believe passionately in the low cult of the Narrative and the Optics of things. It’s actually one of the interesting differences between East and West right now, from what I can tell. Russians and other former East Bloc people don’t seem to have adopted this low cult yet or, at the least, they’re decades “behind” our high priests. But that’s another topic.

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Anna_Politkovskaya#Assassination

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    I don't know, but if I were looking for a road map to begin an indictment of Putin for being behind the Politkovskaya murder, I couldn't find a better place to start than the cited piece that you've provided:

    According to Russian state security officer Alexander Litvinenko, Politkovskaya asked him if her life was in imminent danger before the assassination. He confirmed the danger and recommended her to escape from Russia immediately. He also asserted that former presidential candidate Irina Hakamada warned Politkovskaya about threats to her life coming from Putin. Hakamada later denied her involvement in passing any specific threats, and said that she warned Politkovskaya only in general terms more than a year before her death.[11] ...Alexander Litvinenko accused Putin of sanctioning the murder. Two weeks after this statement, Litvinenko was poisoned with radioactive polonium. Two days before his death on 24 November 2006, he wrote a statement, in case he "does not make it". He said: "Name the bastard. Anna Politkovskaya did not do it, so I will, for both of us.[36] You may succeed in silencing one man but the howl of protest from around the world will reverberate, Mr Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life. May God forgive you for what you have done, not only to me but to beloved Russia and its people". According to some reports, Litvinenko tried to investigate Politkovskaya's death.[37
     
  32. @Cagey Beast
    If the order wasn’t given from the Putin camp, then from where?

    Looking at her Wikipedia page I'd say she could have developed many enemies. "The assassination occurred on Vladimir Putin's birthday, and some people noted the coincidence" says Wikipedia*. This reminds me of Boris Nemtsov's very photogenic assassination. These sorts of cute, too perfect touches make me wonder if the killers were enemies, rather than friends of Putin? The governing class of the West has a downright occult belief in the power of "iconic" images and narrative hooks such as these. I think being a famous opponent of Putin can be bad for one's health but not in the way one might think. Killing an opponent of Putin in a colourful way is a great way to harm Putin himself. In other words, sacrifice a pawn to put Putin into check.

    I don't know much about Russia but I do know the West is currently run by people who believe passionately in the low cult of the Narrative and the Optics of things. It's actually one of the interesting differences between East and West right now, from what I can tell. Russians and other former East Bloc people don't seem to have adopted this low cult yet or, at the least, they're decades "behind" our high priests. But that's another topic.

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Anna_Politkovskaya#Assassination

    I don’t know, but if I were looking for a road map to begin an indictment of Putin for being behind the Politkovskaya murder, I couldn’t find a better place to start than the cited piece that you’ve provided:

    According to Russian state security officer Alexander Litvinenko, Politkovskaya asked him if her life was in imminent danger before the assassination. He confirmed the danger and recommended her to escape from Russia immediately. He also asserted that former presidential candidate Irina Hakamada warned Politkovskaya about threats to her life coming from Putin. Hakamada later denied her involvement in passing any specific threats, and said that she warned Politkovskaya only in general terms more than a year before her death.[11] …Alexander Litvinenko accused Putin of sanctioning the murder. Two weeks after this statement, Litvinenko was poisoned with radioactive polonium. Two days before his death on 24 November 2006, he wrote a statement, in case he “does not make it”. He said: “Name the bastard. Anna Politkovskaya did not do it, so I will, for both of us.[36] You may succeed in silencing one man but the howl of protest from around the world will reverberate, Mr Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life. May God forgive you for what you have done, not only to me but to beloved Russia and its people”. According to some reports, Litvinenko tried to investigate Politkovskaya’s death.[37

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    Litvinenko left Russia in 2000, and never went back. Politovskaya was shot in 2006. How exactly was he "investigating"? By reading newspapers, talking to friends? How much value can there possibly be in that? Especially, since by all accounts he was a bodyguard/enforcer and no Hercule Poirot.

    Let's turn this around and ask if any of these 'suspicions' would get any publicity if you would have similar level of "proof" in the West. There are plenty of Western personalities who have died under suspicous circumstances, these things happen all the time everywhere - and always have. Some could be what they seem, some could be pure accidents, some could be false flag or personal enemies.

    Without some facts and rational proof the endless 'calendar coincidences', or 'he was a known enemy', or piling together unrelated events and playing with statistics without any context, none of that is ever taken seriously when someone tries it in the West. The real answer is that when we don't know it means just that: we don't know. Both in Russia or in the West.

    In good detective stories you apply same rules to all, one actor (in this case Russia or Putin) cannot be apriori more suspicous and thus any accusation is fair. That is how you lose standards. Apply what you said about Russia - pointless minutia and no actual facts - to any suspicous death in the West (Robin Cook?), and tell me if anyone would take it seriously. If not, why should we take your hunch, discomfort or suspicion seriously in Russia? Same rules need to apply.

    , @Seamus Padraig
    Litvinenko was a Berezovsky flunkee, and therefore not a reliable source.
  33. Alexander Litvinenko’s death was also far more colourful than necessary. Was he another pawn who was worth more to Putin’s enemies by dying an interesting death in downtown London than by remaining alive and being another flunky to the exiled oligarchs? I’ll agree that being a vocal opponent to Putin is dangerous work but perhaps not in the way you mean.

    Read More
  34. @Anatoly Karlin
    Take a closer look at the Wikipedia list - most of those journalist deaths are plain homicides (the correlation with journalist murders and homicide rates makes the case).

    There are rumors even in the US about "Clinton bodybags." Seth Rich would undoubtedly be touted as a victim of the Putin regime had he been murdered in Moscow.

    Seth Rich would undoubtedly be touted as a victim of the Putin regime had he been murdered in Moscow.

    Fair enough, Anatoly, but do we then attribute every death of Soviet/post-Soviet journalists due to car accident, disease, fall on the ice to Putin’s hit squads? It’s Wikipedia, they’re compromised. Hundreds of reporters murdered? I find it difficult to believe especially because it’s Wiki.

    I find offensive and false especially because the WashPost ignores Seth Rich, defends Hillary on her server, especially because of the manufactured “scandals” blaring forth from WashPost. Their entire narrative is bullshit now. They’ve overplayed, over reached and it’s clear now that it’s all false, they simply try to hard to push that bullshit up the hill.

    God damn Jeff Bezos, the WashPost and everyone that enables them by ordering from Amazon.

    Read More
  35. @Mr. Hack
    I don't know, but if I were looking for a road map to begin an indictment of Putin for being behind the Politkovskaya murder, I couldn't find a better place to start than the cited piece that you've provided:

    According to Russian state security officer Alexander Litvinenko, Politkovskaya asked him if her life was in imminent danger before the assassination. He confirmed the danger and recommended her to escape from Russia immediately. He also asserted that former presidential candidate Irina Hakamada warned Politkovskaya about threats to her life coming from Putin. Hakamada later denied her involvement in passing any specific threats, and said that she warned Politkovskaya only in general terms more than a year before her death.[11] ...Alexander Litvinenko accused Putin of sanctioning the murder. Two weeks after this statement, Litvinenko was poisoned with radioactive polonium. Two days before his death on 24 November 2006, he wrote a statement, in case he "does not make it". He said: "Name the bastard. Anna Politkovskaya did not do it, so I will, for both of us.[36] You may succeed in silencing one man but the howl of protest from around the world will reverberate, Mr Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life. May God forgive you for what you have done, not only to me but to beloved Russia and its people". According to some reports, Litvinenko tried to investigate Politkovskaya's death.[37
     

    Litvinenko left Russia in 2000, and never went back. Politovskaya was shot in 2006. How exactly was he “investigating”? By reading newspapers, talking to friends? How much value can there possibly be in that? Especially, since by all accounts he was a bodyguard/enforcer and no Hercule Poirot.

    Let’s turn this around and ask if any of these ‘suspicions’ would get any publicity if you would have similar level of “proof” in the West. There are plenty of Western personalities who have died under suspicous circumstances, these things happen all the time everywhere – and always have. Some could be what they seem, some could be pure accidents, some could be false flag or personal enemies.

    Without some facts and rational proof the endless ‘calendar coincidences’, or ‘he was a known enemy’, or piling together unrelated events and playing with statistics without any context, none of that is ever taken seriously when someone tries it in the West. The real answer is that when we don’t know it means just that: we don’t know. Both in Russia or in the West.

    In good detective stories you apply same rules to all, one actor (in this case Russia or Putin) cannot be apriori more suspicous and thus any accusation is fair. That is how you lose standards. Apply what you said about Russia – pointless minutia and no actual facts – to any suspicous death in the West (Robin Cook?), and tell me if anyone would take it seriously. If not, why should we take your hunch, discomfort or suspicion seriously in Russia? Same rules need to apply.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    or ‘he was a known enemy’
     
    Not even an enemy, but just a "Putin's critic":
    Russian journalist and Putin critic dies after being beaten up by strangers

    As if there's a single person in Russia - or, for that matter, in the whole world - who hasn't been, at one time or another, to one degree or another, Putin's critic. I know I have. And so, since nearly everyone in this universe is Putin's critic, Mr Putin clearly is responsible for nearly every death; tens of thousands of corpses every day.

    And, of course, everyone who needs to be portrayed as doubleplusungood is "Putin's close ally". It's so hilarious, really.

    , @Mr. Hack
    Be that all as it may, the fact remains that Litvinenko, on his own deathbed, pointed his accusatory finger straight at Putin for his own death and Politkovaskaya's by previous implication. And then there's the opinion of former Russian spy Oleg Gordievsky, who no doubt had a strong feeling for how things operated in the murky world of Putin's Russia (also taken from the citation provided by Cagey Beast):

    On 20 November 2006, former KGB officer Oleg Gordievsky asserted that the murders of Zelimkhan Yandarbiev, Yuri Shchekochikhin, Politkovskaya, Litvinenko and others meant that FSB had returned to the old KGB practice of government-ordered political assassinations.[44][45] Gordievsky was poisoned (but survived) in November 2007, allegedly by a Russian agent.[46]


     

  36. @Beckow
    Litvinenko left Russia in 2000, and never went back. Politovskaya was shot in 2006. How exactly was he "investigating"? By reading newspapers, talking to friends? How much value can there possibly be in that? Especially, since by all accounts he was a bodyguard/enforcer and no Hercule Poirot.

    Let's turn this around and ask if any of these 'suspicions' would get any publicity if you would have similar level of "proof" in the West. There are plenty of Western personalities who have died under suspicous circumstances, these things happen all the time everywhere - and always have. Some could be what they seem, some could be pure accidents, some could be false flag or personal enemies.

    Without some facts and rational proof the endless 'calendar coincidences', or 'he was a known enemy', or piling together unrelated events and playing with statistics without any context, none of that is ever taken seriously when someone tries it in the West. The real answer is that when we don't know it means just that: we don't know. Both in Russia or in the West.

    In good detective stories you apply same rules to all, one actor (in this case Russia or Putin) cannot be apriori more suspicous and thus any accusation is fair. That is how you lose standards. Apply what you said about Russia - pointless minutia and no actual facts - to any suspicous death in the West (Robin Cook?), and tell me if anyone would take it seriously. If not, why should we take your hunch, discomfort or suspicion seriously in Russia? Same rules need to apply.

    or ‘he was a known enemy’

    Not even an enemy, but just a “Putin’s critic”:
    Russian journalist and Putin critic dies after being beaten up by strangers

    As if there’s a single person in Russia – or, for that matter, in the whole world – who hasn’t been, at one time or another, to one degree or another, Putin’s critic. I know I have. And so, since nearly everyone in this universe is Putin’s critic, Mr Putin clearly is responsible for nearly every death; tens of thousands of corpses every day.

    And, of course, everyone who needs to be portrayed as doubleplusungood is “Putin’s close ally”. It’s so hilarious, really.

    Read More
  37. @Mr. Hack
    I don't know, but if I were looking for a road map to begin an indictment of Putin for being behind the Politkovskaya murder, I couldn't find a better place to start than the cited piece that you've provided:

    According to Russian state security officer Alexander Litvinenko, Politkovskaya asked him if her life was in imminent danger before the assassination. He confirmed the danger and recommended her to escape from Russia immediately. He also asserted that former presidential candidate Irina Hakamada warned Politkovskaya about threats to her life coming from Putin. Hakamada later denied her involvement in passing any specific threats, and said that she warned Politkovskaya only in general terms more than a year before her death.[11] ...Alexander Litvinenko accused Putin of sanctioning the murder. Two weeks after this statement, Litvinenko was poisoned with radioactive polonium. Two days before his death on 24 November 2006, he wrote a statement, in case he "does not make it". He said: "Name the bastard. Anna Politkovskaya did not do it, so I will, for both of us.[36] You may succeed in silencing one man but the howl of protest from around the world will reverberate, Mr Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life. May God forgive you for what you have done, not only to me but to beloved Russia and its people". According to some reports, Litvinenko tried to investigate Politkovskaya's death.[37
     

    Litvinenko was a Berezovsky flunkee, and therefore not a reliable source.

    Read More
  38. @Beckow
    Litvinenko left Russia in 2000, and never went back. Politovskaya was shot in 2006. How exactly was he "investigating"? By reading newspapers, talking to friends? How much value can there possibly be in that? Especially, since by all accounts he was a bodyguard/enforcer and no Hercule Poirot.

    Let's turn this around and ask if any of these 'suspicions' would get any publicity if you would have similar level of "proof" in the West. There are plenty of Western personalities who have died under suspicous circumstances, these things happen all the time everywhere - and always have. Some could be what they seem, some could be pure accidents, some could be false flag or personal enemies.

    Without some facts and rational proof the endless 'calendar coincidences', or 'he was a known enemy', or piling together unrelated events and playing with statistics without any context, none of that is ever taken seriously when someone tries it in the West. The real answer is that when we don't know it means just that: we don't know. Both in Russia or in the West.

    In good detective stories you apply same rules to all, one actor (in this case Russia or Putin) cannot be apriori more suspicous and thus any accusation is fair. That is how you lose standards. Apply what you said about Russia - pointless minutia and no actual facts - to any suspicous death in the West (Robin Cook?), and tell me if anyone would take it seriously. If not, why should we take your hunch, discomfort or suspicion seriously in Russia? Same rules need to apply.

    Be that all as it may, the fact remains that Litvinenko, on his own deathbed, pointed his accusatory finger straight at Putin for his own death and Politkovaskaya’s by previous implication. And then there’s the opinion of former Russian spy Oleg Gordievsky, who no doubt had a strong feeling for how things operated in the murky world of Putin’s Russia (also taken from the citation provided by Cagey Beast):

    On 20 November 2006, former KGB officer Oleg Gordievsky asserted that the murders of Zelimkhan Yandarbiev, Yuri Shchekochikhin, Politkovskaya, Litvinenko and others meant that FSB had returned to the old KGB practice of government-ordered political assassinations.[44][45] Gordievsky was poisoned (but survived) in November 2007, allegedly by a Russian agent.[46]

    Read More
  39. Who would have thought back in 2014 that we’d all be here? Back around the time of the Sochi Olympic Games we already knew the western media loved to throw mud at Putin and Russia but did any of us think it would go this far? The coup in Kiev; the blind eye turned on genuine neo-Nazi private militias carrying out massacres; the failed attempt to bring Donbass to heel; the tank battles and artillery duels; Givi & Motorola and all the rest. Then came the Trump hysteria that has already surpassed what Tom Clancy and Dan Browne could together come up with after a month of sweat lodge sessions and magic mushroom journeys. Just stand back from the perspective of 2014 and look in wonder at it all.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dan Hayes, melanf
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    Who would have thought back in 2014 that we’d all be here?
     
    Right. I believe the Russian government made a huge mistake in February 2914: it showed weakness.

    Had it acted decisively, by, say, sending a division of paratroopers to Kiev, to restore the legitimate government and law and order, everything would've been fine. And there would've been only minimal and quickly fading amount stink from the west, similar to the aftermath of the the N.Ossetia crisis of 2008. Weakness invites aggression.
  40. @Cagey Beast
    Who would have thought back in 2014 that we'd all be here? Back around the time of the Sochi Olympic Games we already knew the western media loved to throw mud at Putin and Russia but did any of us think it would go this far? The coup in Kiev; the blind eye turned on genuine neo-Nazi private militias carrying out massacres; the failed attempt to bring Donbass to heel; the tank battles and artillery duels; Givi & Motorola and all the rest. Then came the Trump hysteria that has already surpassed what Tom Clancy and Dan Browne could together come up with after a month of sweat lodge sessions and magic mushroom journeys. Just stand back from the perspective of 2014 and look in wonder at it all.

    Who would have thought back in 2014 that we’d all be here?

    Right. I believe the Russian government made a huge mistake in February 2914: it showed weakness.

    Had it acted decisively, by, say, sending a division of paratroopers to Kiev, to restore the legitimate government and law and order, everything would’ve been fine. And there would’ve been only minimal and quickly fading amount stink from the west, similar to the aftermath of the the N.Ossetia crisis of 2008. Weakness invites aggression.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    Yes and, ironically, the alt-right mantra that "they're going to call you a Nazi anyway" applies in this case. They're going to call Putin the new Hitler anyway, so he might as well have intervened to keep actual neo-Nazis out of government in Kiev.
    , @Anon

    And there would’ve been only minimal and quickly fading amount stink from the west, similar to the aftermath of the the N.Ossetia crisis of 2008.
     
    It would not.
    In 2008, the Russian response was quite limited. Just like in 2014.
    What you are suggesting is far from limited.

    The mistake in 2014 was not acting more decisively in Donbass and letting Kiev recover.
  41. @Mao Cheng Ji

    Who would have thought back in 2014 that we’d all be here?
     
    Right. I believe the Russian government made a huge mistake in February 2914: it showed weakness.

    Had it acted decisively, by, say, sending a division of paratroopers to Kiev, to restore the legitimate government and law and order, everything would've been fine. And there would've been only minimal and quickly fading amount stink from the west, similar to the aftermath of the the N.Ossetia crisis of 2008. Weakness invites aggression.

    Yes and, ironically, the alt-right mantra that “they’re going to call you a Nazi anyway” applies in this case. They’re going to call Putin the new Hitler anyway, so he might as well have intervened to keep actual neo-Nazis out of government in Kiev.

    Read More
  42. @Mao Cheng Ji
    Calm down, Mikola. You made your point, everybody is greatly impressed, your work is done here.

    They can’t stop. Otherwise they won’t meet their norm for trolling and won’t get their hryvnias from i-army.org. Or maybe they are simply mentally ill and too obsessed with “peremoga-ing” Russia.

    Read More
  43. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    Who would have thought back in 2014 that we’d all be here?
     
    Right. I believe the Russian government made a huge mistake in February 2914: it showed weakness.

    Had it acted decisively, by, say, sending a division of paratroopers to Kiev, to restore the legitimate government and law and order, everything would've been fine. And there would've been only minimal and quickly fading amount stink from the west, similar to the aftermath of the the N.Ossetia crisis of 2008. Weakness invites aggression.

    And there would’ve been only minimal and quickly fading amount stink from the west, similar to the aftermath of the the N.Ossetia crisis of 2008.

    It would not.
    In 2008, the Russian response was quite limited. Just like in 2014.
    What you are suggesting is far from limited.

    The mistake in 2014 was not acting more decisively in Donbass and letting Kiev recover.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    What you are suggesting is far from limited.
     
    Nah, I disagree. What I'm suggesting would be a very limited involvment: restoring the legitimate government (the president and the majority party), and enforcing the 'agreement on settlement', signed on Feb 21 by the opposition leaders, Yanukovych, and the foreign ministers of Germany and Poland.
  44. @Anon

    And there would’ve been only minimal and quickly fading amount stink from the west, similar to the aftermath of the the N.Ossetia crisis of 2008.
     
    It would not.
    In 2008, the Russian response was quite limited. Just like in 2014.
    What you are suggesting is far from limited.

    The mistake in 2014 was not acting more decisively in Donbass and letting Kiev recover.

    What you are suggesting is far from limited.

    Nah, I disagree. What I’m suggesting would be a very limited involvment: restoring the legitimate government (the president and the majority party), and enforcing the ‘agreement on settlement’, signed on Feb 21 by the opposition leaders, Yanukovych, and the foreign ministers of Germany and Poland.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    restoring the legitimate government (the president and the majority party), and enforcing the ‘agreement on settlement’
     
    You are talking about restoring a government in another country and enforcing an agreement that was not even co-signed by Russian representatives.

    That is an intervention and not a limited one which would face a lot of opposition in Kiev.
    , @Cagey Beast
    I remember Putin and and other senior men in his government showed barely concealed contempt for the ousted President Yanukovich. Maybe Yanukovich had made clear to them he had no backbone or Putin and his team decided he was too much of a cleptocrat to bet the farm on.
  45. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    What you are suggesting is far from limited.
     
    Nah, I disagree. What I'm suggesting would be a very limited involvment: restoring the legitimate government (the president and the majority party), and enforcing the 'agreement on settlement', signed on Feb 21 by the opposition leaders, Yanukovych, and the foreign ministers of Germany and Poland.

    restoring the legitimate government (the president and the majority party), and enforcing the ‘agreement on settlement’

    You are talking about restoring a government in another country and enforcing an agreement that was not even co-signed by Russian representatives.

    That is an intervention and not a limited one which would face a lot of opposition in Kiev.

    Read More
  46. @Mao Cheng Ji

    What you are suggesting is far from limited.
     
    Nah, I disagree. What I'm suggesting would be a very limited involvment: restoring the legitimate government (the president and the majority party), and enforcing the 'agreement on settlement', signed on Feb 21 by the opposition leaders, Yanukovych, and the foreign ministers of Germany and Poland.

    I remember Putin and and other senior men in his government showed barely concealed contempt for the ousted President Yanukovich. Maybe Yanukovich had made clear to them he had no backbone or Putin and his team decided he was too much of a cleptocrat to bet the farm on.

    Read More
  47. @Mr. Hack
    Can you really blame any sane person from wondering just what the hell is really going on in Russia, when this Wikipedia entry actualy includes a total of over 365 journalists killed in Russia from 1993 - 2009? All the stats are based on info gleaned from the website, 'journalists in Russia' https://web.archive.org/web/20110726211634/http://journalists-in-russia.org/journalists/index/incident:homicide/job:director see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia

    In Russia you have freedom of the oppressed who have suffered from the press and then they decided to oppress the press to the point that they even managed to lay some of them to rest. In the US you have freedom of the press, even though nobody can tell when did the press ever fought against anybody – and if they didn’t how the hell did they won their freedom. So in the US the press is free mostly from the constraints that telling the truth imposes.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - You can also follow this blog from my website *akarlin.com* and/or subscribe to this *feed*. *Comments policy*.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS