That's because the Taliban, like al-Qaeda & Daesh, considers Shiites to be filthy heretics fit only for death (though women can be enslaved), & the Iranians know it very well indeed. The USA is an adversary. The Taliban et al is the enemy.
Russia's Military Expansion
- Thread starter gazzzwp
- Start date
Gazzwp I'm not sure whether you're willfully ignoring the sequences of events or are simply still unaware (ignorant) but you're dead wrong. The show of support was financial, diplomatic (which is far more then words) and even tactical. Professional revolutionaries are not just fiction.
That would require a government in Ukraine that cares about more then lining their own pockets, and leaving the country. If Ukraine had a national government that behaved in the manner you described, Ukraine would have never been weak or unstable enough to end up where it is today. When every new president taking office involves redistributing major properties to his cronies, who's going to invest any money in Ukraine? And by the way, Poroshenko is playing that same corrupt game.
Yes. Kravchuk, Kuchma, Yuschenko, Yanukovich, Timoshenko, all robbing the population blind and selling off Ukraine's Soviet inheritance, yes all because of Putin and Russian tanks...
Do you know what the February accords are? And why Yanukovich fled? Last time I checked there weren't several thousand righwingers with weapons taking over the government quarter of Berlin.
The west has been reserved in providing lethal aid, but training, body armor, field gear, has all been provided. That having been said, how exactly do Russian rebels benefit from ceasefire violation?
There is no such alliance. There are situational agreements at best. China has done quite a bit to bail out Russia recently, but this has more to do with their fundamental unwillingness to see the west isolate a major player. Because if Russia can be isolated over Ukraine, then China can be isolated over the SCS issue. And it's important to note, China doesn't support Russia's position on Ukraine, or the actions they have taken.
EDIT: I'll just leave this here.
http://dambiev.livejournal.com/543921.html
I may not have expressed myself too clearly. I am far from believing in the transcendent power of words. However, words do encourage action and provide legitimacy. Maidan opposition was reassured that protest is the only way forward by a host of Western delegations visiting the square, resulting in its utter unwillingness to compromise. At the same time, there was also the belief amongst the opposition that irrespective of how many laws it broke, the West would recognise it as the new Ukrainian government once it took power.
Ukraine cannot and could not act as a bridge between East and West. Firstly, Ukrainians, culturally and ethnically are no less Eastern than Russians and therefore, cannot be seen to be privy to Western socio-political organisational forms. Moreover, Russia has attracted far more Western investment in money and expertise than the Ukraine. Indeed, in regards to Ukrainian high-tech industry, its primary market has always been Russia. Russia has invested heavily in the An 70 project; contributed toward the production of An 148/58; regularly purchased Ukrainian Zenit boosters. Any talk of Russia not interested in a Ukraine as a country that can offer something more than farmland is trumped by the level of economic integration of these two nations.
Right wing thugs held ministerial positions in the Ukraine. Minister of Defence; acting General Prosecutor; Minister of Agriculture; Minister of the Ecology and Vice Prime-Minister were all members of the right-wing Svoboda Party. Yarosh, the former head of Right Sector, was offered a position on the Ukrainian Security Council on several occasions. The openly Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion is officially part of the Ukrainian National Guard. So, as you can see, very similar to the situation with UKIP in the UK and Pegida in Germany...
Before the arrival of Russian volunteers and army units proper, Ukrainian paramilitaries have already executed a bloody coup in Kiev and threatened Crimea. Any footage of the early-days of the Donbass War will suggest that primarily, local unemployed miners were involved with little to no military training.
Poroshenko has most to gain from the recommencement of hostilities. His utter failure at domestic reform, non-compliance with IMF road-map; loss of popularity can only be amortised, albeit temporarily, by la patrie en danger rhetoric. It is Putin who has much to gain from the continuation of the cease-fire given Russia's intrinsic interest in 'frozen conflict' scenarios in the post-Soviet space.
Last edited:
Yes. It was and still is in Iran's interest to ensure that the Talibs do not come to power. Back in 1998 after Iranian diplomats were killed by the Taliban in Mazar-i-Sharif it took a lot of diplomatic pressure to persuade the Iranians not to cross the border to go punish the Taliban. Had it not been for support provided to the Nothern Alliance by Iran. India and Russia [via Tajikistan] the Northern Alliance probably wouldn't have lasted as long as it did.
This is an interesting paper, Russia’s 21st century information war that looks at Russian ways of manipulating information to sway a populations viewpoint. The author avoids characterising as propaganda or using western or NATO terminology to define it, rather using the Russian Federation Armed Forces definition which better reflects the Russian psyche.
If the author is correct in his assertions then we have to be cautious when assessing anything that pertains to be of Russian origin or supports Russian objectives.
I think you somehow missing a point.
This set of definitions simply describe what situation and processes Russia has to deal with. In the face of information war which US and its “closest allies” unleashed against their opponents in general and Russia in particular. Those definitions call elements/processes/goals of such activities by their true names. Which is, in my view the right thing to do. Because to deal with a problem one must first name it correctly.
On your other point, to take with caution “anything that pertains to be of Russian origin..”, and I would add, or US origin, or UK origin or any other origin, I think is not a bad thing.
What’s important is to understand that usefulness of information (and to a degree its power to transform) is a function directly proportional to the ‘relevance to’/’correlations with’ the reality it tries to portray or attribute. I think in Russia they finally figured it out, and its causing pain to “western” news providers/manufactures, which are still stacked in, by now out-dated, flavours of “flood the area” approach.
This set of definitions simply describe what situation and processes Russia has to deal with. In the face of information war which US and its “closest allies” unleashed against their opponents in general and Russia in particular. Those definitions call elements/processes/goals of such activities by their true names. Which is, in my view the right thing to do. Because to deal with a problem one must first name it correctly.
On your other point, to take with caution “anything that pertains to be of Russian origin..”, and I would add, or US origin, or UK origin or any other origin, I think is not a bad thing.
What’s important is to understand that usefulness of information (and to a degree its power to transform) is a function directly proportional to the ‘relevance to’/’correlations with’ the reality it tries to portray or attribute. I think in Russia they finally figured it out, and its causing pain to “western” news providers/manufactures, which are still stacked in, by now out-dated, flavours of “flood the area” approach.
Suggestions to mistrust information from Russia are useful, but are often applied to buttress 'Western narrative' at the expense of any competing information. Most major militaries have Psyops units that do much the same. In turn, commercial media giants are often very selective in what information they present and how it is interpreted.
The portrayal of the 2008 Ossetian War is a case point of media swamped with fake photographs of wounded civilians due to Russian strikes whilst all the while, refusing to discuss the use of BM 21 Grad by the Georgians against Tskhinvali.
Here is an excellent discussion from New York Times regarding systematic misinformation undertaken by US military:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html?_r=0
gazzzwp
Member
Again this is not the events that our media reported. The slaughter was according to western media attributed to the old regime trying to cling on to power. So we unfortunately have conflicting narratives.
You see, this is the sort of short coming of "flood the area" approach that I mentioned before. When vital information is lost in the sea of irrelevant nonsense. Why it does not work? Because this vital information objectively exist that is disregarding nonsense force feed by the media.
If you simply search for "odessa 2 of may 2014"
You will be presented with hundreds of thousands links. Many are direct video feed from the place where 48 Odessits mostly kids were burned alive. By neo-Nazi maidan supporters. Some who survived jump from windows of the burning building were then killed by the Nazi mob outside. And this mob was not even local, they were specifically brought into Odessa to perform this act of terror to scare people to death. And they did.
Till today this mass murder was not properly investigated. That is in-spite of hours of damming video footage.
gazzzwp
Member
Again I think the question that you need to ask was if this incident did take place, then a mob is a mob. Terrorism occurs all over the world as we well know. Do you have any evidence that this act was sponsored by the new Ukrainian Government? I strongly doubt it.
More likely this incident was just used as a pretext to carve up a sovereign nation once it had expressed a desire to pivot towards the west.
I'm still far from convinced that there was a justifiable reason for Russia to destabilise yet another of it's close neighbours.
No I haven't missed the point. I am very aware of how the US and other govts have used information spin to sway a populations viewpoint. On occasion you will note that I have pulled up some posters for their reliance on Fox News because Fox like RT & Xinhua have an aversion to the facts of the matter. Their reliability is suspect. I find that your claims of an information war against Russia being perpetrated by the west as somewhat amusing because it it appears to exactly what the article states as Russian information warfare.
I guess, I was over optimistic when I stated that western media techinck "out-dated and does not work". Apparently it does work on some. And you are the prove.
You could view this 2 -3 hours of video if you choose to. It made by many different people from different view points, it is obvious what is on the video. This alone is the evidence, even if there would be nothing else. There is plenty of other evidence including endless eyewitness accounts. But you choose to stay blissfully unaware. Well its your choice. It does not change reality so. I seen it myself, I will never forget and never forgive. As 90% of Odessa population. BTW I myself not an odessit my relatives are, and I love this town. People hate the current government, and they also very afraid. To the point when they very careful what they say to whom. But off cause, for some, as long as it is not on CNN it does not exits. Is not it convenient...
Last edited:
I find it amusing that you found amusing claims of an information war against Russia being perpetrated by the west
Regardless of what the article states I thought it is obvious, usually it takes two to dance a tango or to be engage in a war . Well in this case it can be more then two..Russia is not the only country focusing on Psyops. So, it would be the height of naiveté to think that Russia is not on the receiving end thereof.
When one looks at the correlation between what Western governments say and what gets printed in the media regarding Russian activities around the globe, it's hard to deny that information warfare is going on. Boris Johnson was chagrined at lack of human rights protesters outside Russian embassies over Aleppo at the same time as papers were in hysterics over presumed death-toll from Russian bombing. Were there calls to sanction the US over the bombing of MSF hospital in Kunduz by politicians or journalists? Has anyone seriously raised the issue of the use of gas canister mortars in urban areas by the FSA and other groups? Or what about investigating the use of white phosphorous munitions by the Ukrainian army?
The point is, by focusing on only Russian violations of international or human rights law, an impression is formed that Western governments and their presumed allies are intrinsically superior and therefore, have a moral right to back their interests, with military might if necessary. Selectivity of material, its deliberate exaggeration or belittling, is precisely what distinguishes information warfare from outright propaganda.
Let's see how relatively muted Western governments and media will be, at least initially, over civilian casualties which will inevitably take place in the course of the storming of Mosul. And if Mosul will be captured, let's compare the reaction of the 'global community' with its lukewarm response to the liberation of Palmyra.
How was Ukraine a sovereign nation? They had an elected government and there were, as Wikipedia puts it, "a series of violent events involving protesters, riot police, and unknown shooters in the capital, Kiev, culminated in the ousting of Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych (who had won the 2010 Ukrainian presidential election)"
One cannot deny that the Right Sector thugs were given power and that russian citizens were killed, these are facts. So, you will either agree that (1) Putin performed a justified intervention to solve a future problem with Crimea and (2) that Putin *had* to provide some kind of support to the russian separatists and not leave them to their fate, while avoiding a military escalation. Or you can say that Putin used the crisis as a pretext to serve russian state and russian citizen interests based on demographics. Annexing Crimea was the perfect solution for long-term stability. Because stability is not defined by how harsh the titles in the media sound.
I wonder what the people here would do if they had Putin's position. Sit around while this was happening, looking at the Baderas supporters going wild and say "Look at that sovereign nation, I cannot touch that, you are on your own, millions of ethnic russians with russian citizenship. That nation is obviously pivoting towards the EU now, fair play I guess."
I mean, you have to be realistic in order to be objective. Go ask the people in Crimea if they feel they were "carved up", to use gazzzzwp's words.
gazzzwp
Member
Fate? What fate? This is purely speculative. The pro Russian argument says that the people of the east faced mass genocide. How is this credible? This is at the very heart of the debate and the disagreement between the West and Russia.
The new Ukrainian Government wishing to form ties with the west would never had succeeded for one minute had it carried out such carnage. The west would never have given it one iota of support.
The claims are just not credible. Everything in the argument supporting the invasion revolves around the concepts of fear, maybe, ulterior motive, political victory, war posturing, scaremongering, and restoring a fallen empire.
As for seizing Crimea? Nothing at all to do with protecting Russian speaking people. Just about keeping NATO out of the Black Sea and to put Russia in a better position to strike NATO's southern flank. As if it would ever have a reason to do so.
This I believe to be much nearer the truth.
The western news media, more so the US news media, are really quite poor in their quality. Everything is now a 2 minute soundbite and dumbed down. The English speaking news media is being increasingly owned by fewer entities resulting in less freedom of choice and greater ability for a media mogul, such as Rupert Murdoch, to advance any agenda they so wish. The media has for all intents and purposes shed any ideals of being critically unbiased. Stories are no longer investigated or factually checked to the degree they were 50 or 60 years ago. That is why I treat any news media source with caution and noted propaganda mouthpieces, such as Fox News, RT and Xinhua with more caution. Then there are the tabloid papers that are only good for wrapping your fish & chips in.
Regarding the Ossetian War of 2008, both sides would have used information warfare techniques because both were previously part of the Soviet Armed Forces and schooled in Soviet strategies and tactics. The allegations of faking photographs of wounded civilians were made by whom against whom? Are there any facts backed by reliable evidence to support such allegations?
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
TV media is pretty much useless (in North American anyway). Print media is better as long as it is a mainstream magazine using glossy paper and the article is more than 3 or 4 pages. Even using this criterion, one has to be careful. We are baffled by a continual stream of bovine excrement for the most part, especially by the Web and cable TV.:coodaid
No. This is pure propaganda, and it is NOT at the heart of the debate and disagreement between Russia and the west. It's a stupid line used occasionally of domestic consumption in Russia.
The new Ukrainian government, the one nobody voted for, was beholden to the west. It wasn't a question of ties. They literally had no other options because their entire platform was "we hate Russia". Their first legislative act was?
By the way, Svoboda had "cleanse Ukraine of Russians and Jews" as part of their public party platform, until iirc late 2013. And this party, that can't win an election to save their lives, got the Minister of Defense, the Minister of Interior (which is a federal law enforcement and paramilitary agency), the Minister of Education (seriously?!) and the head of the SBU (a CIA and FBI rolled into one).
The last one outweighs all the others by far.
Those two are certainly important. But another big one is that this region was majority Russian, with overwhelmingly pro-Russian attitudes. The population there had wanted to join Russia since '91 (when they tried to but failed, long story short - Yeltsin was a drunk), they welcomed Russian troops with flags and flowers (and free food, which led to some amusing situations), and the anti-Kiev protests there were at a fever pitch. It's an open question whether they needed protection, and it's unlikely that this consideration was a major influence on Russian decision making, but it's all a moot point now. What exactly do you propose? Targeted sanctions to penalize the population of Crimea for making a choice (that according to the UN charter they're entitled to make)? Because that's been the only tangible step taken by the EU and US in reaction to that annexation specifically.
Ngatimozart, I agree with all of the above. Russians are as prone, at misinformation and downright lies as much as anyone, hence the natural weariness as anything coming out of the Kremlin. I mean, General Konashenkov's proud statement that not a single civilian died due to Russian bombing runs in Syria is right up there with Comrade Stalin saying that there are no malnourished inmates in the gulag at the height of the great terror in 1937.
Regarding Georgia, below are some of the links:
Reuters caught with 'fake' pictures from Georgia? - Democratic Underground
Media war against Russia: russia_insider
I'll see if I can find some older and more reliable Russian blog material that I remember was around at the time of the war once I get home and have access to my Russian keyboard.