Putin, Russia and the West





When a newspaper says this, it generally means that they know who the person is, but they’re not telling you; the source is anonymous to you but not them. This has been how many important stories have been sourced for the past century. If newspapers only reported things that people were willing to go on record saying in their own names, they’d arguably be little better than press release aggregators.


So lets see…

You lot are avid contributors to a website/forum whose primary function when it started roughly a decade ago, was to expose the manner in which mainstream media was manipulating ‘reality’ to with a view to furthering sectional interests…with most of you ultimately being proven correct in your instinct (at that time) to distrust the mainstream news sources ie TV. radio, Newspapers etc that were complicit in what was basically an elaborate scam…

Over the past two years you’ve all also observed that same media’s interaction with, and attempts to, manipulate reality during and after the Brexit, Trump and now Corbyn episodes…each of which has provided further evidence of the manner in which said media has been totally and utterly biased and wrong in each instance…

Yet many of you reproduce and cite newspaper and internet articles from the same/similar sources, and continue to present them as trustworthy sources of information…

Whats that phrase, fool me once or somesuch???


It’s my view that there’s a world of difference between the “responsible” section of the US media, (while acknowledging there is also an “irresponsible” section), and what passes for a responsible section in EU, and Ireland in particular. I have often come late to a story in the IT, and been left with more questions than answers. That rarely happens in the US.


What type of account did that “responsible” element give of themselves during the recent US election?

You guys aren’t all that different to the crowd who turned up in Knock last weekend in that you clearly want to believe …


A good but less than perfect account, as is to be expected.


I’ve come to the conclusion that you’re perhaps a little gullible. :laughing:


Oh, I assure you, the feeling is very much mutual.


Russia is claiming (for a 2nd time) that one of its air strikes in Syria may have killed mah mahn al-Baghdadi.


I could be accused of being a lot of thing but gullible is certainly not one of them. Anyway, no offense intended, have a wonderful weekend. 8)

So they’re still pushing this false narrative of Russian collusion in the US election and have imposed new sanctions on Russia. :unamused: They’ve provided us with zero evidence so far.

rt.com/news/392595-merkel-u … ns-russia/


Some of the pieces below are several years old, and were included to put the issue in context for a US audience.


Looks like Belrus may be next on the Near Abroad shopping list for Vlad…


…and come September there will be lots of suitable Russian forces in place. Just in case they are needed by fraternal organizations of true patriots.



[MOD EDIT] Your link is wrong. Link to above text: vox.com/vox-sentences/2017/ … -bill-bcra [/MOD EDIT]

Old link:
vox.com/world/2017/6/21/158 … -committee


I’m still struggling to accept this logic. It seems much more likely to me that Russian interference was done to hamstring a HRC presidency, by casting doubt on its legitimacy, rather than with the intention or expectation that Trump would be elected. Russia just isn’t stupid enough to deliberately seek to put a loose cannon like Trump in charge of a nuclear arsenal pointed in its direction.

Given that it is difficult enough to pinpoint the origin of a hacking attack with any degree of certainty, it’s always about “resembling previously observed behaviour” or something similarly vague, how on earth do you divine the intention of hackers whose identity is even difficult to prove. What information allows for a conclusion about the intention and, if that was the intention, why was it not followed through? It all seems very fuzzy/speculative.


Helping Trump served to hamstring Clinton. Putin blames Clinton as Sec of State for helping to foment Russian protests in 2011, by calling his election illegitimate…payback time.

While the identity of the specific individual hackers may be unclear, US Int says orders came directly from Putin, so motive etc. is not in doubt. The purpose was less to change vote tally numbers, (which did not happen), more to sow doubt about legitimacy of what most believed at the time (including Putin apparently) would be a Clinton victory.

Also, as yet unproven, lots of spec about Trump receiving “secret” real estate financing deals from Russia, because Wall St. wont touch someone who’s gone bankrupt four times.


In history no less…

Vladimir Putin is the greatest Russian in history. Polls show the public’s esteem for their president keeps on rising.

qz.com/1014761/vladimir-putin-i … -russians/


No, the article you linked to doesn’t say that. It shows him in second place, behind Stalin.

No, they don’t. The show sharp swings in both directions. The latest one has Putin only just edging back above where he was 9 years ago after crashing by more than 30% in the interim.

Well done on making two fake claims and linking to an article which disproves both claims. A proud future as a “journalist” on RT.com awaits. :wink:


I’d consider RT a more reliable source of news than CNN, BBC etc. XD


Since Stalin was Georgian (who spoke poor Russian) this would make Vlad greatest Russian in history, at least according to the article/poll


I’ve had this argument before and, while I don’t think any of them are perfect, I would consider RT to be by far the least reliable of the three. I find CNN to be very parochial and dumbed down but I don’t generally see them as a source of deliberate propaganda. BBC I like less than I used to, and I was disappointed when they were caught out being selective in their coverage of the lead up to the Scottish referendum, but they are still clearly able to take on the UK government in a way RT and its parent organisation could not dream of doing in Russia. RT is such a blatant propaganda tool that I find it too sickening to watch. The way RT was complicit in creating and disseminating fake ‘alternative theories’ about MH17 to deflect attention from Russian involvement was horrendous.