Are the ethics of this sort of political activity likely to help or hurt the former Soviet Union?

[barbos]

they are huge military contractor which sells a lot of stuff abroad, even Finland have bought BUKs from them in the past.

More falsehoods. Finland didn't buy BUK's. Russia *gave* them to Finland as a form of debt repayment. So Finland having them is not really some sort of evidence for Russian sales prowess. Finland is also replacing them with the Norwegian NASAMS-2.

Wow, you must be fuming with outrage.
Almaz-Antey sold arms to NATO country(s), enjoy further fuming.

 

[Will Wiley]

I really shouldn't have to explain Russia's ongoing regional destabilization efforts; you can not be that ignorant.

I probably see it differently to yourself.

What falsehoods?

For instance the claims that various accusations against Russia doctoring images have been "thoroughly refuted". They haven't been; the trolls are just confusing personal ideological conclusions with reality.

They claimed they proved the images had been doctored but they were unable to substatiate the dates of the photo's they used to show they had been doctored. Isn't their claim debunked?

Yet it was Putin who found a peaceful solution in Syria.

You mean a peaceful solution to the ongoing civil war? Gee, thanks Putin. Couldn't have done it with you.

It isn't Russia's fault that the Americans are arming islamists in Syria.
Russia brokered a peaceful result, at that time. Did you want another American invasion,like Iraq maybe?

 

[dystopian]

More falsehoods. Finland didn't buy BUK's. Russia *gave* them to Finland as a form of debt repayment. So Finland having them is not really some sort of evidence for Russian sales prowess. Finland is also replacing them with the Norwegian NASAMS-2.

Wow, you must be fuming with outrage.
Almaz-Antey sold arms to NATO country(s), enjoy further fuming.

What part of: *Russia* gave them to Finland as a form of debt repayment do you not understand?

 

[barbos]

Wow, you must be fuming with outrage.
Almaz-Antey sold arms to NATO country(s), enjoy further fuming.

What part of: *Russia* gave them to Finland as a form of debt repayment do you not understand?

Finland is not a NATO country.
So, try again

 

[dystopian]

I probably see it differently to yourself.

There are always people who insist on defending their abusers from criticism. They're interesting not because of *what* they say, but why they say it.

They claimed they proved the images had been doctored but they were unable to substatiate the dates of the photo's they used to show they had been doctored. Isn't their claim debunked?

No. This is the sort of thing that suffers from signal-to-noise obfuscation attempts. Flood the debate with information/arguments with no regard to the validity or relevance of most of it; not in order to actually objectively prove the opposition wrong, but to overwhelm the observing public. It's the same tactic, incidentally, that many creationist apologists use when debating in public: they throw out a large volume of points, which are often claimed as objective fact. The sheer volume of points proves impossible for the other side to address in a sufficiently short and succinct manner even though each point can generally be refuted with ease. This tactic then serves to convince the public that it is the creationist's argument that is the stronger one... even though it's not in any objective fashion.

It isn't Russia's fault that the Americans are arming islamists in Syria.
Russia brokered a peaceful result, at that time. Did you want another American invasion,like Iraq maybe?

Ah yes, of course. Blame the Americans. Pro-Russian trolls love nothing more than blame the Americans for everything.

Never mind the fact that Russia consistently blocked the first UN attempts to condemn Syria's government for its civilian-targeted violence. Never mind the fact that Russia vetoed the adoption of a report in which the governments of Iran and Syria were condemned for arming militant groups. Never mind the fact that it was fucking *Russia* that kept threatening to veto UN sanctions that *included* an arms embargo; because you know, the majority of Syrian weaponry was sold to them by Russian companies. Never mind that Russia veto'd yet another sanction attempt against the Syrian government for deliberately using military force against protesters. Never mind that Russia vetoed yet another resolution, this one to urge Assad to adopt the Arab League's peace plan. Never mind the fact that throughout the conflict Russia has been supplying arms to the Syrian government en masse. Never mind the fact that at no point did Russia actually broker a peace; it *attempted* to do so twice, once in January of 2013; when it *failed* to get both sides around the table. The second time was in November 2013, which amounted to exactly nothing as fighting continued uninterrupted.

But oh yes... good show Putin.

 

[dystopian]

Finland is not a NATO country.

I am aware. However, since I was talking about Finland, and you responded with no mention of any other country, I assumed you were still talking about Finland; which as I said, did not actually buy the system.

So, try again

This is, of course, another attempt at bogging the real issue down with minutiae. Whether or not there is a NATO country with a buk system in operation is irrelevant. However; there are no NATO operators of the system. The system is operated by Azerbaijan, Belarus, Cyprus, Egypt, Finland (phasing out), Georgia, India, North Korea, China, Russia, Syria, Ukraine and Venezuela. None of these countries are in NATO.

 

[barbos]

I am aware. However, since I was talking about Finland, and you responded with no mention of any other country, I assumed you were still talking about Finland; which as I said, did not actually buy the system.

I was talking about NATO countries.

So, try again

This is, of course, another attempt at bogging the real issue down with minutiae.

My irony meter is melting.

Whether or not there is a NATO country with a buk system in operation is irrelevant.

Who said it was BUK systems?

However; there are no NATO operators of the system.

There are NATO operators of Almaz-Antey arms systems.

The system is operated by Azerbaijan, Belarus, Cyprus, Egypt, Finland (phasing out), Georgia, India, North Korea, China, Russia, Syria, Ukraine and Venezuela. None of these countries are in NATO.

Google more, my little dutch friend, google more.

 

[dystopian]

Who said it was BUK systems?

Typical progression of a thread with you.

1. Make claim that Finland bought BUK's.
2. Get corrected.
3. Respond to correction without specifying you're now talking about other systems.
4. Have person respond under the perfectly reasonable assumption you were still talking about BUKs.
5. Score 'points' by claiming you weren't talking about BUKs.

There are NATO operators of Almaz-Antey arms systems.

Feel free to point out which systems and why it should be relevant to whether or not Almaz-Antey is in the business of lying.

The system is operated by Azerbaijan, Belarus, Cyprus, Egypt, Finland (phasing out), Georgia, India, North Korea, China, Russia, Syria, Ukraine and Venezuela. None of these countries are in NATO.

Google more, my little dutch friend, google more.

If you're able to provide a google link showing that anyone on that list is a NATO member, I'll be very impressed indeed. Oh, and I don't believe there exists a degree of familiarity between us that permits you to call me your friend.

 

[barbos]

Typical progression of a thread with you.
....

Typical progression of thread with you:
1. You making stupid claim (Almaz-Antey is not huge a company with a lot of customers abroad)
2. You are being shown that it's not true
3. You go google and find irrelevant and insignificant details and then get all outraged and call people liars
4. You are being told that there are actually NATO country(s) that actually bought (not accepted as payment, bought) and/or are thinking about buying their systems.
5. You become obtuse and not being able to read clearly.
...
The only reason I mentioned Finland is because Jayjay is from it so fins have access to BUKs and can test it.

And it's all started with your stupid claim that $10bil in sales company is insignificant.

Once again, Almaz-Antey is a huge player in the field and they supposedly do worry about their reputation. And you really need to tune your outrage sensor better, you minor details nazi.

 

[dystopian]

1. You making stupid claim (Almaz-Antey is not huge a company with a lot of customers abroad)
2. You are being shown that it's not true
3. You go google and find irrelevant and insignificant details and then get all outraged and call people liars
4. You are being told that there are actually NATO country(s) that actually bought (not accepted as payment, bought) and/or are thinking about buying their systems.
5. You become obtuse and not being able to read clearly.

1. was never claimed.
2. is a strawman argument as 1 is not true.
3. when you try to argue that company x has economic interests and therefore doesn't lie, and you make a claim that even country y has bought from them in order to add to prop up the economic interests argument... it's pretty damn relevant if country Y has not in fact bought the claimed product from them.
4. you have not explained which NATO countries have bought what systems; if you think NATO countries buying equipment from a given manufacturer is somehow an important point than it is up to you to clarify the details. Nor have you explained how this is relevant to whether or not the company is likely to tell the truth on something completely unrelated. What reason do we have to think that this company's prospective future clients will turn to other customers because the company lies about Ukraine? Furthermore, what reason do we have to think that the company believes whatever reason you come up with to answer the preceding question to be a valid enough reason to not lie? Finally, what reason do we have to suspect that the company doesn't believe that lying is actually the smarter thing for them to do in terms of diminishing the fears and uncertainties of their prospective clients?
5. personal comment not relevant.

And it's all started with your stupid claim that $10bil in sales company is insignificant.

Except I never claimed or implied that. I simply corrected your claim that Finland bought BUK's from them.

Once again, Almaz-Antey is a huge player in the field and they supposedly do worry about their reputation.

"supposedly".

Arms companies are not exactly bastions of trustworthiness. And, as argued, concern for their reputation is not a valid reason to assume a company is telling the truth. Companies lie all the time; precisely *because* they want to maintain their reputation. I see no reason why the same can't be the case here.

The only reason I mentioned Finland is because Jayjay is from it so fins have access to BUKs and can test it.

And it's all started with your stupid claim that $10bil in sales company is insignificant.

8.5 billion, actually. But I guess a billion and a half is one of those 'minor details' to gloss over. Creative bookkeeping and all that.

And you really need to tune your outrage sensor better, you minor details nazi.

I am simply fighting fire with fire; seeing as you have a habit of arguing the minor details yourself, instead of the greater points. Although in my case, I at least address the greater point (that there is absolutely no reason for a weapons company to tell the truth about this particular topic out of the economic concerns you've cited; it has absolutely no demonstrable impact on past, present, or future sales.) in addition to correcting the details you get wrong.

 

[Will Wiley]

They claimed they proved the images had been doctored but they were unable to substatiate the dates of the photo's they used to show they had been doctored. Isn't their claim debunked?

No. (verbal diarrhea removed)

Actaully it does. They claimed they had photos from certain dates but it turned out they couldn't show they were from those dates. So the claims that rest on the photos being on those dates are useless.

It isn't Russia's fault that the Americans are arming islamists in Syria.
Russia brokered a peaceful result, at that time. Did you want another American invasion,like Iraq maybe?

Ah yes, of course. Blame the Americans. Pro-Russian trolls love nothing more than blame the Americans for everything.

I would not blame them for everything, but in recent times they have record of starting wars based on lies. The neocons tried this in Syria and Putin stopped them.

 

[dystopian]

I would not blame them for everything, but in recent times they have record of starting wars based on lies. The neocons tried this in Syria and Putin stopped them.

Great to see you ignoring all the facts like Putin never managing to broker a peace or Russia continuously selling arms to Syria throughout the civil war. The glorious leader will be pleased with your efforts.

 

[barbos]

I would not blame them for everything, but in recent times they have record of starting wars based on lies. The neocons tried this in Syria and Putin stopped them.

Great to see you ignoring all the facts like Putin never managing to broker a peace or Russia continuously selling arms to Syria throughout the civil war. The glorious leader will be pleased with your efforts.

At least Russia asks money for it, US gives it to islamists for free

 

[barbos]

So Finland having them is not really some sort of evidence for Russian sales prowess. Finland is also replacing them with the Norwegian NASAMS-2.

Here you are implying that evidence is needed. Even though Finland case was not meant as evidence.
But I am glad you finally googled and found out that Almaz-Antey is in fact huge player in the field. So I would appreciate if you stop your meaningless posting diarrhea.
Fact is, Almaz-Antey has absolutely nothing to gain by lying and in fact has a lot to lose by lying. That's what commentators have said about it. That's all there is to it.
If you can't process this simple point then I am afraid you are not capable to have meaningful discussion.

 

[dystopian]

But I am glad you finally googled and found out that Almaz-Antey is in fact huge player in the field.

"Huge"? Its total arms revenue is small compared to that of the top players; especially when we consider that the bulk of its revenue comes purely from Russian government contracts and not export. 8 billion dollars in arms sales may seem huge to you; but it's not even in the top 10. It's decently sized sure, but huge? No.

Fact is, Almaz-Antey has absolutely nothing to gain by lying and in fact has a lot to lose by lying.

Even if true, it doesn't answer my question of whether or not the company itself believes that to be the case. Of course, there very well could be ample reason for them to lie and plenty to gain by doing so, and you have not demonstrated otherwise; merely asserted the opposite.

That's what commentators have said about it.

Oh wow. "Commentators" have said that?

 

[barbos]

And dutch diarrhea continues

 

[Will Wiley]

But I am glad you finally googled and found out that Almaz-Antey is in fact huge player in the field. So I would appreciate if you stop your meaningless posting diarrhea.
Fact is, Almaz-Antey has absolutely nothing to gain by lying and in fact has a lot to lose by lying. That's what commentators have said about it. That's all there is to it.
If you can't process this simple point then I am afraid you are not capable to have meaningful discussion.

Almaz-Antey's claims are probably the most important ones so far. The Americans have stated they saw the launch of a buk and that it was fired from Snizhne. If this is wrong and the Americans lied and it was fired from Ukrainian held territory then the implications could be big.
But remember if the Americans did lie it also means you must be a Russian troll.

 

[barbos]

But I am glad you finally googled and found out that Almaz-Antey is in fact huge player in the field. So I would appreciate if you stop your meaningless posting diarrhea.
Fact is, Almaz-Antey has absolutely nothing to gain by lying and in fact has a lot to lose by lying. That's what commentators have said about it. That's all there is to it.
If you can't process this simple point then I am afraid you are not capable to have meaningful discussion.

Almaz-Antey's claims are probably the most important ones so far. The Americans have stated they saw the launch of a buk and that it was fired from Snizhne. If this is wrong and the Americans lied and it was fired from Ukrainian held territory then the implications could be big.
But remember if the Americans did lie it also means you must be a Russian troll.

I would be very surprised if US had capability to see the launch from space. Satellites can't give you continuous video feed, otherwise UAV drones would have been pretty pointless. So Kerry pulled another Colin Powell.

 

[Will Wiley]

Almaz-Antey's claims are probably the most important ones so far. The Americans have stated they saw the launch of a buk and that it was fired from Snizhne. If this is wrong and the Americans lied and it was fired from Ukrainian held territory then the implications could be big.
But remember if the Americans did lie it also means you must be a Russian troll.

I would be very surprised if US had capability to see the launch from space. Satellites can't give you continuous video feed, otherwise UAV drones would have been pretty pointless. So Kerry pulled another Colin Powell.

Maybe you're right. He could have been bluffing when he said they saw it.

“We saw the take-off. We saw the trajectory, we saw the hit. We saw this aeroplane disappear from the radar screens. So there is really no mystery about where it came from and where these weapons have come from.”

I just watched the full presentation. It doesn't look good for the Ukrainians
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsohFzbJ-vs

 

[barbos]

Almaz-Antey's claims are probably the most important ones so far. The Americans have stated they saw the launch of a buk and that it was fired from Snizhne. If this is wrong and the Americans lied and it was fired from Ukrainian held territory then the implications could be big.
But remember if the Americans did lie it also means you must be a Russian troll.

I would be very surprised if US had capability to see the launch from space. Satellites can't give you continuous video feed, otherwise UAV drones would have been pretty pointless. So Kerry pulled another Colin Powell.

Having watched the press conference I think I may be wrong about US satellites capabilities. Speakers at that press conference certainly thought that US can do it.
After a little thinking I now think infrared cameras and such can detect missiles and then zoom in and take a video.
Interesting that journalist(s) there were claiming that Zaroshhenskoe was under rebel control.