Sweden, Finland, and Ukraine joining NATO?

[Ford]

[
I don't know what it's like in Russia today, but the concept of leaving a company because it's mismanaged might not translate.

In a way, Russia is very much like a failing company. A shadow of her former glory, bleeding money, and badly mismanaged, yet rather than address the problems directly they've decided on a path of hostile acquisitions to try and shore up their declining brand. The shareholders perhaps suspect something is amiss, but all management ever tells them is that the troubles are the fault of someone else.


The only thing that remains to be seen is how long Putin and company can keep up the charade...no doubt leaving with a few billion in cash just before the inevitable collapse.

 

[Jayjay]

NATO are known liars. Why should we believe them?
Russia’s Defense Ministry ridicules NATO’s photo-proof of invasion in Ukraine

Yes NATO claimed it and Russia denied it. After NATO released fake images earlier last year of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border we should assume it is probably fake again. Unless you have some reason to believe a liar?

It makes no sense to comment in detail on the satellite imagery released by NATO as “proof” of Russia’s military involvement in Ukraine, Defense Ministry’s spokesman said, pointing out that even high NATO officials were hesitant to put their names on it.

Referring to NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Supreme Allied Commander Europe Philip Breedlove, and NATO Spokesperson Oana Lungescu, Russia’s Defense Ministry spokesman Major-General Igor Konashenkov ridiculed the so-called NATO proof.

“You know, it has become ridiculous… If earlier, someone would at least put their names on those images, be it Breedlove, Rasmussen, or even Lungescu, now, they are hesitant,” Konashenkov said as cited by RIA Novosti. “It makes no sense to seriously comment on this

That the OSCE told us there was no evidence of Russian troops in the Ukraine around that time means we need to be even more sceptical

Of course Russia denies everything. But I didn't see any actual evidence in the article that would prove that the images were fake. The same as with the images from last year about troops on the border: just because Russia denies something, doesn't make it fake. And OSCE does not see everything... Russian army knows where OSCE is at any time, so it's trivial for it to avoid being seen.

 

[barbos]

The 70'ies called. They want their delusions back.

One of the hardest adjustments that immigrants from Russia to Israel had to make was the concept of looking for a job. My ulpan Hebrew Absorption class was about 1/2 Russian-speakers, and we spent a lot of time on the subject. It was terrifying to most of them, because they had grown up knowing that their career would be assigned to them by the government.

I don't know what it's like in Russia today, but the concept of leaving a company because it's mismanaged might not translate.

Sorry, I am not following you two, must be commie in me.

 

[barbos]

NATO are known liars. Why should we believe them?
Russia’s Defense Ministry ridicules NATO’s photo-proof of invasion in Ukraine

Yes NATO claimed it and Russia denied it. After NATO released fake images earlier last year of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border we should assume it is probably fake again. Unless you have some reason to believe a liar?

That the OSCE told us there was no evidence of Russian troops in the Ukraine around that time means we need to be even more sceptical

Of course Russia denies everything. But I didn't see any actual evidence in the article that would prove that the images were fake. The same as with the images from last year about troops on the border: just because Russia denies something, doesn't make it fake. And OSCE does not see everything... Russian army knows where OSCE is at any time, so it's trivial for it to avoid being seen.

You forget US invaded Iraq based on images and intelligence sources too.
Remember how it all went?
These images are not supposed to be viewed by public. They don't mean anything if you don't trust the source.
They are propaganda tool, nothing more.
Russian propaganda use fake pictures too, the difference is, these are very low level TV people with a known history of alcoholism, not government officials.

 

[tupac chopra]

Rebuilding the Obama-Putin Trust

In the major U.S. media, the violent coup on Feb. 22 – spearheaded by well-organized neo-Nazi militias who killed police and seized government buildings – was whitewashed from what the American people got to see and hear. In the preferred U.S. narrative, Yanukovych and his officials simply decided to leave town because of the moral force from the white-hatted peaceful protesters in the Maidan.

So it came as a welcome surprise when an Establishment notable like George Friedman, during a Dec. 19 interview with the Russian magazine Kommersant, described the February overthrow of the Ukrainian government as “the most blatant coup in history.” Friedman is head of STRATFOR, a think tank often described as a “shadow CIA.”

However, in the mainstream U.S. media’s narrative – as well as others like the BBC where I have had personal experience with the ticklish issue of Ukraine – the story of the Ukraine crisis starts with the annexation of Crimea, which is sometimes termed a Russian “invasion” although Russian troops were already stationed inside Crimea at the Russian naval base at Sevastopol. In the MSM, there is “just not enough time, regrettably” to mention NATO’s eastward expansion or even the coup in Kiev.

The other favored part of the MSM’s narrative is that Putin instigated the Ukraine crisis because he was eager to seize back land lost in the break-up of the Soviet Union. But there is not one scintilla of evidence that the Russians would have taken back Crimea, were it not for the coup engineered by Nuland and implemented by various thugs including openly fascist groups waving banners with Nazi symbols.

 

[Ford]

Looks like the rubles are flowing freely tonight.

 

[tupac chopra]

NATO are known liars. Why should we believe them?
Russia’s Defense Ministry ridicules NATO’s photo-proof of invasion in Ukraine

Yes NATO claimed it and Russia denied it. After NATO released fake images earlier last year of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border we should assume it is probably fake again. Unless you have some reason to believe a liar?

That the OSCE told us there was no evidence of Russian troops in the Ukraine around that time means we need to be even more sceptical

Of course Russia denies everything. But I didn't see any actual evidence in the article that would prove that the images were fake.

Shouldn't you have to prove they are real? The problem is after it was shown that the USA lied about Iraq and lied about Syria they no longer have any credibility. the US government openly and deliberately lied about the Sarin gas in Syria

The same as with the images from last year about troops on the border: just because Russia denies something, doesn't make it fake

The images were apparently from 2013,. But again if you want to claim they are real it's up to you to verify them..
These things appear in the western press...are never really verified then vanish...A liar is gonna lie..I'd say

 

[Axulus]

Of course Russia denies everything. But I didn't see any actual evidence in the article that would prove that the images were fake. The same as with the images from last year about troops on the border: just because Russia denies something, doesn't make it fake. And OSCE does not see everything... Russian army knows where OSCE is at any time, so it's trivial for it to avoid being seen.

You forget US invaded Iraq based on images and intelligence sources too.
Remember how it all went?
These images are not supposed to be viewed by public. They don't mean anything if you don't trust the source.
They are propaganda tool, nothing more.
Russian propaganda use fake pictures too, the difference is, these are very low level TV people with a known history of alcoholism, not government officials.

Because sometimes US intelligence is wrong does not make it always wrong. Because sometimes the US engages in propaganda doesn't mean it always engages in propaganda. We have a free and independent press which is far more than can be said of Russia. Furthermore, this isn't US intelligence but rather NATO intelligence which is much more than just the US. These events concern Europe far more than they concern the US. Europe has the biggest stake in what is going on. Where is your evidence? Your arguments are not rational.

 

[tupac chopra]

Because sometimes US intelligence is wrong does not make it always wrong. Because sometimes the US engages in propaganda doesn't mean it always engages in propaganda.

US intelligence about IRAQ was correct. No Weapons of Mass Destruction. The problem was that those at the top didn't want that kind of intelligence.

In other words it always engages in propaganda. When the facts fit the narrative we are told about them, when the facts don't fit the narrative the intelligence officers are sent away to get the "correct" intelligence that fits the narrative.

 

[barbos]

You forget US invaded Iraq based on images and intelligence sources too.
Remember how it all went?
These images are not supposed to be viewed by public. They don't mean anything if you don't trust the source.
They are propaganda tool, nothing more.
Russian propaganda use fake pictures too, the difference is, these are very low level TV people with a known history of alcoholism, not government officials.

Because sometimes US intelligence is wrong does not make it always wrong.

Who said they were wrong? they were not, they simply lied, well, politicians lied.

Because sometimes the US engages in propaganda doesn't mean it always engages in propaganda.

Just because US sometimes does not engage in propaganda does not mean it never engages in propaganda.

We have a free and independent press which is far more than can be said of Russia.

You do, don't always use it though.

Furthermore, this isn't US intelligence but rather NATO intelligence which is much more than just the US.

LOL

These events concern Europe far more than they concern the US. Europe has the biggest stake in what is going on. Where is your evidence? Your arguments are not rational.

My evidence of what?
My arguments are not rational because.....?

 

[barbos]

Rebuilding the Obama-Putin Trust

In the major U.S. media, the violent coup on Feb. 22 – spearheaded by well-organized neo-Nazi militias who killed police and seized government buildings – was whitewashed from what the American people got to see and hear. In the preferred U.S. narrative, Yanukovych and his officials simply decided to leave town because of the moral force from the white-hatted peaceful protesters in the Maidan.

So it came as a welcome surprise when an Establishment notable like George Friedman, during a Dec. 19 interview with the Russian magazine Kommersant, described the February overthrow of the Ukrainian government as “the most blatant coup in history.” Friedman is head of STRATFOR, a think tank often described as a “shadow CIA.”

However, in the mainstream U.S. media’s narrative – as well as others like the BBC where I have had personal experience with the ticklish issue of Ukraine – the story of the Ukraine crisis starts with the annexation of Crimea, which is sometimes termed a Russian “invasion” although Russian troops were already stationed inside Crimea at the Russian naval base at Sevastopol. In the MSM, there is “just not enough time, regrettably” to mention NATO’s eastward expansion or even the coup in Kiev.

The other favored part of the MSM’s narrative is that Putin instigated the Ukraine crisis because he was eager to seize back land lost in the break-up of the Soviet Union. But there is not one scintilla of evidence that the Russians would have taken back Crimea, were it not for the coup engineered by Nuland and implemented by various thugs including openly fascist groups waving banners with Nazi symbols.

I agree with CIA analyst.
People here should read the article in full.

 

[barbos]

https://www.theparliamentmagazine.e...gration-ʹsmashedʹ-iceland-application-rethink

Iceland rethinks joining EU. Release the Nuland!

 

[Clivedurdle]

Iceland is already a member the European economic area (EEA), the Schengen area, European free trade association (EFTA) and is a partner in the EU's northern dimension policy, which promotes cooperation in northern Europe.

Iceland participates in the single market and two thirds of Iceland's foreign trade is with EU member states. It is also a participant in a number of EU programmes and agencies, but holds no voting rights.

From link above. I cannot quite see the point of fulfilling all the duties of membership without actually being a member!

 

[Clivedurdle]

I think there is a critical religious element to all of this that needs understanding, for example that Kiev was an Orthodox capital.

Was King Harold Orthodox?

If Edward the Confessor was Orthodox, as we have just argued, then it is difficult to deny the same to his successor. And the fact that he was formally anathematized by Pope Alexander II, who blessed William's invasion of England, only speaks in the English king's favour insofar as Alexander was certainly a heretic and an enemy of the truth. Also in his favour - although only indirectly - is the fact that his daughter Gytha fled, not to Rome, but to Orthodox Kiev, where she married the right-believing Great Prince Vladimir Monomakh, thereby uniting the blood of the Orthodox autocrats of England and Russia. Nor did most of his followers who refused to accept the new political and ecclesiastical order in England flee to any western country, but to - Constantinople, where they entered the bodyguard of the emperor and were allowed to erect their own English Orthodox basilica.

http://saintbasilchurch.org/6.html

So 1066 and all that is directly enmeshed in this issue!

 

[barbos]

I think there is a critical religious element to all of this that needs understanding, for example that Kiev was an Orthodox capital.

Was King Harold Orthodox?

If Edward the Confessor was Orthodox, as we have just argued, then it is difficult to deny the same to his successor. And the fact that he was formally anathematized by Pope Alexander II, who blessed William's invasion of England, only speaks in the English king's favour insofar as Alexander was certainly a heretic and an enemy of the truth. Also in his favour - although only indirectly - is the fact that his daughter Gytha fled, not to Rome, but to Orthodox Kiev, where she married the right-believing Great Prince Vladimir Monomakh, thereby uniting the blood of the Orthodox autocrats of England and Russia. Nor did most of his followers who refused to accept the new political and ecclesiastical order in England flee to any western country, but to - Constantinople, where they entered the bodyguard of the emperor and were allowed to erect their own English Orthodox basilica.

http://saintbasilchurch.org/6.html

So 1066 and all that is directly enmeshed in this issue!

Yes, catholic church wants to finish what they started in 1066

 

[Axulus]

Rebuilding the Obama-Putin Trust

I agree with CIA analyst.
People here should read the article in full.

Why do you agree with the CIA analyst? You have spouted lots of opinions but have not provided supporting reasons and evidence from credible sources to back them up, which is why I accused you of not being rational.

 

[Jayjay]

Of course Russia denies everything. But I didn't see any actual evidence in the article that would prove that the images were fake. The same as with the images from last year about troops on the border: just because Russia denies something, doesn't make it fake. And OSCE does not see everything... Russian army knows where OSCE is at any time, so it's trivial for it to avoid being seen.

You forget US invaded Iraq based on images and intelligence sources too.
Remember how it all went?
These images are not supposed to be viewed by public. They don't mean anything if you don't trust the source.
They are propaganda tool, nothing more.
Russian propaganda use fake pictures too, the difference is, these are very low level TV people with a known history of alcoholism, not government officials.

Wrong. First even if officials might shy away from the most obvious fakes, the TV stations that air these claims are still owned by the state. If the government didn't want "people with known history of alcoholism" (doesn't that just describe Russians in general?) that spout crazy conspiracy theories to get air time, they would not get air time.

Second, government officials in Russia do make these type of false claims. Consider this press conference where army spokespeople presented evidence including alleged flight data (that was not delivered to the Dutch investigators for some rason), discredited photos from bloggers, and satellite photos with colorful explanations.

 

[Jayjay]

Of course Russia denies everything. But I didn't see any actual evidence in the article that would prove that the images were fake.

Shouldn't you have to prove they are real? The problem is after it was shown that the USA lied about Iraq and lied about Syria they no longer have any credibility. the US government openly and deliberately lied about the Sarin gas in Syria

How did the US lie about sarin gas in Syria? If you are thinking of Seymour Hersh's story, that's been debunked.

As for Iraq, yes the famous Colin Powell power point presentation was clearly misleading. Bu tyou gotta keep in mind that the satellite photos in there were real, it was just the explanation that stretched credibility. "This building here is a chemical weapons factory". "These trucks here are mobile laboratories". You are right, US did make that shit up. But a sensible person can distinguish interpretation from the facts presented. These release of satellite photos is basically the same type of information... on one hand you have satellite imagery that shows something and then you have an explanation by NATO that "this here is a Russian convoy".

The question as to whether we shoudl trust it is twofold: on one hand, are the satellite images themselves real, and if so, is the interpretation of what we see there reasonable? To the first question, I think the answer is that yes we should trust the pictures to be real and take them at face value. NATO is putting its reputation on the line, there are hundreds of independent analysts that can detect mistakes and discrepancies if there are any, plus because the satellites are privately owned, if the pictures were fakes there would be original pictures somewhere out there that are just waiting to resurface on wikileaks or similar. If NATO was going to publish fake pictures, they might as well have photoshopped them from Google maps.

As for the second question, whether the interpretation is reasonable, you tell me. I can see there are vehicles there that could be a military convoy. If it's not, then what are we looking at? The Russians could easily have debunked it by just presenting a more plausible alternative. The fac that they did not, and instead resorted to "addressing these claims is beneath us" dodge (which itself is addressing them so I guess it was not beneath them after all!) gives credence to the idea that the NATO explanation probably is more or less accurate.

The same as with the images from last year about troops on the border: just because Russia denies something, doesn't make it fake

The images were apparently from 2013,. But again if you want to claim they are real it's up to you to verify them..
These things appear in the western press...are never really verified then vanish...A liar is gonna lie..I'd say

Fact: there are satellite photos of Russian troops near Ukrainian border. USa says they are from 2014, Russia says they are frm 2013. If USA is lying, they would expose themselves to being caught redhanded if Russia were to produce hard evidence that the pictures are in fact from 2013. But if Russia is lying, there is no way to prove them wrong, and they know it. So which one of the known liars is more likely to lie again, the one risking everything or the one risking nothing by lying?

You are right, a liar is going to lie, which is exactly why Russian denials aren't evidence.

 

[barbos]

I agree with CIA analyst.
People here should read the article in full.

Why do you agree with the CIA analyst? You have spouted lots of opinions but have not provided supporting reasons and evidence from credible sources to back them up, which is why I accused you of not being rational.

I have provided supporting evidence and reasons.
You just call me irrational.

 

[barbos]

You forget US invaded Iraq based on images and intelligence sources too.
Remember how it all went?
These images are not supposed to be viewed by public. They don't mean anything if you don't trust the source.
They are propaganda tool, nothing more.
Russian propaganda use fake pictures too, the difference is, these are very low level TV people with a known history of alcoholism, not government officials.

Wrong. First even if officials might shy away from the most obvious fakes, the TV stations that air these claims are still owned by the state. If the government didn't want "people with known history of alcoholism" (doesn't that just describe Russians in general?) that spout crazy conspiracy theories to get air time, they would not get air time.

Second, government officials in Russia do make these type of false claims. Consider this press conference where army spokespeople presented evidence including alleged flight data (that was not delivered to the Dutch investigators for some rason), discredited photos from bloggers, and satellite photos with colorful explanations.

Are you deflecting?
Both sides used fake data from the internet (US did that more), these can be qualified as mistakes.
But only US/NATO knowingly lied presenting the evidence. Iraq files were bunch of lies and so are outdated satellite photos of russian forces near Ukraine border.
That could not have been a mistake.