to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
Simon:
Are the majority of the populations Iranian?
Let's assume not, though in terms of international law I don't think this is the kind of thing that should give you the right to stage an invasion/occupation of little green men/whatever we call it.
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
The West can bomb terrorists in Iraq; Russia can bomb terrorists in Syria.
Can Russia also bomb hospitals? That's what they are doing.
The ones that refuse to accept the Syrian regime can be wiped out along with the various terrorist groups.
Great plan. Putin approves. Bombs and mass graves. Chechnya v. 2.0.
Then in the future Russia and allies can look into a softening of the Syrian regime or some kind of transition to secular democracy.
Now you are saying "allies", that is presumably by giving Putin Crimea and assume this will lead to a stable alliance; no past experience suggest this will be the case as the current situation has grown out of exactly seeking a stable alliance with Putin (you recall the various talks between NATO and Russia 2004-2014?).
Can you explain what interest Putin or Assad should have in a secular democracy in Syria? He is currently well under way to destroy the democratic institutions in Russia and is working on undermining two democratic government in two European countries; in addition to this we had invasions of two European countries in 7 years and ongoing attacks against infrastructure.
Let me ask like this: Suppose Iran attacked two European countries in 7 years, as in actual attacks where tanks roll in and land is taken. Would your response be: Let's work with Iran?
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
Simon: I don't quite see the contradiction. My understanding is this:
I don't see the contradiction. nobody on the left I know of claims the refugee crisis is good... if this is a widely held view I would like to see links.
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
I accept Putin is at fault. What I actually said was the EU must share some blame, due to lax borders and mass immigration policies (cf. Merkel's Germany).
1) The person who creates a problem is at fault, not the person who poorly mitigates the problem
2) Germany determines it's immigration policy. That's why it is "Germany's" immigration policy.
3) why the heck does every discussion about Putin converge to a discussion about Sweedish internal politics?!
The guy in the tent (EU) has opened the tent's door and invited Putin in - "piss where you like ..."
that makes no sense at all. EU did not create the refugee problem, EU (and in particular, the European countries who has a very, very high degree of autonomy in handling their immigration policy) tries to handle the stream of refugees created by the disaster in Syria, a disaster Putin is contributing to.
Once again let's return to your original statement: How do you propose, concretely, that the western world "works" with Putin in Syria?
I have seen this line pushed by pro-kremlin news outlets many times and it never comes with any real context. If you are not simply repeating the line I would like to know what that corporation should consist of? Russia, insofar as I can see, can easily continue to drop gravity-guided planes on Aleppos civilians without western help?
I just can't see this kind of faux tough talk and the policies that result from it dissuading Putin from his future plans.
Perhaps not, but many analysts who understand the situation better than either of us can. Russia has for the past 70 years been testing the west and always required pushback and clear limits; this is not my view but the view of American IC experts with experience with Russian diplomacy: "they push you until you push back".
This approach worked during the cold war when Russia was a military force to be reckoned with. Today Russian military is a strong regional force but it is a shadow of its former self, even Georgia wasn't a completely smooth ride.
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
Someone else is also pushing the "mainstream media is fake news" angle:
http://www.mid.ru/en/nedostovernie-publikacii
Remember kids, in the 4D model of Russian propaganda the first D is for "Dismiss".
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
yes, the knock-on effect of Putin teaming up with Assad is a stream refugees to the EU and possible destabilisation and future acts of terrorism in EU countries. Up till now, I'm sure Vlad doesn't mind this.
Okay so it seems like we agree that Putin is actively trying to undermine the stability of the European countries by making an existing humanitarian crisis worse. Correct me if I am wrong, but that sounds like Putin is not the good guy, and any claim we can "work with Putin" must very carefully take into account his goals is to f#ck with Europe and the western world.
But I find it interesting that you've chosen to blame Putin without mentioning the EU's lax borders and mass immigration policies. The EU itself must also share some blame.
Well, how much have you read about EU control of external borders?
Individual EU countries (for obvious reasons) maintain the responsibility to control external borders. This control is being supplemented by the EU to create a cohesive policy through various initiatives, for instance, Frontex. In the face of the immigrant crisis, moves are being made to strengthen the external EU border by training, buying new equipment, new policies etc. The problem is that when you want to e.g. create an EU coastguard, various crackpots immediately believe a coastguard is a navy is an eu army and OMG nazi germany, presumably because they can't read or get their news from RT today.
Sargon of Akkad made this argument many times and you may recall we had discussions along those lines some months ago. This means that strengthening external EU borders is unnecessarily difficult through various initiatives are being put into place. Note these initiatives has to take international law into consideration; it isn't as simple as just building a wall across eastern Europe.
But this is a red herring: if we agree Putin is making this problem worse, and have no reason to solve it, you can't turn around and blame the EU. It makes no sense.
Why can't the EU seriously tighten its borders/immigration policy and work with Putin, and Putin continue to work with Assad?
But what does this "work with Putin" actually mean, concretely?
"work with Putin" is a soundbite straight out of the Kremlin Trollfarms. I can't understand what the actual content of it should be since we appear to agree Putin has NO interests in actually solving any of the EUs problems with the current refugee crisis; from his perspective, it is great news!
To borrow your analogy. Putin is the guy pissing in the European tent, because that's what he loves to do. You are blaming the EU, a person in the tent, for not cleaning the tent quickly enough and at the same time saying we should "work with Putin" while failing to acknowledge that his goal is to piss more in the tent.
Here is an alternative option: You tell the guy who is pissing in the tent to GTFO or else.
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
good video littlerockguy. Should the tinfoil go on the head or over the windows?
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
Make CLEAR AND CREDIBLE threats - such as?
The usual, article 5 is in place and non-negotiable, as long as cyberattacks continue sanctions remain in place, infowarfare means expulsion of diplomats and agents, when Russia breaks a missile treaty which they just did forward deploy more nuclear weapons, no-fly zones in Syria, etc. etc.
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
LUHE: Since you haven't read about Putin your claim that Russia today vs. Cold war is different in relevant ways insofar policy is concerned is a bit hollow. If you have relevant literature on the subject I would like to see it, but quite frankly I find this "you read A, now I say B, try to disprove me" is a bit tedious.
Would they have stopped Putin from annexing Crimea, had they been in place?
If you have an iPhone, you can ask Siri.
This is a complex question but irrelevant: What matters is which policy will discourage the current behavior from the Putin regime. One where his behavior has clear, tangible consequences or one where he gets a slap on the hand and sanctions are then lifted.
You argued that what the US should do with Russia is lift sanctions and pursue common goals in Syria. This is something I have only seen warnings about and which I don't understand what means since Russias goal in Syria is an alliance with the Assad regime and further destabilization of EU. Terror in the EU by Muslims is a feature not a bug from Putins perspective, if not, you have to explain to me why a stream of refugees in EU in any way should be bad from a Russian perspective.
I think you mean when the USSR was a superpower? I think we should be careful not to conflate the Russia of today and the USSR of the 80s.
In which way are Russia and USSR relevantly different?
this you will never see on the mainstream media.
before you comment watch the whole video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqaigeqxqgi.
Qcmbr: That is a bloody awful experience. Do you know why the UK got so many Pakistanis?
littlerockguy: Instead of youtube videos, can't we try to have a serious discussion about numbers? I tried fact-checking that guy once and the experience wasn't great.
