It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Yeah, im skeptical about that. There is too little context behind your statements and it isn't good enough.
Russia fares better when it isn't interfered with or provoked by outside forces, isn't slandered, sanctioned spied on looted and robbed of it's integrity.
Llooking westward doesn't have to mean abandoning traditional Russian sentiments.
Those very sentiments are what makes Russia so strong, what gives Russians their communal bond.
There is nothing to support your claim that Russia is a weaker nation when it looks inward.
The country is vastly underdeveloped, meanwhile its billionairres and oligarks who profited from mass looting after the fall of the Soviet Union own the finest real estate in cities all over the world and live luxurious lifestyles without a care in the world for the interests of their homeland.
As for Putins character, you do a good job of making him look like an evil paranoid dictator, but i don't buy it. I will look into the incidents you have mentioned but until i learn more about them I reserve judgement.
And Crimea isn't considered an expansion of/for Russia?
What do you suggest Russia should have done...let the USA create another Syria on its doorstep.
originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: Xcathdra
Timely thread OP. For all those poster out in ATS land who support Russia ask yourself why would they do this. Russia is a Oligarchy run by men who could care less about freedom or the people. Citizens of Russia are nothing more the pawns being used to further this Oligarchy.
And before you come back with the good old so is the US argument........The US is run by and Oligarchy that could care less about the people. And the mainstream media in the US is government controlled.
So where is the proof it is against the common man, I fail to spot how trying to keep a country stable is such a bad thing...?
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: BornAgainAlien
So where is the proof it is against the common man, I fail to spot how trying to keep a country stable is such a bad thing...?
So... you have no problems with Hitler's propaganda and death camps, provided they kept Germany stable? Personally, I consider any attempt to keep a population ignorant a violation of their basic human rights.
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: midicon
What do you suggest Russia should have done...let the USA create another Syria on its doorstep.
So instead, Russia created another Syria on its own doorstep. Your belief that the US has been "funneling" money into Ukraine for nefarious purposes is due to you taking Russian propaganda at face value. Outside of Russia, it is possible to trace these distortions to their original source and place them in context. This is no longer possible in Russia, which is the actual topic of this thread.
We are talking about Russia, bringing Hitler into the equation just as if we are talking about the same thing, is just demonizing.
Since when is Victoria Nuland a Russian propagandist ?
Victoria Nuland Admits: US Has Invested $5 Billion In The Development of Ukrainian, "Democratic Institutions"
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: BornAgainAlien
Since when is Victoria Nuland a Russian propagandist ?
Victoria Nuland is not a Russian propagandist. Russian propagandists have taken a single speech she made in front of a specific audience and quoted it out of context.
Victoria Nuland Admits: US Has Invested $5 Billion In The Development of Ukrainian, "Democratic Institutions"
WRONG! Victoria Nuland boasts that the United States has invested $5 billion in genuinely developing democratic institutions in Ukraine. Not guns, missiles and goons as Russia has been doing in eastern Ukraine, but in NGOs dedicated to bettering the lot of Ukrainians.
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: BornAgainAlien
We are talking about Russia, bringing Hitler into the equation just as if we are talking about the same thing, is just demonizing.
Don't sidestep the question. You raised the point that, essentially, the end justifies the means. It is all right to deprive a population of knowledge if it helps keep a "country stable." Is stability more important than honesty? Is stability more important than basic human rights? I am not "demonizing," I am engaging in reducto ad absurdum; if keeping a country "stable" is more important than the inhabitants' basic human rights, a tyrant can justify any crime in the name of "stability." If you don't like the Hitler reference, substitute Stalin or Abdul Hamid. What, in your opinion, did they do wrong? Or does "stability" justify their actions?
If is saves lives and keeps the standard of living much better, of course it`s justified.
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: BornAgainAlien
If is saves lives and keeps the standard of living much better, of course it`s justified.
You just agreed that Hitler's program of extermination was justified. Goodbye.