Russia pulls plug on 'last independent TV show'

originally posted by: midicon
When did they ever suffer sanctions?

Good question - probably during the 19th century. I know the UK, while the US still employed slavery, would got to great lengths to intercept those ships, or perhaps the War of 1812....

As for the modern age - it's quite hard to sanction a UNSC permanent member effectively. We can see that in the Russian sanctions only really being from the EU and USA. One could argue that trade tariffs imposed over disagreements are a form of sanction, of which there have been quite a few between the EU and US.

EDIT: It is also hard to sanction a country that can provide everything it needs and has the technology to do so, if needed. Russia, on the other hand, is not in that position.

a reply to: midicon

When did they ever suffer sanctions?

And when was the last time the US annexed part of a sovereign nation, because that is one of the reasons for sanctions?

Now you do understand the US isn't the only country that decided to push for sanctions against RUssia.

originally posted by: midicon
Is that some kind of joke? The whole situation in the Ukraine is an international crime not Russia's actions. We know how the USA operates when it wants to institute regime change.

The USA is all powerful. Able to manipulate millions of people without them knowing. Whole protests happen not because individuals want change, but because the US dictates. This is a tired, intellectually broken, and pathetically simplistic view of how the world works.

It is very insulting to people who fight for improved rights and liberties, sometimes at great risk, to be told that they are part of a US plot and have somehow been manipulated. The world is more complex that "it's the USA" type worldview. The Ukrainians who protested in Kiev in February were not stooges of the US. They were people who wanted change.

If you don't believe me, then I suggest you travel to another country. You'll find that people do things without the US involvement.

Regards

Russia isn't a democracy, is it? The Russian government is their own country and can do what they want and it has nothing to do with America, unless of course, we talk about the coup in Ukraine where fascists, with the help of Zionist US government helped overthrow the legitimate Ukrainian government. Russia has every right to want to stop that. Now, Russia has been drug through the media mud by the very same Zionists/bankers who control much of the worlds media. Russia is probably getting rid of the moles, I would suspect.

a reply to: Fylgje

It was only a matter of time before someone brought the Zionists into the thread! The Zionists are so damned powerful and pernicious that they cannot even sort out Hamas. Take the Zionist rubbish to another thread, please.

Regards

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I am pointing to the hypocrisy of the call for sanctions from a country that ignored international law and destroyed a soveriegn nation...nothing more. It is the USA that is driving the push for sanctions and we know why. They love it...they all love it...oil companies, bankers, politicians, military...it's all good stuff. Hang on isn't that Joe Biden's son swanning down Main st?

a reply to: SLAYER69

Ria Novosti is still around. I check it about once a week.
And if you go to the posts in Moscow Times you will see that people there argue back and forth about Russian issues and it doesn't come out favorable for Russia a lot.

a reply to: midicon

Actually, the Oil companies don't love the sanctions and I doubt other firms doing business do either. BP, for example, has already issued a profits warning because of the latest round of sanctions.

a reply to: Xcathdra

What does anyone do when he gets attacked continuously ?

He or She starts to defend himself !

Russia gets attacked continuously by Western media, so it merely defends itself against this!

Is defending Yourself such a bad thing ?

And is the Western media not to blame for this with there constantly attacks on Russia ?

a reply to: paraphi

I do believe you but over the past few decades with the advent of the internet things have changed. It is the information age and we see what the USA is up to. It is the USA that insults people fighting for rights and liberties. They will hijack a legitimate cause for their own purposes.

I watched the events in Kiev unfold and the USA couldn't wait to get in although I'm sure they were already there in a fluffy sort of CIA way. I know the world is complex and people do do things without US involvement.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

No evidence?

www.ibtimes.com...

Immediately after the removal of President Viktor Yanukovych from power on Feb. 22, the Ukrainian Parliament repealed a controversial law passed in 2012 that allowed the use of "regional languages" – including Russian, Hungarian, Romanian and Tatar -- in courts and certain government functions in areas of the country where such speakers constituted at least 10 percent of the population. (In 1991, in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the newly independent state of Ukraine established Ukrainian as its sole official language.)

This wasn't a matter of banning them from speaking Russian,it was that they couldn't use it in official functions as they had been doing. Its like one day you go to DMV to renew your plates on your car,and you can only speak spanish now.

a reply to: Dimithae

To be honest, I really don't see an issue with that..

In the UK, under Labour, local councils etc were spending hundreds of thousands of pounds each on translator services for the myriad different languages in use by the UK's immigrant communities.

This has largely been stopped now as it is immensely expensive and, to be honest, people should be speaking English if they wish to live here, not expecting us to foot the bill for translators so they can claim their benefits and housing without having to talk the local language.

a reply to: midicon

I am pointing to the hypocrisy of the call for sanctions from a country that ignored international law and destroyed a soveriegn nation...nothing more. It is the USA that is driving the push for sanctions and we know why.

The reason any country pushes for sanctions is because it is alot easier to deal with, as it doesn't take as many casualties as a war does.

Sanctions can be removed...wars cannot.

a reply to: stumason

Those were good replies ...made me think and read a little.

I see the pro's and con's of US bases although I may have to read more. I am leaning towards the con's.

War is good for oil companies...they will push the price up and cover short term loss. The US has ploughed 5 billion into the Ukraine during the last decade some of this of course promoting democratic change.

You are a clever guy Stu surely you can see how this has all played out.

a reply to: stumason

To be honest, I really don't see an issue with that..

I don't either but what a time to promote such a change. Given the underlying tensions and recent events. It was always going to cause unrest...more than likely deliberately so.

Double post

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
. . . He doesn't want anti government sentiment when he's working so hard to benefit the Russia people, . . . .

Today, The president of America destroyed the Bill of Rights . . . He doesn't want anti government sentiment when he's working so hard to benefit the American people.

Sound about right?

Respectfully I will reply to you first.
Unlike Russia the United States of America is not a native territory belonging to the majority of its inhabitants, therefore its government requires extra massive defence budgets and domineering foreign policy in order to feel secure... Actually because of the US, Russia is the same...

A reply to SlAYER69

Putin is a smart man. He's working hard for to benefit the Russian people, and he's protecting them from destabilisation. He has seen the consequences and power of American foreign intervention above and below the surface in Cold war and post cold war pro western political maneuvers in his native country, as the countries president, and as a KGB officer... He has witnessed the fall of Libya into anarchy at the hands of USA foreign policy agendas / stupidity, the fall of Iraq, Syria, and now Ukraine, and he knows its consequences. So he doesnt want to allow the same thing to happen in Russia, and if you think they won't try you're very mistaken.

He's no idiot, and for the time being he is bolstering state securities because he knows there are operatives in his state sponsored by foreign powers to spread lies rumours alegations gossip and defamations against the russian government to create hostility and distrust in the will of his people toward the governemt, in order to destabilise the country leading to a possible overthrowing of the government down the road if their anti Putin propaganda works... The reason is because politically geographically the Russian federation poses a major obatacle in the formation of the NWO......... You dont know what I mean by NWO, because you probably are the NWO

Let's talk a little bit about history.

"Remoteness ensured that Russia’s government was not tempered by a European-style renaissance or a religious reformation in the early modern period. Russia was close enough to the industrial revolution to appreciate massive European developments, but sufficiently distant to question whether such change would be suitable for, or welcome in, Russia. Alexander III (1881-1894) and Nicholas II (1894-1917) allowed some limited industrial modernisation in Russia, but they attempted to create a permeable barrier along Russia’s European frontiers which could filter out the damaging westernising side-effects of these changes. Failure to achieve this contributed to the decline of the tsars’ power and the spread of revolutionary activity.
Russia’s geography and climate hindered her development through the nineteenth century, at a time when the rest of Europe was modernising. The country was unlikely to experience a European-style agrarian revolution, and thus it would have been almost impossible for Russia to undergo a spontaneous industrial revolution. Agriculture was too precarious.
Perversely, the regions worst suited to agriculture receive the highest levels of rainfall. Whereas precipitation in Western Europe is distributed evenly through the year, July and August tend to deliver around 25 per cent of annual rain in European Russia. In the 1800s, in the south and west, Russia’s most productive soil regions, rainfall patterns (droughts in early summer and/or downpours around harvest time) conspired to ruin one harvest in three.
Even when the harvest was good, yields were poor compared with the rest of Europe. By the nineteenth century, Russian yields (the number of grains harvested for every one sown) had barely increased since the Middle Ages, while average Western European yields had increased by four and a half times. A major reason for this was that farmers simply did not attempt to improve production. Communications were so poor that any potential market in a city was too far away for individual farmers to supply. Farming was so difficult that many Russians viewed it as something to escape from.
Even after the 1861 Emancipation, Russia’s peasant farmers felt no inclination to seek better results. The peasant’s commune or mir (the word also means ‘universe’) taught him all he needed to work his land. His only other source of knowledge (peasants were usually illiterate) was the Church, which, stultified with superstitious beliefs about the natural world, ensured that any wisdom about improving agricultural practices would have been rejected or ignored. Added to this, the unpredictability of weather patterns and the lack of a financial incentive meant that Russia’s farmers did not spend time, money or effort trying to increase production.
Russia’s short growing season (six months on the steppe, compared with around nine months in Western Europe) means that agricultural activity must be an extremely intensive burst of work in the warmer months which might, or might not, pay off at harvest time.
Fertilising the soil could have improved peasants’ yields significantly. However, long snowy winters and frequent food shortages made it difficult to keep livestock healthy. A lack of manure, and slow decomposition in Russia’s cold climate, meant that land recovered very slowly. The simplest way to find fertile soil was to look for virgin land. The total area being farmed increased from 197 to 317 million acres between 1809 and 1887, with new farms developing in the north and east. Here the land was less fertile and larger farms were needed to produce the same unreliable results. The population was increasing significantly (from 45.6 million in 1800 to 125 million by 1901, for example), and this, combined with ‘land hunger’, created mass dissatisfaction. Later tsarist policies tended to make it harder for peasants to leave their mir and, as families grew in size, many peasants found themselves farming plots which were simply too small to feed them adequately.
Without an agricultural surplus first, Russia could never have supported a ‘natural’ industrial revolution, as Britain did.
In 1891-2, a famine occurred in an area of around 900,000 square miles in the fertile areas around the River Volga. It affected between 14 and 20 million people, and killed an estimated 400,000. Though many of these casualties occurred as a result of disease, a study of this famine (and of many others in Russian history) leads the historian to an inescapable conclusion. Any study of the geography and climate of Russia through its recent incarnations reminds Western students of a kind of distress which they will probably never experience. It is important to realise and to remember that, because of natural geography and climate, Russia’s people have struggled to feed themselves adequately. This kind of perpetual, fundamental concern for such a large proportion of the country’s population is perhaps one explanation why Russia’s rulers have found it relatively easy to exert such strict control over their people."
www.historytoday.com...

originally posted by: SurrenderingAmerica
a reply to: Cantbebothered

Why the BRICS should have their own development bank

The New Development Bank would help meet the developing world’s tremendous infrastructure needs, and potentially free up other international financial institutions to better serve lesser developed nations.

Leaders of the five emerging economies known by the acronym BRICS recently moved to deepen their role in the global financial system by agreeing to base a new development bank in Shanghai. The New Development Bank, as it’s called, is designed to provide Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa an alternative way to finance new roads, bridges and other infrastructure projects.

The NDB has been given $50 billion in initial capital, with each of the five countries contribution $10 billion. Although final approval by the BRICS nations could be months if not years away, the idea of a new bank that could potentially be bigger than the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund has unnerved critics.

Holy crap i've never saw Putin smile like that, he always seems to have that look on his face like he's hearing voices telling him to kill them all. Nice to see the guy smiling though, good for him.

a reply to: GreyGoo

To make your day :

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: Xcathdra

What does anyone do when he gets attacked continuously ?

He or She starts to defend himself !

Russia gets attacked continuously by Western media, so it merely defends itself against this!

Is defending Yourself such a bad thing ?

And is the Western media not to blame for this with there constantly attacks on Russia ?

The flaw in your argument is the fact the Kremlin / Putin have taken control of RUSSIAN media, not Western media. If what you say is true, and its not, then why would Putin need to control Russian media?

Take some time, think about your response, and come back and join. Again, RUSSIAN media was placed under kremlin control. RUSSIAN MEDIA, not western media, RUSSIAN MEDIA.