Russia pulls plug on 'last independent TV show'

a reply to: Xcathdra

Russia has learned about what has happened to Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Irak, Libia, Ukraine, Egypte, Syria, etc.
To protect Russia ( and the people ) Putin takes measures so destabilizing by media gets less change ( it`s a defending measure ). In most of these countries the situation is now way worse than it was before. You`re trying to make it look like an act of aggression towards the common Russian man, but you turn the situation around, from protecting to aggression.

Are you not able to see the other side, or are you prejudice towards Putin for whatever reason and take this defensive measure as a way to try to change public opinion about Putin ?

Maybe this a a good piece for you to read about why Eastern-Europe ( and Russia ) and Central-Asia is really important to US :

“Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland: Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island: who commands the World-Island commands the world.”

www.globalresearch.ca... the-great-game-and-world-war-iii

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

You are not understanding the issue.

Putin controlling all Russian media has nothing to do with how western media reports on something. You do not take control off all Russian media in an effort to stop "western media" and its reporting.

The only reason to control all Russian media is to control what they report on and how its reported. It has absolutely nothing to do with Western media.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It has to do with the West using media to destabilize a country, and Putin is trying to prevent that to some degree to protect the Russian people.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

It has to do with the West using media to destabilize a country, and Putin is trying to prevent that to some degree to protect the Russian people.

Are the Russian people truly so gullible that they can be manipulated by the Western media? Is Russian society so fragile that it could fall apart from a few TV spots? How unstable do you think Russia is that Putin is so frightened for it?

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: Xcathdra

It has to do with the West using media to destabilize a country, and Putin is trying to prevent that to some degree to protect the Russian people.

Again no it does not... Russian media has nothing to do with western media. Putin controlling all Russian media does what to western media?

You are completely missing the point.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: Xcathdra

It has to do with the West using media to destabilize a country, and Putin is trying to prevent that to some degree to protect the Russian people.

Again no it does not... Russian media has nothing to do with western media. Putin controlling all Russian media does what to western media?

You are completely missing the point.

I`m not talking about western media, I`m talking about Russian media being used to destabilize ( the majority of Russians only watch/read Russian news ).

The second question of my first post was merely a question about, if western media was more objective, maybe Putin didn`t had to resort this kind of measures, now he`s basically forced.

Over here in the Netherlands people are revolting big time online about the one-sided news they get about the MH17 tragedy and the anti-Russia propaganda which has been going on for 2 1/2 weeks now. Now they are even trying to portray the people ( and there are lots, the vast majority ) who are not believing the "official" story about what happened as Kremlin-trolls or tinfoil-hatters, yeah it`s getting really ridicules...

I`m still wondering if you can look at it from the other side ( a protecting measure for the ordinary Russians ) or only as an aggressive measure against the ordinary Russians ?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

It has to do with the West using media to destabilize a country, and Putin is trying to prevent that to some degree to protect the Russian people.

Are the Russian people truly so gullible that they can be manipulated by the Western media? Is Russian society so fragile that it could fall apart from a few TV spots? How unstable do you think Russia is that Putin is so frightened for it?

I have no idea, not being form Russia, how the situation exactly is over there.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Which still makes absolutely no sense. If Russian media was reporting the Russian position, and western media was reporting the western position, why does Putin need to control all Russian media?

Respectfully, your initial response and your current response still do not explain the reason. There is no reason to control Russian media to counter western media reports. Even your latest attempt, discussing Europeans not being happy on getting one side of the story, makes absolutely no sense.

Nothing you have offered up explains why Putin has absolute control over Russian media.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Maybe because not all Russia media was showing the Russian position ?

The reason was stated with :

"Russia has learned about what has happened to Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Irak, Libia, Ukraine, Egypte, Syria, etc.
To protect Russia ( and the people ) Putin takes measures so destabilizing by media gets less change ( it`s a defending measure )."

And stating "Europeans not being happy on getting one side of the story" makes perfect sense about the proof that MSM is in a anti-Russia propaganda mode a.t.m. in the opinion of the average Dutch (we lost 195 people to this tragedy).

originally posted by: Xcathdra

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.

BECAUSE Russian media is vulnerable to be used as a western style propaganda machine within Russia's own territory, like the propaganda machine in the united states, ie a two party "democracy" split. Perfect way to destabilise a sovereign nation and allow NWO to plant itself in this geopolitical region.
Something Putin and all upstanding russians categorically oppose.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Could it be possible Russia has been lying about their position which is why Russian media was not broadcasting it?

It is still not a reason to secure all media.

a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

See above.

There is absolutely no justification for the Russian government to seize all Russian media.

a reply to: Xcathdra

If Russia, out of the blue annexed Ukraine, intent on some sort of expansion plan there would be no dissent here. That is not how the drama unfolded. The whole expansion thing comes directly from the USA. They have embraced the dubious art of commiting the crime and blaming the enemy. The press freedom in Russia is appalling...no one can dispute that but in the face of media demonization from the West it seems that he will have no dissent from within.

When a country is at war the press all sing the same song, the government mantra. They do not have a choice in the matter. Putin is in, amongst other things, a war against the Western media the last thing he needs at this time is undermining from within. It may also give him a good excuse for doing so.

Anyway...I keep asking the question and no one answers. Who is pushing for sanctions? If it is the USA then I ask when were they sanctioned for the crimes they have commited. Crimes that make the annexation of Crimea look like a nice day out.


Edit to add...

You did reply...I forgot...no one sanctions America. You said because they are self sufficient and sanctions would be useless. I should have said...has anyone called for sanctions? If not why not?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

It has to do with the West using media to destabilize a country, and Putin is trying to prevent that to some degree to protect the Russian people.

Are the Russian people truly so gullible that they can be manipulated by the Western media? Is Russian society so fragile that it could fall apart from a few TV spots? How unstable do you think Russia is that Putin is so frightened for it?

This is a reply to both you and Xcathdra, since you are both more or less fronting the same question.

There is an answer to that, and the answer is yes, Russia really is that fragile. It has one lowest population densities in the world with only 8 people per square kilometre that makes it geopolitically vulnerable in today's world.
In previous centuries less so because industrialisation didn't occur until much later in Russia compared to the rest of the western world (western europe, USA etc).

Communication was so difficult in the days of the tsar it would takes weeks to get messages delivered from one part of the country to another. Russia is not as historically connected to itself as other parts of the western world, especially the united states. However that is changing, but slowly, and western interference is likely causing disharmony. I'm not saying Russian citizens should not hear a fair balance of news I'm saying they deserve to not be interfered with by outside influences form across the globe, trying to destabilise the sovereign territory of the Russian Federation with anti government propaganda campaigns. In low population density areas, rumours spread more easily and are harder to put out like wild fire. For this reason I have a lot of sympathy for Putin and his way of combating this assault on the integrity of the Russian Federation.

You can't say someone is a killer without presenting any proof. Just because he made some rank during cold war, does it mean he killed people? And if so, I want to see names of those who he had killed. You can't just toss something like this into a thread, and act like nothing happened. Saying someone is a killer is a serious statement that needs to be back up with official documents. Not who KGB killed. But Putin himself.

a reply to: Nikola014

That is such a laughable statement. Do you think that he made cookies in the KGB??? Proof of who he killed not likely unless we can see the KGB files, but his membership and rank damn him. You don't get that far up the food chain without getting blood on your hands.

As for the OP, are we really that surprised? The fall of the Soviet Union was really just a time of hibernation. The bear is awake and hungry. Keeping the Russian media in the hands of his allies so they run only what the state approves is brilliant. It blurs the lines enough for people on the outside to bicker over semantics.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Could it be possible Russia has been lying about their position which is why Russian media was not broadcasting it?

It is still not a reason to secure all media.

I have no idea about which Russian position in which situation you`re referring to, please be a bit more detailed, so I know what to answer to ?

About being a reason to secure all media, I think the Russians and a lot of other people disagree with you.

originally posted by: hangedman13

You can't say someone is a killer without presenting any proof. Just because he made some rank during cold war, does it mean he killed people? And if so, I want to see names of those who he had killed. You can't just toss something like this into a thread, and act like nothing happened. Saying someone is a killer is a serious statement that needs to be back up with official documents. Not who KGB killed. But Putin himself.

a reply to: Nikola014

That is such a laughable statement. Do you think that he made cookies in the KGB??? Proof of who he killed not likely unless we can see the KGB files, but his membership and rank damn him. You don't get that far up the food chain without getting blood on your hands.

As for the OP, are we really that surprised? The fall of the Soviet Union was really just a time of hibernation. The bear is awake and hungry. Keeping the Russian media in the hands of his allies so they run only what the state approves is brilliant. It blurs the lines enough for people on the outside to bicker over semantics.

Completely unsubstantiatedl. Show me one shred of evidence that proves Vladimir Putin is as much of a sociopath as you portray him to be.

a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

Completely unsubstantiatedl. Show me one shred of evidence that proves Vladimir Putin is as much of a sociopath as you portray him to be.

At the risk of further thread drift, please look into the events of 23-26 October, 2002. Putin ordered special forces to use nerve gas against terrorists holding captives in a Moscow theatre. 129 innocent hostages were killed by that action. (Note the similarity to the events in Odessa, BTW.) In addition, there were series of terrorist attacks in Moscow for which no group claimed responsibility. It has been suggested that Putin organize the attacks himself in order to persuade the Duma to grant him stronger police powers.

In addition, his penchant for dressing up and having himself photographed in sometimes bizarre situations strikes many in "the West" as being suggestive of a personality disorder.

To return more narrowly to the topic, allowing the press in Russia to question both his anti-terror "strategies" and his personal behavior would seriously undermine his grip on power.

a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

Thank you for your refreshing honesty. I do not think Russia is as fragile as you think it is. West of the Urals, it is a highly functioning and cohesive European state. Its Far East is also very stable. Its vast Central and Northern Asian landmass, however may well be feeling the pull of Iran and China, ostensibly Russia's "allies." What is fragile is Putin's carefully cultivated narod, a vision of Russian culture more akin to that of a misty eyed Nineteenth Century Romantic Nationalist than a modern statesman in an era of globalization. Putin fears " Western" ideas, despite the fact that historically, Russia has always fared better when it turned its eyes westward, rather than inward.

a reply to: DJW001

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.