RT -Russia ready to repel any nuke strike, retaliate – missile forces command chief

a reply to: johnwick

I forgot to mention that air burst nukes (Bust way above ground) do more damage to the target, but spread far less radioactive material. FEMA expects this to be the most common type of detonation since it does the most kinetic damage. Most of the material is in the plume (Mushroom cloud) that is created when it hits the ground. If a person is prepared, or living in a community with decent leadership and people that help each other (They do exist!), their chances are pretty good. Oh, and beware of rains that have passed through affected areas, these can bring the fallout right on top of you. A geiger counter is probably a good investment for those that are really concerned, so you can check your food and water supply for contamination. Like I said before, growing up in the last cold war taught me a few things. Again, you'll need guns to hunt and protect you and your families supplies with. Refugees get desprate when facing certain death, protect yourselves!

BTW, Juricho was a good TV show, too bad they cancelled it. It was based on a simliar situation, and made many references to the guide I mentioned above.

a reply to: Kapusta

please ! democratically elected ....right , just like here in the good old USA right ... a fair election ? right

Or like the people in Crimea and E. Ukraine democratically voted to become part of Russia? Please! At gun point maybe.

a reply to: JonStone

Or like the people in Crimea and E. Ukraine democratically voted to become part of Russia? Please! At gun point maybe.

E. Ukraine didn't voted to become part of Russia.

As for Crimea, despite some irregularities during the vote, can you show me figures what would be real figures of the vote ?
What is your estimate ?

originally posted by: kitzik
a reply to: JonStone

Certainly, I followed this situation from the beginning from multiple news sources and by speaking with Ukrainians via IRC. It's not hard to put 2 and 2 together to make 4.

E. Ukraine didn't voted to become part of Russia.

As for Crimea, despite some irregularities during the vote, can you show me figures what would be real figures of the vote ?
What is your estimate ?

E. Ukraine didn't, they voted for independence, and the very next day the "rebels" just happened to ask Russia to Annex the area (even though a vote wasn't held on that), but russia refused because the world was watching at the time (unlike in crimea), or it would have been a crimea repeat since all the other factors matched. Ukraine military, under the observence of the OSCE did happen to bust several Rebel vehicles coming in, with the votes having been already filled out with the same ink and the same writing. These were supposed to be new ballots, but they were really preselected votes. So if this happened there, i'm pretty sure it also happened in Crimea.

As for Crimea, I cannot show you the REAL figures of the vote because the real figures of the vote don't exist. But this was after the russian military moved in, whereby it was probably only the eastern part of crimea really had chance to know what was going on since i'm not sure Russia had enough time to make its way west for a vote there. Truth is, we really don't know. But any vote that takes place over the course of a couple days, without giving the people to think about it and look at the options, I consider a forced or uninformed vote. I find it hard to believe that such a vote would reach the high percentage that it did, that high of a mark is pretty much nonexistant in a true democracy. We can't even be certain that this type of vote is even legal under the Ukraine constitution. Recently there are also documents that indicate that this annexation was planned even before Euromaidan began. Russia wasn't protecting the Ethnic russians in Ukraine, Putin was protecting his own interests at Ukraine's expense..

Now, you admited that there were inconsistancies with the vote, which are you referring to?

a reply to: JonStone

I like your answer and pretty much agree with all you've said.
Now, compare, this answer with your short version of "at gun point may be". I'm against over simplification and btw, my estimate for Crimean "yes for Russia" would be higher, about 70-75% if the referendum had a long debate like say in Scotland.

originally posted by: kitzik
a reply to: JonStone

I like your answer and pretty much agree with all you've said.
Now, compare, this answer with your short version of "at gun point may be". I'm against over simplification and btw, my estimate for Crimean "yes for Russia" would be higher, about 70-75% if the referendum had a long debate like say in Scotland.

I'm glad we can at least find some common ground.

Possible since the population is mostly ethnic russian in that region, but i don't think the poll was done over the entire crimean region. It couldn't have been that long, I mean all this happened like in just a few days...but i'll have to review my material to confirm that and it's already pretty late here. The gunpoint remark was a figure of speech, meaning "Rush, under stress". Had crimea been very well informed, they may have thought about power and water disruptions during the transition, as well as a troubled economy to follow, but they didn't really have time to consider this before the vote, or make preparations in the event that they voted in favor. Had this been the case, the vote may have been extremly lower than your estimate, especially since nobody had time (Not even russia) to prepare for these implications, it's as if even Russia didn't have time or just didn't care about the after effects, it just wanted Crimea. So that being said, I'm still curious about the "Inconsistancies" with the vote that you mentioned.

a reply to: JonStone

I'm still curious about the "Inconsistancies" with the vote that you mentioned.

It was a figure of speech, I'm often making some reservations, when I have some doubts, yet nothing specific I had in mind.

I find short video from RT Crimean ‘referendum at gunpoint’ is a myth – intl observers
rt.com...

Another observer, Ewald Stadler, member of the European Parliament, dispelled the “referendum at gunpoint” myth, by saying he felt people were free to make their choice.

Yes, it is RT, and sure they will make everything to find only positive sides. But do you believe that all those international observers made this interview "at the gun point" too ? Are they all paid Russian shills ? I doubt this.

a reply to: kitzik

But do you believe that all those international observers made this interview "at the gun point" too ?

Well, someone is lying, because other sources say there were no international observers. Unless you count the Russian Human Rights Council, which later confirmed the entire thing was a sham.

There were also reports of pre filled ballots, Foreign Russian nationals being brought in to take part in the vote, etc. Even if we assume that this is "Western Propaganda", the initial reports of a 95% voter turnout are completely ridiculous. Nobody in their right mind could be so naive, when the Crimean Tatars comprise 12% of the population alone, and most certainly would NOT vote to become part of Russia (to say nothing of the pro Kiev Ukrainians which were living in Crimea at the time). Clearly, someone is lying, and all evidence points to Russia. They even lied about the "little green men", and then later admitted they were Russian active military personnel.

In what reality is it ok to invade a sovereign territory and then hold a referendum and declare a 95% voter turnout, only to annex said territory?

I swear, some people are living in the freaking twilight zone. But it's ATS, and Putin can do no wrong I guess.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Well, someone is lying, because other sources say there were no international observers.

Yes, someone IS lying when they say there wasn't international observers.

Contrary to the reports of 135 international observers from 23 countries, the Western media in chorus has suggested without a shred of evidence that the elections were rigged and that Crimea was under Russian military occupation.

The observer mission reports which include members of the European Parliament have been casually ignored by the mainstream Western media:

nsnbc.me...

Western Media would often try to control how the information is presented. Albeit they seldom using outright lies, more often under reporting, adding footnotes, adding remarks after several days and so on.

a reply to: kitzik

Well, it would seem there are liars on both sides (something I've been saying all along).

I do however find your source a tad dubious. This quote in particular caught my eye:

Srdja Trifkovic, prominent and observer from Serbia: “The presence of troops on the streets is virtually non-existent and the only thing resembling any such thing is the unarmed middle-aged Cossacks who are positioned outside the parliament building in Simferopol. But if you look at the people both at the voting stations and in the streets, like on Yalta’s sea front yesterday afternoon, frankly I think you would feel more tense in south Chicago or in New York’s Harlem than anywhere round here,” he said.

That is completely ridiculous. There were reporters INSIDE Crimea, clearly showing armed Russian troops (without insignias) all over the streets in Simferopol as well as in other locations within Crimea. They were even filmed outside of polling stations. This isn't a conspiracy. It's a matter of fact. Either Mr.Trifkovic is a liar, or he was/is blind. Reporters were even detained by armed Russians inside Crimea.

So I guess my only question for you is why are you so quick to discredit one side of the narrative, but believe the other as gospel?

ETA:

Just curious... Did you watch any of VICE News coverage of the situation?

a reply to: DeadSeraph

1) There were people who have fled to Crimea right after the coup, Like Her

2) A bit of history about Crimea

3) And here`s a poll from 4 February 2015

So you`re right about someone who has been lying, it was the Western media and Politicians.

a reply to: kitzik

Western Media would often try to control how the information is presented. Albeit they seldom using outright lies, more often under reporting, adding footnotes, adding remarks after several days and so on.

They do sometimes twist the truth to make nice headline, or fix it to suit their own agenda or political affiliation, especially at election time, all media does this but we're used to it and learn to read between the lines. But when it comes to news in America, we have many sources, not just mainstream but alternative sources as well thanks to the internet. But sources like RT and maybe some others (I'm not sure how many sources are in russia that are not influenced by government, but I know there aren't as many options available), are in fact telling outright lies, or painting a picture that suits their own interests. For example, we currently have a democratic president, networks that are republican based often speak against Government for this reason, this trend also works in reverse when a republican is holding the white house. But Americans are not only used to this, but are also used to articles tainted to favor one side or the other. Most Russians that I have spoke with, they all seem to have the exact same story, and quote the exact same articles from Russian media. This tells me that there are limited sources from which they can acquire news where in America we have a choice, whether it's tamed to the right, the left, the middle or some small network who works in between.

In regards to observers, from MH17 up until today, there are reports that the observers are only allowed in specific areas, and denied from many others from which they should have access according to the ceasefire agreement.

When I say this, it is not to argue, but to try to understand, that it appears that the good people of Russia (who as far as i'm concerned are not the enemy), are not provided with the same types of resources in regards to information, that much of the rest of the world has access to. Russians are good people, but just like any other country, including America, sometimes we all get bad leadership, even to the point of corruption. Before Putin, our relations were pretty good with Russia, and both our economies were doing so well that our companies often placed investments into each other's countries.

When I go to Russian media in many cases, the topic is Nuclear war (Some small american media does the same). No American wants this, and I highly doubt most Russians do not either. If America did in fact cause a coupe in Ukraine, I fail to see where it is a concern for Russia. Instead of annexing Crimea and supporting the Eastern Rebels, it could have been brought up at the UN first, where most of the US's objections take place. Sure, it may not have helped, but it would have been a good starting point as opposed to taking direct action on its own. But Russian Media looks as though it's preparing it's people for nuclear war, when very little of US media has made any mention of it at all.

It really is sad, because for the brief time that the US and Russia were working together following the cold war in the 90's, both sides were prospering. It is sad that that cooperation has been broken, and now we are facing a new cold war. I can't blame the Russian people, and I can't blame my own people. We can however, blame our own Governments. But it is difficult because while Putin claims to have 89% of Russia's support, Russia has less than 11% of the entire world's support after the invasion of Ukraine. At least 89% of the world does not believe what Putin is telling us. That has got to mean something, it certainly means a lot to Americans. We live in a global society now, and global opinion holds a lot of weight. It's not just NATO against putin's actions, it's most of the world. I try to look at it from Russia's point of view, so please try to see it from our own point of view.

Americans do not want a war, but they will fight one if they feel threatened. I assume the Russian people feel the same, but I don't have the same level of confidence in Russia's president. America has many failsafe levels to prevent our President from going too far and making a serious mistake (such as causing a war), but since I lack understanding of Russian Politics, I have no way to determine whether or not Russia has these same types of protections. I fear that Putin may have more control than our own president, with little or not failsafes to stop him. If this was the case, he may declare war, and in which case, America will have no choice to defend itself. The end result could not only be devistating for both sides, but it can be apocolypic for the entire human race.

a reply to: JonStone

This tells me that there are limited sources from which they can acquire news where in America we have a choice, whether it's tamed to the right, the left, the middle or some small network who works in between.

Why do I hear Americans say who have lived here (The Netherlands) for 2 years, that the news is totally different and that they actual have learned so much more about what goes on the World from the news here ?

In regards to observers, from MH17 up until today, there are reports that the observers are only allowed in specific areas, and denied from many others from which they should have access according to the ceasefire agreement.

We had so much more information in The Netherlands about it and the Separatists have been given every corporation they could from the beginning. We had our Politicians making apologies about trying to sell us the crap about it not being the case. Part of the crash site was on Ukrainian territory and they did everything to obstruct the investigation...stop believing the crap coming from our media.

It really is sad, because for the brief time that the US and Russia were working together following the cold war in the 90's, both sides were prospering.

You really haven`t got a clue, do you ?

a reply to: JonStone

At least 89% of the world does not believe what Putin is telling us. That has got to mean something, it certainly means a lot to Americans. We live in a global society now, and global opinion holds a lot of weight. It's not just NATO against putin's actions, it's most of the world. I try to look at it from Russia's point of view, so please try to see it from our own point of view.

Let me be clear, I don't live in Russia and don't know exactly how is life under current Putin regime. From my point, all Russian democracy ended in 1993 when Yeltsin shelled his parliament.
As for 89% of the world, where is this figure from ? I think many many people around the world distrust both USA and Russia.
And this is the problem, USA ceased to be this "beacon of freedom on the hill". 89% for USA is "forced" and this is ugly truth that is hard for you to digest.
As for freedom of press in Russia, undoubtedly there is less and less with each year under Putin, but Russians still have access to the Internet. In your place I would be concerned why Russian propaganda is somewhat succeeding, it would be hard to pull such propaganda 30-40 years ago.

a reply to: kitzik

You raise an interesting point (if I'm interpreting your comments correctly). Are you suggesting that Russian propaganda is more effective today than it was 30 or 40 years ago due to the indiscretions of western foreign policy? If that is what you are implying, I think you are right. While the Russians are masters of propaganda and were certainly effective at it 30-40 years ago, I think it's interesting that many more individuals that live in the western sphere of influence are prone to believe it these days than they were back then. This is largely due in part to a great distrust of the U.S due to it's incessant meddling in the affairs of other nations. By no means is Russia innocent of the same, but I think the world perceived the U.S as continuing in it's efforts for world hegemony despite the end of the Cold War. In that sense, many viewed the aggressive actions of U.S foreign policy as no longer being a necessary response to communist ambitions, but rather as the bullying of an authoritarian "world police".

Similarly, American foreign policy has failed greatly by very virtue of the fact it's created fertile ground for a new wave of Russian propaganda to seed itself and grow (under the direction of Putin and the Russian oligarchs). Just one more example of how the invasion of Iraq was a complete disaster. People could buy Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11 (Hell, even the Russians could relate). But they weren't ready to swallow the BS that followed.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

I must confess, for the second time today, that there are many people here that can express and further articulate my thoughts in perfect English, thank you.

originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: Rocker2013

I would be concerned with Estonia too.

No way in hell will Kremlin play the same adventure with a NATO country that it is playing in Ukraine. Russia will ignore 10 Estonias for 1 Ukraine.

I don't think this is true, for several reasons.
Firstly, Ukraine was already under the influence of Russia, it did not need to act in any other way than supporting Ukraine and remaining an ally. It still had a lease through a routine agreement on the use of Crimea, and it's involvement in Ukraine only pushed it further away from Russian influence.

Secondly, Russia would have known that this involvement in Ukraine would cost it dearly. It was immediately after th Winter Olymnpics, something that was almost completely forgotten within a couple of weeks, something the Russian government had spent billions of $'s on. All that was wasted.

Russia was also in economic partnership talks with several other former Soviet states. Putin was attempting to create an ecomonic trade and pact with numerous neighbours and had been for years, this was all destroyed because of Ukraine.

The sanctions on Russia were to be predicted. You can't just go in and steal a chunk of another country and not expect to face global sanctions. This has cost Russia billions already, and it's going to cost it even more in the coming months and years.

The destruction of dealings with the west and Europe will also cost Russia billions over the coming few years. Europe is now looking for new trading partners when it comes to gas imports. The reason we started trading with Russia to begin with was to encourage partnership and reduce the chances of war, but Russia reversed this and threw it away.

Aside from everything Russia has risked or simply lost, it's no secret that Putin has an irrational romantic notion of the former USSR.

There is far too much Russia has risked and lost just to get its hands on a country it already had so much involvement with.

originally posted by: kitzik
Let me be clear, I don't live in Russia and don't know exactly how is life under current Putin regime. From my point, all Russian democracy ended in 1993 when Yeltsin shelled his parliament.

This is what the opposition has been talking about for years in Russia. The country was initially on the path to democracy and freedom, but this all changed rather dramatically. Those thousands upon thousands of people all marching yesterday have all been talking and campaigning about this for years.

The current state of Russian media is hyper-nationalist, regularly stating that anyone even critical of Putin is a "traitor", and in order to be "patriotic" you have to agree with everything the Kremlin does.

I hate to point this out, but the LGBT community around the world predicted exactly this when the Russian state began making suggestions about what "pure Russians" were. Thousands of articles were written when their bigoted laws came in and pointed out that Putin and his government were creating a form of ultra-nationalism by claiming what "real" Russians were.

Plenty of people predicted all of this, but no one wanted to do anything about it when it was "just the gays".
Now look what's happened, all those deemed "different" or "critical" of the "traditional Russia" are attacked daily across all Russian media.

originally posted by: kitzik
As for 89% of the world, where is this figure from ? I think many many people around the world distrust both USA and Russia.
And this is the problem, USA ceased to be this "beacon of freedom on the hill". 89% for USA is "forced" and this is ugly truth that is hard for you to digest.

I agree, i's desperately hard to trust any government, especially the American government. There is no doubt that the majority of sane and sensible people are critical of both the UK and US, and plenty of others.

Still, none of this distrust or criticism of our own governments can ever change the reality that Russia has invaded another country, stolen a chunk of land, is fueling a war, poses risks to Europe and NATO members.

I will judge the US and others on their actions, and I will judge Russia on its actions. Pointing out what one country did ten years ago does nothing to excuse what another country is doing now, and this is something the pro-Russian posters can't seem to understand.

originally posted by: kitzik
As for freedom of press in Russia, undoubtedly there is less and less with each year under Putin, but Russians still have access to the Internet.

Restricted access to the Internet, with new laws in place allowing anyone critical of Putin to be arrested for writing a comment or blog post critical of the government.

Putin stole several media companies from their owners, forcing them to flee the country, then enacted a law which allows the Kremlin to charge anyone who posts anything that the Kremlin doesn't like.

originally posted by: kitzik
In your place I would be concerned why Russian propaganda is somewhat succeeding, it would be hard to pull such propaganda 30-40 years ago.

Russian propaganda is pretty much solely for those within Russia. The Kremlin knows that there are potentially a couple of million Russians reading their news on-line and not simply trusting their own, so the Kremlin seems to have created an army of propagandists determined to flood the Internet with the same propaganda they would deliver through RT and the other media sources the Kremlin now controls.

Take a look at that chat box next to RT broadcasts on YouTube and you can see the mentally deranged propaganda being directed at Russians on there. This is some of the most radical and bizarre propaganda you could ever see, on par with the nonsense North Korea spews regularly. The average forum post in English is not designed for the west, it's designed for those in Russia looking for an alternative to the media bombardment they're getting in the country.

Putin doesn't give a rats behind what the average American thinks about Russia and its involvement in Ukraine, it cares about stopping the progress of critics within Russia, drowning them out with the hyper-nationalism we've seen mushroom there in the last couple of years.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

While the Russians are masters of propaganda and were certainly effective at it 30-40 years ago

While we are talking honestly about this subject, I'm not aware of any Russian propaganda in the West 30-40 years ago.
I know for sure there was American sponsored "Radio Freedom", which was openly stating every hour "This is radio freedom financed by the USA Congress" lol. Russians tried to silence those broadcasts, but I never heard that Russia had anything similar to RT in the Soviet time.
My point was rather, that even if they tried to have "Soviet Union Today" it wouldn't be popular

a reply to: Rocker2013

Take a look at that chat box next to RT broadcasts on YouTube and you can see the mentally deranged propaganda being directed at Russians on there. This is some of the most radical and bizarre propaganda you could ever see, on par with the nonsense North Korea spews regularly. The average forum post in English is not designed for the west, it's designed for those in Russia looking for an alternative to the media bombardment they're getting in the country.

I'm not reading RT comments section, it is full of antisemites from all around the globe lol

The average post in English is just this "average post in English", most of them coming not from Russians and certainly not for Russians.
Ok, I might be wrong, but if I understood you well, you are implying, that all or most of RT comments designed for Russian audience because Russians seek truth and they turn to RT ? Well, it is laughable, Russians if they can read and understand English can seek information in other corners of Internet. What is going in RT is primarily for Western audience and it indeed full of freaks from all parts of the world, some of them Russians, but you are too conspiratorial to think that RT is orchestrated by FSB to the last freakish comment there lol