The internal story of Russia right now must be a pretty interesting one.
The guy who does Caspian Report did a story a couple days ago arguing that Putin's recent aggression, both internally and externally, is a sort of corner he'd backed himself into that he can't get out of to the detriment of the country.
Really? Russia is now having a military base in Iran and Turkey will likely leave NATO and cooperate with Russia. Israel is also no friend of the Obama administration to put it mildly.
Oh and we here in the EU are also very happy with the current Western elite (which hopefully will soon be destroyed by a Trump administration) sending us millions of illiterate Arab men.
Maybe Obama will negotiate with ISIS to open a military base in the Caliphate. Everything seems possible with liberal progressives at this point.
I've already seen feminists claiming that Sharia law is very feminist, so it seems they are getting accustomed to the idea.
For multiple reasons that all weaken Israels position in the region.
1) Removed Libyan dictator Gaddafi who played ball with Western powers and kept illegal migration to the EU at bay. Replaced with ISIS style radicals.
2) Supported removal of Egypt dictator Mubarak who was definitely an ally of the West and Israel. Replaced by Muslim Brotherhood fanatics who are enemies of Israel and the West. When the Egyptian military removed them from power Obama tried to intervene on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood.
3) Strengthened Irans position in the world by lifting sanctions. If they want nuclear weapons this would be the time. I'm not saying that I would have supported the coup against Mosaddegh or that I would have supported Iraq on invading Iran. But I would make it very hard for a government run by religious fanatics to acquire nuclear weapons.
4) Syria is an enemy of Israel, but they sure as hell do not want fanatics like ISIS roaming free in the region.
5) Wester main stream media is today very critical of Israel, more so in the EU than in the US. Products from Israel must now be labelled in some EU countries to make it easier for consumers to boycott trade. Some EU countries are even discussing sanctions against Israel. But trade with Saudi Arabia is fine.
Assuming this is your GitHub profile, https://github.com/sannysanoff, it looks like you live in Kharkov, a city that Russia is actively trying to control[1]. I was wondering how you feel about that.
No proof as usual. Let's just make Russia our enemy because they don't want to put men in women's restrooms and other similar issues that progressives can't accept.
But being friends with Saudi Arabia and radical Islamist groups that want to cut off infidel heads is no problem.
The article that I'd really like to see: "More of Clinton's Opponents Are Ending Up Dead"
Yup. It's far more interesting that the guy Assange hinted was behind the DNC leaks was murdered. And that a notable anti-Clinton author wound up dead recently too.
But Russia's evil, so forget everything that's going on at home.
Even worse than the fact this article brings up mostly old shit is the fact that it's not even particularly interesting. Just more of the same.
> Other countries, notably Israel and the United States, pursue targeted killings, but in a strict counterterrorism context.
So all those attempts at eliminating Fidel Castro and Muammar Gaddafi were in a "strict counterterrorism context"?
> No other major power employs murder as systematically and ruthlessly as Russia does against those seen as betraying its interests abroad. Killings outside Russia were even given legal sanction by the nation’s Parliament in 2006
Maybe if they did those killings with drones or have a "kill list" like the US president keeps, it will be OK in the eyes of the NYT. Or if the person "betraying its interests abroad" is another country's head, an outright military invasion, like against Iraq and Libya, would be OK with the NYT.
The article even went as far as bringing up murders during the Soviet era. The NYT should next do another piece on CIA murders at about the same time.
While I have no doubt that Russia, like the USA, carries out targeted assassinations, perhaps the NYT should do another piece on some of the suspected victims of a recent US administration.
An article about Paul David Wellstone will be an engaging read.
To my knowledge HN is a place for open, civilized discussion - it's not a designated left-wing safe space. The presence of people with different opinions to you doesn't make it a "brigade".
In comparison, free world good good. Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, Michael Hastings, Paul Wellstone, Omar Torrijos, Oscar Romero, Salvador Allende, Mmmm!
Are any of those people in danger of being assassinated by the USA? I think not. Perhaps jailed, yes, but even then there will be a whole raft-load of legal challenges. The difference is that in Russia there is no legal system (at least, not one that you can trust).
>What are you talking about? Over half of the people on that list are dead.
Hastings had a manic episode before he died, which presumably explains the car crash.
Wellstone was being flown by pilots with "below-average flying skills" who stalled in IMC.
Romero was killed by an El Salvador death squad.
So you're left with one foreign dictator, and one foreign socialist politician killed by the CIA. Not quite comparable to murdering your own citizens on home soil simply for disagreeing with you.
> poisonings leave little doubt of the state’s involvement — which may be precisely the point.
Exactly. That was the point of using Po-210 for Litvinenko. The goal was to leave no possible doubt who killed him and for what. It was a warning to all future defectors.
So yes, nobody is safe even outside Russia.
Funny enough during Soviet times US seems to have been considered off-limits for targeted assassinations. But recently there have been two cases (Lesin and Poteyev) mentioned that are a bit suspicious.
Wonder if we'd feel a tiny bit like people where targeted drones attack happen feel. It is abstract when it happens 1000s of miles aways. It is different when it happens in your backyard.
> Other countries, notably Israel and the United States, pursue targeted killings, but in a strict counter-terrorism context. No other major power employs murder as systematically and ruthlessly as Russia
Like others pointed out. That is a great line. It is great because it embodies so much -- expected criticism, hidden guilt, need to rationalize, ideology (War On Terror excuses things).
It is also interesting that as soon as War On Terror started Putin has quickly jumped on-board and also started to claim what they were doing was "War On Terror" as well.
Besides the obvious moral repercussion here, engaging in torture and targeted drone killings has made the "we are qualitatively better than <random country>" a bit of a harder point to make. Even to the level that NYT can't assume it anymore, but rather have to explain it, expecting the obvious criticism.
> Exactly. That was the point of using Po-210 for Litvinenko. The goal was to leave no possible doubt who killed him and for what. It was a warning to all future defectors.
And the proof for this theory is? I'm not buying anything main stream media or our elites are telling us.
They can't present proof for their far reaching accusations? Then it must be propaganda designed to steer us into hating some government they don't like for various reasons.
If they don't like this government and believe that they can convince us by presenting facts then I'd be fine with it. But they don't do this.
> It is also interesting that as soon as War On Terror started Putin has quickly jumped on-board and also started to claim what they were doing was "War On Terror" as well.
Russia had internal civil wars in recent memory where they fought radical Islamist groups trying to establish an Islamic Emirate in Russian regions like Chechnya, Dagestan and others. And they had lots of terror attacks before this even became a thing in the West.
Islamist terror organisations were actually so strong back then in the region, that Russia _lost_ a war against them in the first Chechen war. Imagine the US loosing a hypothetical war against self proclaimed leaders of a Texan Emirate/Caliphate and ceding territory to them. You would go nuts.
These are some pretty strong reasons why any Russian leader would support a war on terrorism as I doubt you'll find a Russian politician (even within the opposition) that is in favour of establishing a Caliphate on Russian territory.
> And the proof for this theory is? I'm not buying anything main stream media or our elites are telling us.
I don't know how many things can be known with certainty, but Po-210 is not exactly easy to get your hands on. As for how many people wanted him, specifically, dead, well, you tell me who had resources like that and who benefited from his death.
It is reasonable to assume a government actor. Russia has a motive for punishing a traitor just as Western elites have a motive to further their Cold War 2.0 agenda.
The problem is that we cannot tell who did it as our government will not give us proof.
Journalists, bankers, whistle blowers, opposition politician dying in Putin's Russia. What a surprise. Russia is rotten shithole no surprise all the neighboring countries are very worried about a possible attack. Those in power in Russia are so ruthless and evil that it is probably better die fighting than letting them rule you.
39 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 86.2 ms ] threadThe guy who does Caspian Report did a story a couple days ago arguing that Putin's recent aggression, both internally and externally, is a sort of corner he'd backed himself into that he can't get out of to the detriment of the country.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT4sK36cU3Y
Oh and we here in the EU are also very happy with the current Western elite (which hopefully will soon be destroyed by a Trump administration) sending us millions of illiterate Arab men.
Maybe Obama will negotiate with ISIS to open a military base in the Caliphate. Everything seems possible with liberal progressives at this point.
I've already seen feminists claiming that Sharia law is very feminist, so it seems they are getting accustomed to the idea.
Why do you say that? I understand US is sending billions of dollars of military aid. AIPAC is active and lively in the US lobbying scene and so on.
1) Removed Libyan dictator Gaddafi who played ball with Western powers and kept illegal migration to the EU at bay. Replaced with ISIS style radicals.
2) Supported removal of Egypt dictator Mubarak who was definitely an ally of the West and Israel. Replaced by Muslim Brotherhood fanatics who are enemies of Israel and the West. When the Egyptian military removed them from power Obama tried to intervene on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood.
3) Strengthened Irans position in the world by lifting sanctions. If they want nuclear weapons this would be the time. I'm not saying that I would have supported the coup against Mosaddegh or that I would have supported Iraq on invading Iran. But I would make it very hard for a government run by religious fanatics to acquire nuclear weapons.
4) Syria is an enemy of Israel, but they sure as hell do not want fanatics like ISIS roaming free in the region.
5) Wester main stream media is today very critical of Israel, more so in the EU than in the US. Products from Israel must now be labelled in some EU countries to make it easier for consumers to boycott trade. Some EU countries are even discussing sanctions against Israel. But trade with Saudi Arabia is fine.
[1] http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/did-kha...
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12333725 and marked it off-topic.
But being friends with Saudi Arabia and radical Islamist groups that want to cut off infidel heads is no problem.
The article that I'd really like to see: "More of Clinton's Opponents Are Ending Up Dead"
But Russia's evil, so forget everything that's going on at home.
Even worse than the fact this article brings up mostly old shit is the fact that it's not even particularly interesting. Just more of the same.
So all those attempts at eliminating Fidel Castro and Muammar Gaddafi were in a "strict counterterrorism context"?
> No other major power employs murder as systematically and ruthlessly as Russia does against those seen as betraying its interests abroad. Killings outside Russia were even given legal sanction by the nation’s Parliament in 2006
Maybe if they did those killings with drones or have a "kill list" like the US president keeps, it will be OK in the eyes of the NYT. Or if the person "betraying its interests abroad" is another country's head, an outright military invasion, like against Iraq and Libya, would be OK with the NYT.
The article even went as far as bringing up murders during the Soviet era. The NYT should next do another piece on CIA murders at about the same time.
An article about Paul David Wellstone will be an engaging read.
Right...
> implying your views are
Grumbling about 'elites': check
Complaints about 'mainstream media' (as if it were a monolithic institution): check
In comparison, free world good good. Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, Michael Hastings, Paul Wellstone, Omar Torrijos, Oscar Romero, Salvador Allende, Mmmm!
What are you talking about? Over half of the people on that list are dead.
Hastings had a manic episode before he died, which presumably explains the car crash.
Wellstone was being flown by pilots with "below-average flying skills" who stalled in IMC.
Romero was killed by an El Salvador death squad.
So you're left with one foreign dictator, and one foreign socialist politician killed by the CIA. Not quite comparable to murdering your own citizens on home soil simply for disagreeing with you.
Exactly. That was the point of using Po-210 for Litvinenko. The goal was to leave no possible doubt who killed him and for what. It was a warning to all future defectors.
So yes, nobody is safe even outside Russia.
Funny enough during Soviet times US seems to have been considered off-limits for targeted assassinations. But recently there have been two cases (Lesin and Poteyev) mentioned that are a bit suspicious.
Wonder if we'd feel a tiny bit like people where targeted drones attack happen feel. It is abstract when it happens 1000s of miles aways. It is different when it happens in your backyard.
> Other countries, notably Israel and the United States, pursue targeted killings, but in a strict counter-terrorism context. No other major power employs murder as systematically and ruthlessly as Russia
Like others pointed out. That is a great line. It is great because it embodies so much -- expected criticism, hidden guilt, need to rationalize, ideology (War On Terror excuses things).
It is also interesting that as soon as War On Terror started Putin has quickly jumped on-board and also started to claim what they were doing was "War On Terror" as well.
Besides the obvious moral repercussion here, engaging in torture and targeted drone killings has made the "we are qualitatively better than <random country>" a bit of a harder point to make. Even to the level that NYT can't assume it anymore, but rather have to explain it, expecting the obvious criticism.
And the proof for this theory is? I'm not buying anything main stream media or our elites are telling us.
They can't present proof for their far reaching accusations? Then it must be propaganda designed to steer us into hating some government they don't like for various reasons.
If they don't like this government and believe that they can convince us by presenting facts then I'd be fine with it. But they don't do this.
> It is also interesting that as soon as War On Terror started Putin has quickly jumped on-board and also started to claim what they were doing was "War On Terror" as well.
Russia had internal civil wars in recent memory where they fought radical Islamist groups trying to establish an Islamic Emirate in Russian regions like Chechnya, Dagestan and others. And they had lots of terror attacks before this even became a thing in the West.
Islamist terror organisations were actually so strong back then in the region, that Russia _lost_ a war against them in the first Chechen war. Imagine the US loosing a hypothetical war against self proclaimed leaders of a Texan Emirate/Caliphate and ceding territory to them. You would go nuts.
These are some pretty strong reasons why any Russian leader would support a war on terrorism as I doubt you'll find a Russian politician (even within the opposition) that is in favour of establishing a Caliphate on Russian territory.
I don't know how many things can be known with certainty, but Po-210 is not exactly easy to get your hands on. As for how many people wanted him, specifically, dead, well, you tell me who had resources like that and who benefited from his death.
The problem is that we cannot tell who did it as our government will not give us proof.
Take a look at the list of deaths associated with Clinton faily: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.php...
It looks like nobody safe even outside of US.