concrete_sox
Premium Respected Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 3,717
- Reaction score
- 11
i just want world war 3
South Ossetia-Georgian war
- Thread starter Uncle_Vanya
- Start date
Uncle_Vanya
Гражданин СССР
Russia is not yet globalized and we can still reverse this trend. Spheres of influence are VERY relevant. Evolved? What changed exactly? Its not like Nazi Germany was economically isolated before WW2. Nothing changed, might makes right, that will always be the case. Russia has a choice, either stand by and let US police the world, or intervene, as I said, no third option.
Russia is not a puppet state, you weren't successful with making it a puppet state back in the 90s. Iraq is a US puppet state, Afghanistan is a US puppet state, Poland, current gov't of Ukraine, etc. are US puppet states, they don't usually announce that they are puppet states in writing but it is obvious.
In the Cold War the two sides had some what of a respect for each other, with Russia encircled like this there is no respect to be had so yes it may very likely end up in war this time about. Btw NATO has been divided this morning at their summit just like everyone expected, so no unified NATO sending a message to Russia about Georgia, thats not going to happen.
I guess, ehm, this here is a powderkeg, all it needs is a match and there can be no stability until it blows up.
I was talking about your 'academics' in general, they are very selective on what they want to see. Free press nonsense is a joke, glad you agree.
Lol, yeap still freedom house. Your press maybe owned by corporations rather then the government (which is what I claimed from the start) but that doesn't make it objective, thus it is a joke.
Is it not a fair analysis? and why?
Hmm, you watch Russian media is that what you're getting at?
US is an oligarchy its a simple point really, I'll be sure to make a thread about it.
People in Russia are proud again, their dignity was restored. You don't know what you're talking about. There was a televised debate before these presidential elections, there were commercials of all the candidates appearing on every Russian channel, what you're presenting isn't facts, just biased opinions of Russophobic liberal scum with an agenda. Russia would have elected Putin either way, because we support him and that is a fact. We always have a choice, unless you forget the Revolution of 1917.
Something needs to happen to fix the current world order.
Renzokuken
Saved
Vanya stfu and gtfo out of Georgia.
Uncle_Vanya
Гражданин СССР
Nah, thx. Georgia still has lots to pay. Infact we maybe building a permanent military base in South Ossetia. We've won a great victory here, not just a military one against Georgia but also a political one against NATO. Even now cracks are beginning to appear, Turkey will not allow USN ships into the Black Sea and NATO can't come to a consensus on its response to Russia, they are split on the issue.
Tipsy
Respected Member
I've cited sources for my argument, now its your turn.
"First, don't for a second call it my side; I am a military non-interventionist, hence I wouldn't support military intervention. Second, jokes don't tend to work in practice - the threat of tactical nuclear warfare did in the Cold War."
Please respond to it.
(Dictionary)
Evidence and observation made by academics seem to make what I'm claiming fact in that I'm actually citing my facts while your claims seem to be more of:
Opinion: a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
Please cite any academic evidence that Russia can do this and that it won't drastically harm their economy if it does.
Please cite any academic evidence that spheres of influence have not lost their power as globalization has risen.
Please cite any academic evidence that there was an attempt to make Russia a puppet state.
Please cite any academic evidence that Iraq is a puppet state.
Please cite any academic evidence that Afghanistan is a puppet state.
Please cite any academic evidence that Poland is a puppet state.
Please cite any academic evidence that Ukraine is a puppet state.
There are always academics that point these things out. Chomsky comes to mind.
And any of this is at all relevant in rebutting the effectiveness of tactical nuclear weapons how? The quote this responded to is:
"First, don't for a second call it my side; I am a military non-interventionist, hence I wouldn't support military intervention. Second, jokes don't tend to work in practice - the threat of tactical nuclear warfare did in the Cold War."
Please respond to it.
And you're the one arguing to throw the match onto the powderkeg.
All I've claimed is western media isn't genuine propaganda that the government has the power to control as it is in Russia (as corroborated by the freedomhouse article).
Most people interested in getting the news tend to get it from multiple sources (especially the world of academics you denounce)? For example, if I wanted to say that there has been no independent confirmation of genocide by the Georgians I could cite the Moscow Times (article here)? There are numerous other sources for Russian media as well. If I wanted to get information on Iraq, Israel, Iran, etc I could check Aljazeera? What I'm getting at is I, and anyone else with internet access has quite a bit of diversity in where they can get their information from.
Please cite any academic evidence that the US is an oligarchy.
People who have their right to choose taken away from them with their consent is losing their dignity.
Please cite a transcript, video, etc where Putin debated someone (as I was talking about the Prime Minister).
Please cite any evidence to refute that the election wasn't engineered by the current Russian leadership to provide a victory to pro-Kremlin parties as was stated and supported by my source earlier.
Fact: a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true.
(Dictionary)
Evidence and observation made by academics seem to make what I'm claiming fact in that I'm actually citing my facts while your claims seem to be more of:
Opinion: a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
I don't think it is possible to know what would have happened if there existed a competitive political environment in Russia because of how much of a lack there is now; that is unless, you have some sort of academic evidence to predict who could have run, on what platforms, etc if there existed a competitive political environment, but even that would be more art than science.
What percentage of the current Russian population consented to the Revolution of 1917?
I couldn't agree more; I just happen to think that it can happen without re-emerging the world in a Cold War or through a nuclear war, the two options you seem to be so keen on seeing happen.
Darkmatter
Battle God
This sounds a lot like the Cold War to me...
Uncle_Vanya
Гражданин СССР
Your sources are biased and easily dismissed in the face of the fact that you have not ever lived in Russia or visited it or have been anywhere near it. In Russia although most television stations are state controlled there is an opposition channel, RTVi, more so there are numerous newspapers and radio stations that are not at all controlled by the state and that bash the state on a daily basis, Eho Moskvy comes to mind. Aside from that Russian government is not blocking access to foreign media websites or opposition online newspapers, neither is anyone going to keep you from buying a satellite dish or cable and gaining access to European channels, such as BBC and Skynews as well as many, many others. Even though most channels are government controlled and the news on those channels is mostly biased towards one side those channels also host talk shows there different points of view are represented in a fair, uncensored discussion. Those are the facts.
What good are your academics if they disregard facts that don't suit their message?
Of course there will be harm, most every change is harmful but that doesn't make it any less necessary.
Eh? How can you argue that they have lost power? Sure Russian sphere of influence has shrank but that was through the expansion of US sphere of influence. NATO still exists, it is the undeniable proof that spheres of influence are still very much relevant. In addition it is simply ludicrous to suggest that there are no longer any regional spheres of influence there is no evidence backing such a statement.
You learned a new word I see, 'academic', just look at the facts, at what US and West were doing in Russia in the 90s, what harm they have caused.
It is a puppet state, that is a fact, it does as you tell to.
Same goes for Afghanistan.
Same goes for these two. Ukrainians really don't like their president, look at their own approval ratings, they really don't want to join NATO, yet their President acts in interests of the West disregarding the interests of his own people, that makes Ukraine a puppet state of the West.
'Academics' are human beings and will follow whatever trend their country currently follows through, currently the West is suffering yet another Russophobic trend.
Easy, they're not going to use them knowing full well of the retaliation, I highly doubt that the monkeys in Washington want their bottoms crisped by heat and radiation over Ukraine.
I am, you're finally getting it. A powderkeg is an unstable situation, there is only one way to stabilize it and thats by blowing it up.
Read at the top of this post about the Russian media. Western media is in fact genuine propaganda even if it is not owned by the government it is still owned by individuals who have their own political bias, and the Russo-Georgian conflict has shown that the Western media is NOT objective.
But Moscow Times is an evil pro-Kremlin propaganda machine! Or do you admit that not all media in Russia is state controlled?
There is plenty of logical evidence, like the fact that the President is not elected by the people but rather by a select group aka the Electoral College and as the 2000 election has shown the decision of Electoral College is not bonded to the decision of the populace.
People being able to afford a car, an apartment, food and children is them regaining their dignity, not loosing it. Russian people have made their choice, find me one source that claims that there is some sort of massive distaste for Putin within the Russian public.
It was during the Medvedev election, Medvedev didn't show up but his opponents did debate each other, and it was televised on national television.
Please cite a source to the contrary.
No, my argument is based on facts, your argument is based on claims of the ignorant. You haven't been to Russia, I lived there most of my life, I think I've done enough observations, same goes for all my friends and family who I contact on a regular basis who still live there. Your 'academics' ignore facts to put up a picture that serves their agenda, its a propaganda campaign nothing more, there is no substance to your claims in reality, only on paper.
We don't need competitive political environment, we don't need our determination to split.
Don't quite understand the question.
There is no other way, we are never going to get along and Russia is never going to be absorbed into the West on its own free will, we will fight against that absorption.
YouTube - Televised debate ends in a scuffle
Thats one of the debates, candidate Jirinovsky, a representative from candidate Bagdanov and some woman who is probably representing somebody. I couldn't find the bigger debates on youtube but I saw them on TV so Im confident they did occur.
This is a TV spot for Zyuganov, candidate from the Communist party:
YouTube - ????????????? ?. ?. ????????.
As you can see it was aired on the State controlled RTR channel, the communist party is the only real opposition party to make it to the Duma.
Here are the televised debates between the candidates:
YouTube - ?????? ????
Once again on the state controlled RTR channel.
This is a BBC article that states that before the election opinion polls in Russia gave 82% suported Medvedev for the presidency: BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Rivals in Kremlin race
Which ever way you choose to look at it, the Russian people have made their choice.
Zyuganov's commercial:
YouTube - ???????-2008: ????? ???????
Here is an interesting article:
Russia's victory over Georgia has redrawn the geopolitical map | World news | The Guardian
Going back to your argument that Russia has harmed itself with this war, here is one academic's perspective: "The war in Georgia has put the European order in question," said Alexander Rahr, one of Germany's leading Russia experts and a Putin biographer. "The times are past when you can punish Russia."
Tipsy
Respected Member
Yet you are unable to support any of your sources with a single academic source. Contrary to what you may believe, blind nationalism doesn’t override observations, evidence, and the factual conclusions drawn from such.Uncle_Vaya said:
So if the Russian media is so free then international organizations rating Russia’s free press should put it high. The 2008 Reporters Without Boarders Ranking ranks Russia 144 out of 169. Reporters Without Boarders is a non-profit international organization based out of France. Russia has a “glaring lack of diversity in the media, especially the broadcast media.” Relative to the United States media, ranked 48 out of 169, Russia has much less freedom of the press. To find out how the index is compiled see here. Nothing but unbias fact.Uncle_Vaya said:
You have yet to cite any academic source to show that Russia can stop globalization in other countries, an action that is required to make spheres of influence relevant in that country.Uncle_Vaya said:
Because as globalization continues, more and more local issues are raised to the international level. To give a made up example, say random ex-soviet country X is dependent for its food supply from Russia. In a pre-globalization world, Russia could or threaten to cut off supplies to force their influence upon that country. However, in this age of globalization they could just change where they buy their meat to Honduras. The proliferation of mutual defense pacts is making military influence much less relevant as attacking a small nation could accidently start a world war, such as what happened in WW1. The difference being that this time it would be nuclear. That makes it so that no offensive action is worth the loss taken in a nuclear war. Cultural influence also made less relevant (the link has the extensive explanation), though I'd argue it wasn't that relevant to begin with.Uncle_Vaya said:
What’s the evidence of this? The effects of globalization which are summarized here.
Actually I used it a lot in that last AS thread we debated in because there’s a difference between say stormfront.org and a recognized organization of sociology. Second, you have yet to show any source to back your claims. Blind nationalism does not suffice.Uncle_Vaya said:
You have yet to show any source to back your claims. Blind nationalism does not suffice.Uncle_Vaya said:
You have yet to show any source to back your claims. Blind nationalism does not suffice.Uncle_Vaya said:
You have yet to show any source to back your claims. Blind nationalism does not suffice.Uncle_Vaya said:
When I use academic it refers to people who take empirical evidence and observations to draw factual conclusions, please refer to those, such as the ones I have cited for you.Uncle_Vaya said:
Please refresh yourself on Cold War history. The basic concept you seem unfamiliar with is Flexible Response.Uncle_Vaya said:
You want to light a match, I want to throw water on it so it won’t explode.Uncle_Vaya said:
So you don’t believe the Russian people are deserving of democracy?Uncle_Vaya said:
You said the Russian people had their choice in the Revolution of 1917. I’d say that is an irrelevant event to the freedom of contemporary Russians. For example, if we put the age of consent at 18, a Russian person would have to be 109 years old to have made that choice. Further, this is under the assumption that every Russian agreed with the Revolution of 1917 (which obviously isn’t true because there has to be a second side for there to be a revolution).Uncle_Vaya said:
So if the west did not try to absorb the Russia, assuming that claim is actually true, they still could not get along? Second, please cite your source that the west is trying to absorb Russia – remember, blind nationalism does not suffice. Third, if it is true, would not the wiser course of action to be deal with the problem in a way other than tit-for-tat proxy war?Uncle_Vaya said:
I don’t see Putin debating anyone in any of those clips – that is what I asked for as an example cited from freedomhouse you said was false. Second, in order for the Russian people to have a choice a completive system is required; for example, by your logic the Iraqis that elected Saddam Hussein to power made their choice and lived in a democracy.Uncle_Vaya said:
Does your source say that there was no other way to call a 'European order' (whatever that is, please explain) without the negative consequences of the war with Georgia. If there is another way (I can think of a few off the top of my head, such as Russia using the leverage it has over the west such as energy, nuclear proliferation, etc) without the consequence of international isolation then Russia has indeed hurt itself by not taking that course. Also, please cite your source.Uncle_Vaya said:
this "war" is making russia look like a joke 3rd world country. The actions they are taking in withdrawing is something one would expect from the middle east or a twelve year old having a tantrum. russia has lost so much respect in this situation. too bad the UN is a ****walk and won't do anything about it though. china is looking so much better than russia right about now
Uncle_Vanya
Гражданин СССР
Hmm, what actions are you referring to? Russia is defying the west not with words but with action, a 3rd world country can't afford that, Russia can.
Uncle_Vanya
Гражданин СССР
Nationalism has nothing to do with this, just like evidence has nothing to do with your argument. Your 'academics' views are biased against Russia, and they speak in generalities without siting specific examples.
They are western and they are liberal in their political spectrum, they are politically biased. You can not deny the facts that I have stated, Russia has a great variety of press that is not controlled by the state.
This is only a first step, a simple way of stopping globalisation is by moving ones tanks into the other nation's capitol. Globalisation is really US neo-imperialism, its same substance just a bit more subtle.
Hmm, lets see how Ukrainians do without Russian oil, who are they going to go to? A country has an infrastructure that is established has been developing over periods of decades, it is hard to simply find another exporter, costly adjustments have to be made.
How is that at all relevant to what we are talking about? How does that information do anything to prove that globalisation made spheres of influence irrelevant? If I can move my tanks into your capitol and bomb you to hell the decision from whom you are going to buy is not going to be up to you, its going to be up to me. Nuclear weapons or not this will end up being a war.
There is no blind nationalism to what I say, only pure unbiased facts. Your argument doesn't hold water, much like the last pile of illogical BS you tried to push in AS. I gave you several sources.
Trying to annoy me are you? You point at irrelevant facts and illogical conclusions made by biased western organizations, you're yet to list any actual facts so far all you have provided is other people's opinions. I have provided a lot of solid factual information that you are to discredit.
Your 'academics' don't make factual conclusions, simply biased opinion that is backed up by nothing. Bring in some specific examples, or try to disprove the specific examples that I brought in. For example radio Echo of Moscow (Eho Moskvy), bring me any form of evidence that their rhetoric is censored by the government, because I listen to them from time to time and they have no trouble bashing Putin on occasion. You're trying to simplify and generalize something complex, something you do not understand because you haven't experienced it, you rely on other people to tell you what to think, but a question, is the opinion of your academics truly objective? Does it truly include the whole picture or just the parts of it that they want to see? There do your academics mention RTVi, Eho Moskvy, Kommersant, or all the other thousands of local and regional media outlets that have no affiliation with the state what so ever the fact that internet is unrestricted in Russia and the fact that no one is going to keep you from getting a satellite dish in Russia and watching foreign media? Where? Point me to the line. I look at CNN and I look at the Russian news and they do the same exact things, the journalists don't criticize the state directly in either case, they bring in experts and interview them to do the criticizing for them and its exactly the same. No media is completely objective no matter if its owned by the state or by a head of a major broadcasting corporation. Fox News isn't exactly unbiased, neither is CNN, neither is BBC.
Give me SPECIFIC examples not someone else's general statements. And try to disprove the SPECIFIC examples I have given you. I think thats a resonable request no? Because no matter how many times the word "freedom" is used in an organization's name every organization has its own political bias, no one is completely objective, so don't give me their opinions, give me raw data, give me specifics. More so these organizations base their conclusions on often unproven data, like I would bet that Russian rank fell after Politkovskaya murder, so far there is no conclusive evidence that Putin had a hand in her death, yet events like this create bias based on the hype.
Tipsy
Respected Member
Please show me where there is bias; the two sources I've used, freedomhouse and reporters without boarders, have their data and methods freely available online in order to allow corroboration by those who question it. Your nationalistic image of Russia doesn't make facts any less true.
And as I put in my last post, becomes a more and more irrelevant tactic as mutual defense pacts continue to spread.Uncle_Vaya said:
I'm trying to point out to you that your opinion does not equate to fact and the reason that you cannot find sources to back what you are saying is because it isn't true.Uncle_Vaya said:
Please fault the scientific method in order to support your assertion.Uncle_Vaya said:
The difference is that not all the major broadcasting stations in the US are owned or controlled (via stock ownership) [see here]. As an example, it would be similar to the US Government owning Fox, CNN, and MSNBC. Or how there is censorship in the stating of opinions in the Russian media [see here]. Or to put it simply as I did before, Russia is ranked 144 out of 169 due to a major lack of diversity and their methods and data is available for you to debunk on their website as I linked in my last post.Uncle_Vaya said:
Do you have a source that it was has not been followed by 1) an American and 2) a situation in the Cold War or a situation as vital (as in not some random bombing of a third world country where there was questionable support to even enter). The place where the doctrine worked was the Cold War (as stated by the source linked to the doctrine definition in the last post) and you have yet to show that it has/will faill by citing any legitimate source.Uncle_Vaya said:
Gunpowder doesn't go boom when its wet?Uncle_Vaya said:
You have yet to show any source showing that Russia hasn't been recognized internationally a sovereign, such a move was planned, or even remotely hinted at. Soverignty comes first, good thing the Russians have had it before and after democratic reforms.Uncle_Vaya said:
You gave an example of when the Russian people made a political choice and I debunked it as relevant to the modern day because contemporary Russians did not consent to such a choice.Uncle_Vaya said:
Georgia was was proxy war.Uncle_Vaya said:
So you admit Putin didn't debate anyone? Good, one point you questioned from the freedomhouse source is finished and its credibility remains.Uncle_Vaya said:
And that in no way shows that Russia has a competitive electoral system and thus doesn't respond to the critique I made in my post.Uncle_Vaya said:
NATO is divided on what punitive action should be taken; no nation on the earth has supported Russia except Cuba - that is international isolation.Uncle_Vaya said:
Irrelevant - I only ever talked about the results of the war in Russian standing; justification or not does not make any difference.Uncle_Vaya said:
Your opinion is not equal to fact; please read my sources that I've cited compared to your first source in multiple posts made in your last post.Uncle_Vaya said:
When you make a claim it is your job to provide a source to deem it credible. It's like saying 'God exists; prove me wrong' and then realizing there is no proof he doesn't exist (since there is no proof either way), but since the assumption is that the original statement is true that God exists. It's a logical fallacy.Uncle_Vaya said:
Uncle_Vanya
Гражданин СССР
Where the bias is? Isn't it obvious? The fact that their conclusions differ from the truth is evidence of their bias. You don't have any facts, just people's opinion, they're not listing any facts. The fact that they do not mention any of this:
"In Russia although most television stations are state controlled there is an opposition channel, RTVi, more so there are numerous newspapers and radio stations that are not at all controlled by the state and that bash the state on a daily basis, Eho Moskvy comes to mind. Aside from that Russian government is not blocking access to foreign media websites or opposition online newspapers, neither is anyone going to keep you from buying a satellite dish or cable and gaining access to European channels, such as BBC and Skynews as well as many, many others. Even though most channels are government controlled and the news on those channels is mostly biased towards one side those channels also host talk shows there different points of view are represented in a fair, uncensored discussion. Those are the facts."
Unless a nation becomes strong enough to challenge the mutual defense pacts which is there Russia is heading.
What I am saying is true, I have lived in Russia most of my life, I am more then qualified to make these sorts of judgments. You have listed not one source with factual information, only general opinions of self-proclaimed "experts".
Once again, their biased opinion does not matter, give me the raw data like I have given you.
It doesn't matter if the TV stations are owned by government or not, they are still biased in practice no matter who owns them. Or you're going to argue that Fox News brings forward an objective outlook on current events? That they are completely unbiased? Really? Is that what you are going to try to argue. Western sources about Russia will most certainly be biased because of pre-existing western assertions about Russia.
Use your own brain for once. Russia no longer has the ideological appeal it had during the Cold War, Russian leadership is much more bold then the leaders we had during the Cold War, the West no longer exercises any restraint in expanding their sphere of influence thus the physical threat to Russia grows. Add those up and see what you come up with.
True, it doesn't, but its still gunpowder and its gonna dry up soon enough, you can either keep throwing water on it until the day comes then you're not quick enough or you can let it explode and bring back lasting stability. But the thing is that its not Cold War anymore, the West has no restraint, Russia can not afford to supply anti-western forces around the world for free and with massive numbers of equipment necessary to oppose the West, which means that Russia will be forced to be more directly aggressive to protect itself from the West's advances.
Oh my God, what? When did I say that Russia is not a sovereign country? Do you know what a puppet government is? Russia is not yet a puppet government is my point, but the west's economic and military domination wants to turn it into a puppet government. Which member of the Warsaw pact was INTERNATIONALLY recognized as a puppet government of USSR? Puppet governments are sovereign on paper, not so in reality.
You haven't debunked anything, the modern Russians are still the same people culturally and psychologically as the Russians that started the 1917 revolution, thus if a need for it rises we will take up arms against the government, hell there were armed confrontations between citizens and police in the early 90s. We won't do it now though, we like our government, it serves our goals.
Georgia was a response to aggression, neither United States nor the rest of the West were involved, it was not a proxy war targeting the West, it was a war with a goal to punish Georgia for its actions.
Yes, Putin debate anyone, but that doesn't change the fact that the conclusions made by freedomhouse have nothing to do with reality. YOU SAW WITH YOUR OWN EYES that all candidates were given plenty of air time to express their political views to the voters before the election, THERE WAS NO CENSORSHIP.
Eh? How does it not show that? If people are allowed to express their political views to the populace via media that lets the populace make up their own mind, thus the candidates are allowed to compete for the electorate and no one is keeping them from doing it. You going to have to start making logical conclusions at some point during this.
Slovakia supported Russia, Turkey didn't let USN ships into the Black Sea because they were heading to Georgia, in either case Russian actions were justified, western world's inability to comprehend that fact only shows their double standards. Russia is not waiting for anyone, it has already began officially revising its policy towards NATO.
It is relevant, Russia was responding to aggression from the other state, thus there was no subtle way to go about this since it was a Georgian initiative. Russia did not suffer any lasting harm from this, we have won this war, our people are more confident in our leadership and military then ever in the past decade and Russia has returned on the map as a military power. Whats not to like?
My opinion is based on facts, facts that you disregard, your sources are biased and have been shown us such numerous times.
My source? I watch those channels, I listen to those radio stations, I read those newspapers. Its going to be tough to find an English language source about this because English language sources usually come from the west and carry a certain degree of bias towards all things Russian. But hell, you yourself told me that you saw a Moscow Times article about the genocide in Ossetia that went against the official Kremlin position, another good english language Russian online newspaper would be kommersant.com, you can get Eho Moskvy on the internet but I don't think you speak Russian so I don't see how it will do you much good. I guess here are some sources I can come with to validate a portion of what I said, the rest is still true but not everything is on the internet:
NTV+ is a company operating in Russia that provides satellite television services, everyone in Russia has access to foreign channels if they choose to purchase the dish, list of channels offered:
Ñîñòà â ïà êåòîâ, ÃÒÂ-ÃËÞÑ, ÑïóòÃèêîâîå òåëåâèäåÃèå
Internet Neutrality in Russia, statement made by Putin:
RIA Novosti - Russia - Putin against introducing Internet censorship in Russia - 1
I don't know how to prove this further, the fact that no western webpages in Russia are censored by the government is just a fact, there isn't anything pointing towards the otherwise, its hard to prove the absence of something, such as censorship in this case.
Here is a bit on the radio:
BBC NEWS | Europe | Country profiles | Country profile: Russia
"The broadcasting market is very competitive; state-owned or influenced TV networks attract the biggest audiences. Hundreds of radio stations crowd the dial; state-run networks compete with music-based commercial FM stations."
As you can see there are commercially owned radio stations in Russia.
"There are more than 400 daily newspapers, catering for every taste and persuasion. The major nationals are based in Moscow, but many readers in the regions prefer to take local papers. Several influential dailies have been bought by companies with close links to the Kremlin."
Only several have been bought, most are still independent.
As for the 2008 elections:
Russian presidential election, 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"According to opinion polls taken prior to the election, up to 82% of people said that they would vote for Dmitry Medvedev, the candidate endorsed by Vladimir Putin as his preferred successor. "
"Representatives from the GOLOS monitoring group stated that "the Election Day was held in a relatively quiet atmosphere in contrast to the State Duma election day. Such large-scale violations observed then as campaigning next to polling stations, transporting of voters, intimidation of voters and others were practically non-existent." They did however report irregularities in the election.[3]"
"The Commonwealth of Independent States observer mission said the election was free, fair and in line with international standards. "The CIS observer mission states that the election is a major factor in the further democratization of public life in the Russian Federation, and recognizes it as free, open and transparent," said Nauryz Aidarov, head of the CIS mission.[5]"
"Observers from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization said the election was free, fair and in line with international standards.[4]"
"An observing group from Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated that the result of the election was a "reflection of the will of an electorate whose democratic potential was, unfortunately, not tapped". They said "In the elections, which had more the character of a plebiscite on the last eight years in this country, the people of Russia voted for the stability and continuity associated with the incumbent President and the candidate promoted by him. The President-elect will have a solid mandate given to him by the majority of Russians.""
Non of them seem to state that Russian elections were unfair, all seem to agree that it was the Russian people who have made the choice.
Lets not get into "God exists" nonsense, there is not one logical shred of evidence towards him existing and the original statement was made thousand of years ago out of ignorance and lack of education more then anything else. But thats a whole other topic and Im not planning on going in circles with you again.
Here is an academic source that validates my claim that Echo of Moscow is not government controlled:
Media in Russia today A Step At A Time
As for Russia's isolation, while NATO is fighting each other over what to do Russia has frozen all Russia-NATO cooperation as of today, isolation from NATO is not a harm to us, thus we didn't loose any ground anywhere during the Georgia conflict. Link:
Norway: Russia to freeze NATO military ties - Russia - MSNBC.com
Here is one experts statement about the Georgia-Russia war and why Russia did what it did:
YouTube - Russia did not play dead
Tipsy
Respected Member
Logical Fallacy:Uncle_Vanya said:
Red Herring: a mistake made by a questioner while attempting to refute a respondent's argument…an ignorance of what makes for a refutation.
You claim that some that some is privately owned; that is irrelevant in refuting the source as a private journalist in a Russia where there “passed legislation restricting news reporting and journalists [are] subjected to physical violence and intimidation†makes that fact irrelevant. For example, if I say you can eat anything, but if you eat anything other than an apple I’ll kill you, you don’t really have a choice.
Your example of Eho Moskvy is directly dealt with in both sources and is laughable as an example to debunk the source: “Private owners of media outlets are generally billionaire business magnates or large companies like the state-controlled energy conglomerate Gazprom, which holds majority stakes in the newspaper Izvestia and radio station Ekho Moskvy.†(From freedomhouse)
“While the independent Ekho Moskvy radio station airs a wide range of viewpoints, it is vulnerable because it is owned by the state-controlled natural gas conglomerate OAO Gazprom.†(From reporters without boarders)
The same goes for your claim with Putin in debates; I claimed Putin did not debate any candidate and you gave me information on other events and even admit he debated no one. In order for anything you say to support your claims, it must be relevant.
You only ignore evidence, you don’t respond to it: respond to:
Freedom House – Free Press in Russia – the raw data is available under the “table and charts†links, the academics’ credentials under the “survey team†link, and the methodology under the “methodology†link.
Reporters Without Borders – Free Press Index – academics information, raw data, and methodology all linked from this page.
Same logical fallacy you used in the AS:Uncle_Vaya said:
APPEAL TO THE CROWD: (ad populum or playing to the gallery) refers to popular opinion or majority sentiment in order to provide support for a claim. Often the "common man" or "common sense" provides the basis for the claim.
Some sort of linked evidence is required for anything you say to be taken seriously.
You’re arguing for war with the expanding power of the west. The west is in a mutual defense pact through NATO. There are quite a few nuclear weapons between the countries in NATO. Wikipedia describes the Cold War with “both superpowers engaged in costly defense spending, a massive conventional and nuclear arms race, and numerous proxy wars.†You support the growth defense spending, both sides have already reached the absolute threshold of nuclear weapons needed to destroy each other, and you support operations such as in Georgia (proxy war). I’m arguing against what you present; I have no doubt that the Russian leadership will take a wiser course than what you present. And I seriously doubt Russia is becoming powerful enough to make nuclear weapons obsolete.Uncle_Vaya said:
Your source on the fairness of the 2008 election (wikipedia) states “The fairness of the 2008 Russian presidential election is disputed.†It does not claim what you say it does, it claims it is disputed. Second, it makes no claim to state there is a competitive political environment in RussiaUncle_Vaya said:
I’m still waiting for you to show me the Russian people made a political choice. I also wish you to show me that all of the Russian people today were alive in 1917 and consented to the choice in 1917; that is exactly what you are claiming when you state “You haven't debunked anything.†Your one example has been debunked and I await another; this time I would also like a source to support your claim or I will simply ask for a source in response.
You stated: “Which demonstrates clearly that the West is not interested in being a partner of Russia, they are only interested in Russia being their puppet state, which means Russia needs to adjast its foreign policy towards the West accordingly to fulfill its own interests. Russia was not the aggressor in this conflict and that is a fact.†You have yet to show any proof to back your assertion. No matter how many times you say the moon is made of cheese it doesn’t make it true; you must provide some form of evidence to back your statement.
Freedomhouse Raw Data on political and civil rights – analysis on scores can be seen under draft reports.
Their claim is there is no legitimacy as there was no political competitiveness (Source)
“The process leading up to yesterday’s vote was deeply flawed and featured extraordinary controls that prevented opposition parties from competing on a fair footing.â€
I expect you to counter with sources and the methodology and raw data you asked from me.
It doesn't change how it is viewed by the international community; who is at fault is irrelevant to what they state after it is already stated.Uncle_Vaya said:
Source?Uncle_Vaya said:
Impossible to prove without reading minds; however, the fact that Russia is taking actions against NATO seems to suggest that what you are not correct.Uncle_Vaya said:
Uncle_Vanya
Гражданин СССР
Something completely irrelevant to what we are discussing. Good one. What mistake have I made exactly in my questioning? I am not ignorant of what makes for a refutation, if you review your own argument then you will find out that you are the only one with ignorance here.
The thing is though that I have provided you a source there an expert states that Novaya Gazeta and Eho Moskvy radio are completely free and do not succumb to any sort of intimidation. In either case no there is it stated that inditimidation is wide spread.
Read the facts stated by an actual Russian journalist, Ekho Moskvy is not biased towards the government.
So they admit that it airs a wide range of viewpoints, thus promoting my argument. Again, freedomhouse is hardly an infallible source. There are 400 daily newspapers in Russia, only several are owned by state as written in one of the sources i posted.
I never said that Putin debated any candidates, you tried to prove that the election wasn't competitive, I proved that all candidates were given the ability to express their views to the electorate on television with the links I provided, yes this is very much relevant to what we are debating. The fact that the other candidate's opinions weren't censored made the election competitive.
Political bias is all that I see, I highly doubt you yourself checked that data, I have read both those pages they offer nothing in terms of specific data, nor anything in terms of explaining how the information was gathered.
So you admit that common sense is lacking in your argument? Something I've been trying to point for a while now. More so, I have backed my claims with evidence, more so some of my evidence is based on my personal experience since I am from the country we are debating. You attempt to twist my words and make ridiculous claims, going round and round in circles, using shaky logic and shaky sources, don't know if there is a Latin phrase for it but Im sure a lot of what you do qualifies as a logical fallacy, for example believing in infallibility of an organization that has no proof of such infallibility, that doesn't appear to have been present in any official manner at the events they are judging (the Russian election) and has made openly biased statements such as their emotional support for OSCE's decision.
Not always, it is obvious that I know more about the ongoings in my country then you do, simply since I lived most of my life there unlike you who read reports by questionable organizations who have much to gain by portraying Russian leadership in a certain light, they are an organization based on an ideology, by their very definition they can not be objective. In either case I have provided plenty of linked evidence, some of it you attempted to twist.
Not now, but in 20-30 years, technology advances quickly. The choice of action I present is the wisest, you either fight your enemy or you wait for your enemy to quietly bleed you to death over a prolonged period of time.
Eh? Are you blind? Are you unable to read now? Once again I will repeat:
"According to opinion polls taken prior to the election, up to 82% of people said that they would vote for Dmitry Medvedev, the candidate endorsed by Vladimir Putin as his preferred successor. "
"Representatives from the GOLOS monitoring group stated that "the Election Day was held in a relatively quiet atmosphere in contrast to the State Duma election day. Such large-scale violations observed then as campaigning next to polling stations, transporting of voters, intimidation of voters and others were practically non-existent." They did however report irregularities in the election.[3]"
"The Commonwealth of Independent States observer mission said the election was free, fair and in line with international standards. "The CIS observer mission states that the election is a major factor in the further democratization of public life in the Russian Federation, and recognizes it as free, open and transparent," said Nauryz Aidarov, head of the CIS mission.[5]"
"Observers from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization said the election was free, fair and in line with international standards.[4]"
"An observing group from Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated that the result of the election was a "reflection of the will of an electorate whose democratic potential was, unfortunately, not tapped". They said "In the elections, which had more the character of a plebiscite on the last eight years in this country, the people of Russia voted for the stability and continuity associated with the incumbent President and the candidate promoted by him. The President-elect will have a solid mandate given to him by the majority of Russians.""
Read that a few times, let it sink in. It may be disputed but that doesn't nullify the fact that the above agencies stated that the election was fair.
I have already showed you that the Russian people made a political choice, reread the quotes from the wikipedia article if you're slow. I have never claimed that the Russian people living today are the ones who made the decision to revolt in 1917. However such decisions are culturally based and 1917 was no the first time that has happened in my countries history. In the 90s a situation almost went the same way, you're debating an invalid point attempting to twist my words in a most ridiculous manner. Your argument is lacking sense and adequacy.
There is ample evidence on the internet to establish the fact that Russia was not the aggressor in the Georgia conflict. As for the rest, the West has expanded up to Russia's borders, the West has made threatening gestures such as missile defense shield (which you yourself admitted Russia perceives as threatening) and the west has shown that it is unable to act objectively towards Russia in the current conflict in Georgia there the West has rallied behind the aggressor, Georgia rather then respecting Russia's right to carry out its responsibilities to its citizens and to answer Georgia's provocation. You can find ample evidence of this on the web and it will only take you 5 seconds.
Yet there are others who claim otherwise including:
GOLOS, SCO, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
Where is the raw data? Again, only vague general statements that don't show the whole picture.
International community is more then just US and Western Europe, and many side with Russia on this. You made this claim that the international community is united against Russia so you prove it, it will honestly take you but a second to find out that only the West is against Russia, and it is not united at the moment.
Did Bush speak too soon about U.S. Navy aiding Georgia? - Yahoo! News
^Turkey
Russia is taking actions against NATO in response to NATO's harsh rhetoric towards Russia over this conflict, more so it is a response to NATO expansion.
Also another question I would like answered, what is freedomhouses's data based on? They were not one of the organizations officially allowed to monitor Russian presidential elections, so how exactly have they compiled their data? I have read your sources, what you have listed as "freedomhouse's raw data" gives nothing in terms of specifics, only more general statements with no mention of how the information was collected. As for their article on the Russian elections, you can see their own political bias, they claim that Russian government has made obstacles to OSCE, while in reality as the wikipedia article also mentions the Russian government was cooperative until OSCE decided to vastly increase the number of observers only a few days before the election. They were still allowed to bring in the previously agreed upon amount of observers but have refused. Freedomhouse makes its bias clear by saying that they "Applaud the office of ODIHR for refusing to accept the conditions offered it for monitoring the Russian elections..." Meanwhile another western monitoring organization the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) has stated that Russian people's will was represented (check the wikipedia quote I have posted earlier in this post), nothere does the Freedom House article mention that they have sent in their own observers, how many they sent in and what specific incidents those observers witnessed, thus their claims are but an opinion based on the hype and not factual evidence, their opinion is contradicted by all the other monitoring organizations that ACTUALLY WERE present during the elections.
Tipsy
Respected Member
And I've said that the people on those shows are intimidated. Freedomhouse said it, reporters without borders said, amnesty international says it (1, 2), and Eho Moskvy is specifically cited in one of them.
See here:
Right, dismiss evidence.
You're right in one point; they do have an ideology. They are trying to recognize where the worth and dignity of human beings are being respected - they have a mission goal of spreading democracy and/or human rights. Each organization, freedomhouse, reporters without borders, and now amnesty international are internationally credited in helping the spread of human rights and democracy - it doesn't make what they have to say false.Uncle_Vaya said:
Check the offense-defense spending ratio theories in IR.Uncle_Vaya said:
Your source states: "The fairness of the election was disputed." Second paragraph, first line.Uncle_Vaya said:
Actually you said "We don't need competitive political environment" in post #131. A competitive political environment provides legitimacy.Uncle_Vaya said:
"In addition to internal controls on opposition voices, restrictions on international election observers meant that there was insufficient scrutiny to monitor the campaign and election process. Most notably, the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) chose not observe the elections in response to substantial obstacles created by the Russian authorities. Other international monitoring missions, such as the OSCE’s Parliamentary Assembly and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which did send missions, declared that the elections were “not fair,” having failed to meet basic democratic standards due to the overwhelming influence of the United Russia party. Russian opposition members have filed claims of vote rigging, citing suspiciously high voter turn outs in certain regions, and voter intimidation."
(Source)
Actually the evidence I see is Georgia claims to have invaded South Ossetia to stop the shelling of their people and Russia claims it isn't so and in this battle of hearsay I don't know who to believe.Uncle_Vaya said:
Freedom House – Free Press in Russia – the raw data is available under the “table and charts” links, the academics’ credentials under the “survey team” link, and the methodology under the “methodology” link.Uncle_Vaya said:
Reporters Without Borders – Free Press Index – academics information, raw data, and methodology all linked from this page.
When even Belarus and Kazakhstan are low-key in their criticism of Georgia, you know that's not true. I want links to statements made by governments that they support Russia's actions in Georgia such as I have seen from Cuba.Uncle_Vaya said:
I don't support the west taking any action against Russia; that doesn't mean I support Russia's move. That source does not support your claim.Uncle_Vaya said:
Once again, knowing the intentions of leaders is an impossible task (unless historian get a copy of a journal some years from now, and even that may not have been written in complete honesty).Uncle_Vaya said:
Their method is under... the methodology link.Uncle_Vaya said:
Let me bottom line it for you; you are alone:
You're arguing for war; the Russian and western leaderships are arguing for peace. Dmitriy Rogozin said the recent actions against NATO are "of temporary character, of regional character, not global character" (source). Russia's foreign minister states "Russia is committed to the ongoing positive development of relations with the U.S. That kind of agenda is set forth in the Foreign Policy Concept—the framework document that sets out the basic directions of Russia's foreign policy—recently approved by President Dmitry Medvedev." NATO hasn't taken any punitive measures and the British, French, and Germans have publicly stated they wish to not push Russia away. Both sides show the signs that this is nothing but a rise in rhetoric, both sides having no interest in a buildup of punitive action and counter punitive action and repeat. You want war; the leadership of the west, Russia, and myself are arguing for peace.
Uncle_Vanya
Гражданин СССР
Yet they themselves admit that Eho Moskvy represents a wide range of views, "intimidation" is another general statement without specifics that goes against the fact that Eho Moskvy is allowed to express their views without censorship.
I said it was during a Medvedev election (referring to the links that followed), thus Putin wasn't supposed to debate anyone, he wasn't running for President. But anyways, your claim is that the elections were unfair and not competitive, the fact that televised debates allowed other candidates to express their views and the fact that the candidate's commercials were aired on the national television dismisses that claim.
You're not providing any evidence, simply opinion of people who WEREN'T EVEN MONITORING THE ELECTIONS.
The fact that they didn't have any means to get people on the ground during the elections, and they do not list in what capacity they were monitoring the elections and the fact that their claims go against the claims of organizations that DID monitor the elections makes what they say false. And don't give me this spreading democracy bull****, rather it is pushing their own narrow view onto other people and acting holier-then-thou and whining, thats all they're good for.
Link?
It was disputed but not by organization that were monitoring the elections as the quotes by those organizations show. Now the organizations such as freedomhouse who weren't monitoring the elections directly are allowed their opinion, but its not based on any tangible data.
I said we don't need it, doesn't mean we don't have it.
Again freedomhouse, we already covered the fact that they have an agenda in this and a political bias, they also didn't have any people on the ground monitoring the elections thus all their conclusions are not based on any factual first-hand data. Same as their claims about OSCE. Russian government's requests were not unreasonable:
Russian presidential election, 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that
“ The Russian side consented to 25 observers arriving this week and the rest of them on February, 25. Our proposal was denied. The Office (OSCE) insisted it will not send its observers to Russia unless Moscow accepts its demands. This is an ultimatum a self-respecting country cannot accept[50]."
Georgia has lied again and again, about Russian tanks moving towards Tbillissi, etc.
I check this already, all I see is more general statements and no reference to how this data was gathered.
2008 South Ossetia war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
""Old Europe" had a more neutral or pro-Russian reaction where Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs Franco Frattini stated "We cannot create an anti-Russia coalition in Europe, and on this point we are close to Putin's position".[193]"
That is just one bit.
You going to have to learn how to read at some point, that source states that Turkey did not allow USN ships to pass into the Black Sea, ships that were meant to aid Georgia, which backs up what I said about Turkey not allowing USN ships to pass into Black Sea. The West has been taking action against Russia for a decade now, NATO has been expanding, not shrinking, it doesn't matter what you support, you're not NATO.
Unless you have more then two braincells and are able to make up your own mind based on current events.
And nowhere does it say that they were present during the 2008 Presidential election in Russia. And they don't mention all the facts! They don't mention the fact that there are independent media outlets in Russia (as I have proven), that the internet is not censored and that people are allowed to view foreign media if they wish it. Hell you can buy a fresh copy of New York Times or Times magazine at any big hotel in Moscow, Im not even talking about buying a NTV+ satellite dish and tuning into BBC and SkyNews. Russia is not informationally isolated like Soivet Union was.
Doubtful but do go on.
Oh so now you're claiming that you know the true intentions of world leaders even though in this very post you said that its impossible to uncover them. This is just a first step, but the trend can be seen, the stronger Russia gets the more aggressive the West will be towards it. There will be a war at some point, Im not alone, according to latest poll results 23% of Russian population wants Medvedev to act more harshly towards the west. Lets see what happens if Georgia and Ukraine actually join NATO. Non of this makes a war any less necessary.
I'd like to suggest to you a book, if you can find it in English, "Putin: Guidebook for those who care" by Vladimir Solovyev, he doesn't do any asskissing and he explains a lot of whats going on in Russia from his expert perspective since he as a journalist, a businessman and at one time a man with political ambitions has lived through all the goods and bads of new Russia. There is a reason Putin mistrusts journalists, a journalist in the 90s during the Berezovsky era was a prostitute whose opinion could be bought with cash. In either case it is a fact that there are many independent media sources in Russia and only several are state controlled, it is also a fact that the Russian government is not blocking western media sources from reaching Russian people.
Also, freedomhouse apparently receives most of its funding from the US government, so it is not an independent organization:
Freedom House - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"As noted in the section on organization above, Freedom House receives most of its funding from the U.S. government, and prominent U.S. government officials reside on its board, most notably past officials have included conservatives."
So your source is a US based, US government funded propaganda machine, it is obviously lacking objectivity in addition to the fact that it didn't do any research on the ground for some of the events its discussing, such as the Russian 2008 presidential election.
Give me some real evidence, ideological nonsense will not suffice.
Here is a PDF discussing Freedomhouse's research methods:
www.researchmethods.org/democracy-indicators.pdf
"Polity IV, Polyarchy and Freedom House indicators are highly correlated to each other
(Casper & Tufits 2003). This is a good base to assume these three indicators have very
small systematic errors, but cannot be used to further assume these indicators have no
random measurement errors. In other words, these indicators have acceptable validity, but
their reliability may be low as high correlation does not guarantee high reliability. A low
reliability can lead to biased estimation in regression modeling. As clearly demonstrated
by Casper and Tufis, these three democracy indicators are not interchangeable, therefore,
not reliable as indicators to measure democracy. In this perspective, the Casper and
Tufis’s article has made a great contribution by drawing our attention to the reliability
issue of democracy measures. Recently, more and more attention has been paid to
measurement error issues in political science (Adcok & Collier 2001, Munck &
Verkuilen. 2002). Many have studied the systematic errors of democracy indicators
(Bollen & Paxton 2000), but not much about the random errors of the democracy
measurements."
Where is more in there.
Here is some information on reporters without borders:
http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/en/viewthread.php?tid=1641&highlight=
E:M | How Reporters Without Borders (RSF) is biased against Iran
D
Dottgodybroom
Great post! I have been going round in circles, trying to find this information
I leave a lot of comments on a lot of froum each week - but there is one situation where I rarely leave a comment - even if the post deserves it Good workt!sourcinggate com/hiphone-t-210 html]hiphone
I leave a lot of comments on a lot of froum each week - but there is one situation where I rarely leave a comment - even if the post deserves it Good workt!sourcinggate com/hiphone-t-210 html]hiphone