Peter Hitchens tells the truth about Russia

[renard_ruse]

Wow, this guy is brilliant. Tells truth about Russia...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeO44STvnJw

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

It's a damned good bet that if YOU think someone is brilliant and agree with them, that they're completely full of shit and the exact opposite is the truth.

 

[someoneyouknow]

Especially when concerning Russia.

Anyone who thinks cronyism and oligarchism are good things should try living in such a place. Nothing like having built your own company from the ground up and Putin comes along and steals it.

There's a reason Russia isn't considered a first-world country.

 

[hashtag45]

On a more superficial level, I like Putin. He has charisma, and his style (or his speechwriters') is refreshing.

He and russian massmedia are also good for counteracting the one-sided rhetoric that the prevailing massmedia has been feeding us. There's a risk, otherwise of being brainwashed and turning into political zombies devoid of critical analysis.

But am I kidding myself as to how ruthless Putin and Russian politicians have always been, in both their internal and external imperialistic politics?
Of course not.

 

[someoneyouknow]

He and russian massmedia are also good for counteracting the one-sided rhetoric that the prevailing massmedia has been feeding us. There's a risk, otherwise of being brainwashed and turning into political zombies devoid of critical analysis.

There is no such thing as Russian mass media. It's only what Putin tells them to print. He has made it a point to shut down as many independent news sources as possible, using his goon squads to raid the offices of those who put out real news and has even ordered the assassination of those who reveal the truth. Such as Boris Nemtsov.

When Russia stole Crimea the first thing they did was shut down every newspaper, radio station and tv channel which put anything anti-Putin or didn't conform to Putin's edicts. Afterwards, he installed his own people to pour out his propaganda, telling people how great things were despite not having electricity for half the day.

The only people who are being brainwashed are the Russian people. The world knows the truth.

 

[hashtag45]

1.There is no such thing as Russian mass media. It's only what Putin tells them to print.

2. He has made it a point to shut down as many independent news sources as possible, using his goon squads to raid the offices of those who put out real news and has even ordered the assassination of those who reveal the truth. Such as Boris Nemtsov.

When Russia stole Crimea the first thing they did was shut down every newspaper, radio station and tv channel which put anything anti-Putin or didn't conform to Putin's edicts. Afterwards, he installed his own people to pour out his propaganda, telling people how great things were despite not having electricity for half the day.

3.The only people who are being brainwashed are the Russian people. The world knows the truth.

2.I totally agree, and the sentiment in most parts of Europe is pretty much congruent with your stance.

1.Unfortunately, that goes for most massmedia too. Most of them are either lackeys to those in power, or are writing whatever it takes in order to sell their paper.
It's often the case that the same event recounted by several news sources gains entirely different connotations.

3.Not at all. Many of their laypeople don't like their govt. either, and are aware of the real history of Russia.

 

[eyerami]

Hitchens hits nothing but homers in the first 13 minutes I watched...

The reason why progressives despise Putin's Russia is simply because they see sovereign Russia as the biggest threat in the world today to their globalist ambitions...

...as they also see Russia as the most powerful force in the world today that stands directly in the way of their beloved United Socialist State of America believing that it cannot only stick its socialist nose into every other country's business, but that is has the collective "right" to greatly influence every other country's business - if not directly intervene in the business of any country it wishes to, and even outright overthrow UN-recognized governments of countries it wishes to.

There is no stronger proponent of globalization in the world today than the progressive collective of the USSA, and socialist Americans are its enablers.

To be clear: any American who supports - in any way - the USSA's incessant drive toward globalization is nothing but a socialist enabler...

You get exactly what you pay for.

 

[eyerami]

All of which just simply exposes progressives for the total hypocrites they naturally are:

Progressives who whine and moan so much about foreign intervention are the very ones championing globalization...

Progressives who whine and moan so much about police unjustness are the very ones championing federalization...

Progressives who whine and moan so much about racism are the very ones championing racism itself...

Progressives who claim to "care" champion the "right" to intentionally and tortuously kill completely innocent and totally defenseless human life simply for their convenience...

Short-bus female progressives who whine and moan so much about individuals dissing females get off porking pigs who love to dis females himself...

Yada, yada, yada.

 

[someoneyouknow]

Hitchens hits nothing but homers in the first 13 minutes I watched...

Not from the U.S., are you? If you were you'd know what a homer is.

The reason why progressives despise Putin's Russia is simply because they see sovereign Russia as the biggest threat in the world today to their globalist ambitions...

No, people see Russia as a threat because it continues to invade and attack its neighbors in a vain attempt to reconstitute the former Soviet Union.

There's a reason no country, when looking to improve itself, ever says, "We want to be like Russia, with a dictator as our leader who steals our businesses and tells us what to think."

Nor have any of the countries of the former Soviet Union ever wanted to go back to the way things were because they are very cognizant of the oppression and repression which they endured and which Putin is now trying to resurrect.

Take a look at any of the former Soviet satellite countries. Without exception every single country is now better off with more freedoms, more trade, more advancement, than Russia has. That alone should tell you something.

...as they also see Russia as the most powerful force in the world today that stands directly in the way of their beloved United Socialist State of America believing that it cannot only stick its socialist nose into every other country's business, but that is has the collective "right" to greatly influence every other country's business - if not directly intervene in the business of any country it wishes to, and even outright overthrow UN-recognized governments of countries it wishes to.

Powerful force? Their sole aircraft carrier has to have a tugboat shadow it every time it leaves port because it breaks down so often. Russia has to pay other countries to build its ships because it doesn't have the technical know-how nor capacity to do so.

The U.S. is a socialist country? Really? Do you have any idea how far from socialism the U.S. is? Russia is far closer to socialism, on any scale, than the U.S. is.

And speaking of overthrowing UN-recognized governments, why is that Russia is invading and attacking Ukraine except to overthrow the UN-recognized, democratically elected government of Ukraine? Or are those thousands of dead Russian soldiers dying because they're on vacation?

Funny how you Russian trolls try to hide behind UN legitimacy when it suits you but when you're trying to overthrow a government suddenly the UN doesn't have standing.

There is no stronger proponent of globalization in the world today than the progressive collective of the USSA, and socialist Americans are its enablers.

To be clear: any American who supports - in any way - the USSA's incessant drive toward globalization is nothing but a socialist enabler...

You get exactly what you pay for.

You do understand that globalization is not the brain-child of only the U.S. but every other country which wants to develop its trading partners, don't you? Increase in trade, when done correctly, benefits countries.

Also, you keep calling the U.S. a socialist country. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Then again, one shouldn't expect any less from a Russian troll. They wouldn't know the truth if it ran them over because there is no word for truth in the Russian language. All they know is what dictator Putin tells them because he does not allow independent radio, tv or news stations to exist because they would reveal the extent of his corruption and plundering of the Russian people.

 

[hashtag45]

You do have a thing for the expression "russian troll", do you?

I kindof agree with both eyer and someoneyouknow.

1.Both the US and Russia have always had imperialistic tendencies. And so did -what are the current- Italy, and Turkey, and England, or pretty much every country that found itself to be in a position of power.

2.Globalization?
Sure, it has some immediate benefits for laypeople such as myself, like quality goods or freedom of travel or info. But in the long run: it's just a new name for another gilded or neofeudalistic age.

 

[Sean]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...itter-feed-to-promote-lies-and-trump-too.html

 

[Colonel Hogan]

2.Globalization?
Sure, it has some immediate benefits for laypeople such as myself, like quality goods or freedom of travel or info. But in the long run: it's just a new name for another gilded or neofeudalistic age.

What you and Eyer do not understand is that ultimately globalization is not a policy but simply a consequence of advancement in information and transport technology that cannot help but influence politics and commerce. It is inevitable. A country like North Korea does all it can to ignore global realities and all they've accomplished is to isolate and impoverish themselves.

 

[hashtag45]

What you and Eyer do not understand is that ultimately globalization is not a policy but simply a consequence of advancement in information and transport technology that cannot help but influence politics and commerce. It is inevitable. A country like North Korea does all it can to ignore global realities and all they've accomplished is to isolate and impoverish themselves.

You're right, it is inevitable.
Unfortunately, how come the 0.01% take advantage of the natural course of things and always ebd up stuffing their pockets, while chinese factory workers still work for 1$ a day?

 

[eyerami]

What you and Eyer do not understand is that ultimately globalization is not a policy but simply a consequence of advancement in information and transport technology that cannot help but influence politics and commerce. It is inevitable.

Bullshit.

What your unnatural socialist policy of more and more globablization naturally leads to is the erasure of national sovereignty, just as the unnatural socialist policy of more and more federalization leads to the erasure of individual state power, just as the unnatural socialist policy of more and more state power leads to the erasure of individual liberty itself.

Tell the Board, socialist Corporal RINO Butthurt, what the following globalist policies have to do with your totally bogus "advancement in information and transport technology"...

Obama will bypass Congress, seek U.N. resolution on nuclear testing
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...clear-testing/

UN Backs Secret Obama Takeover of Police
International org calls for federalization of U.S. law enforcement to be 'beefed up,' cover all of America
http://www*****zette.com/polizette/u...ver-of-police/

Everything in civil life (governed by politics) resides upon the balance of a teeter-totter with individual liberty on one end and socialism on the other, with each end best served by the greater weight which is placed upon it...

"advancement in information and transport technology" can serve either just as well or just as poorly, therefore making its role arbitrary to both...

...but it is the intent of individuals - POLICY - which carries all the weight in the world.

 

[Sean Renaud]

What you and Eyer do not understand is that ultimately globalization is not a policy but simply a consequence of advancement in information and transport technology that cannot help but influence politics and commerce. It is inevitable. A country like North Korea does all it can to ignore global realities and all they've accomplished is to isolate and impoverish themselves.

Quoted because it needs to be repeated.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Bullshit.

What your unnatural socialist policy of more and more globablization naturally leads to is the erasure of national sovereignty, just as the unnatural socialist policy of more and more federalization leads to the erasure of individual state power, just as the unnatural socialist policy of more and more state power leads to the erasure of individual liberty itself.

Tell the Board, socialist Corporal RINO Butthurt, what the following globalist policies have to do with your totally bogus "advancement in information and transport technology"...

Obama will bypass Congress, seek U.N. resolution on nuclear testing
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...clear-testing/

UN Backs Secret Obama Takeover of Police
International org calls for federalization of U.S. law enforcement to be 'beefed up,' cover all of America
http://www*****zette.com/polizette/u...ver-of-police/

Everything in civil life (governed by politics) resides upon the balance of a teeter-totter with individual liberty on one end and socialism on the other, with each end best served by the greater weight which is placed upon it...

"advancement in information and transport technology" can serve either just as well or just as poorly, therefore making its role arbitrary to both...

...but it is the intent of individuals - POLICY - which carries all the weight in the world.

To begin with, neither of your links work, dumbass, but I suppose that shouldn't be surprising considering your lack of enthusiasm for information technology to begin with.

No matter. I found the specific references through a separate search engine query.

Secondly, I will give you half credit. Certainly there are those people, of which President Obama is unabashedly one, who are rabid fans of the inevitability of globalization and who would advocate any number of policies to advance that trend and even extend it to areas that are NOT inevitable and are UNARGUABLY, to the vast majority of reasonable individuals, PATENTLY UNWISE AND SELF-DESTRUCTIVE.

As for just one example, a handful of nitwits have been masturbating to the idea of ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT as far backs as when the Soviets actually thought they would sit at the apex of it.

But the inevitability of a global economy and the accompanying necessity of international treaties governing resource management of air, water, and fisheries as well as multi-national cooperation and control of infectious diseases and the curtailment of global epidemics does not signal an incontrovertible loss of individual national sovereignty -- even when an over-enthusiastic fan of the most socialistic of those policies might happen to be the President of the United States.

Of course, in that instance the role of the legislative branch of the United States government becomes all the more important, but I really don't think you can saddle a socialist President with the responsibility (or credit) for the failure of Congress to assert their legitimate authority to act as a restraint.

For that matter, it is arguable as to how likely Congress is to fail us. This from one of your sadly malfunctioning links:

The Obama administration has tried for years without success to build Senate support for ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which has been ratified by 164 countries. The Clinton administration signed the treaty, but the Senate refused to ratify it in 1999. There’s no chance that the current Republican-led Senate would ratify it before Obama leaves office.

Corker said Congress still hasn’t been able to see the proposed resolution, and administration officials did not specify any role for Congress in the U.N. effort. Lawmakers fear that a Security Council resolution could constrain the United States and subject American national security decisions to international oversight and potential legal liability.

“What it really does is allow countries like Russia and China to be able to bind the United States over our nuclear deterrent capability without the scrutiny of Congress,” Corker said. “Should we ever decide we may wish to test, we could be sued in international courts over violating a United Nations Security Council resolution that Congress played no role in.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2016/08/04/obama-will-bypass-congress-seek-u-n-resolution-on-nuclear-testing/

So, two observations. A CTBT is DOA in Congress. It isn't happening. Secondly, with respect to the fears of Sen. Bob Corker, one has to wonder what this man has been smoking. He appears to be fundamentally ignorant as to the lack of the reality of enforcement capability attendant to any decision by the World Court or any other presumptive international legal authority.

Since 1946, the United States has had an uneasy relationship with the International Court of Justice (ICJ or World Court or Court). On the one hand, the United States embraces the rule of law within its own society and, in principle, within the international system of states. The United States has been and remains an active participant in cases before the Court, appearing before it several times, more than any other state, even in recent years. On the other hand, the United States has never been willing to submit itself to the plenary authority of the Court, and has typically reacted negatively to decisions by the Court that are adverse to U.S. interests. As is well known, in reaction to decisions that were reached by the Court, the United States refused to participate in the proceedings on the merits of the case brought by Nicaragua in 1984, withdrew from the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction in 1986, and recently terminated its acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction over disputes arising under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

http://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1902&context=faculty_publications

In other words, NOBODY AT ANY TIME IN THE FUTURE in either the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branch of the United States government is going to be led away in shackles to rot in some international "black site" jail cell because of some UN resolution the Obama administration might have rammed through the Security Council without the advise and consent of Congress.

It's a paranoid fantasy that only distorts beyond all recognition what reasonable people mean by and recognize as inevitable, yet sovereignly feasible, globalization.

But if it is sufficient to cause you to live in isolated fear out in the west Texas desert with a bunch of coyotes and rattlesnakes which will hopefully envenomate your worthless ass, then it is a paranoia that will have nonetheless provided a valuable public benefit.

 

[Sean Renaud]

-snip-​

But the inevitability of a global economy and the accompanying necessity of international treaties governing resource management of air, water, and fisheries as well as multi-national cooperation and control of infectious diseases and the curtailment of global epidemics does not signal an incontrovertible loss of individual national sovereignty -- even when an over-enthusiastic fan of the most socialistic of those policies might happen to be the President of the United States.

-snip-​

I'm curious, how would such management be possible without something that for all intents and purposes would amount to a one world government? I don't see how you could effectively monitor even the national resource management without at the very least a UN style organization with the ability to do more than scowl and send strongly worded letters.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I'm curious, how would such management be possible without something that for all intents and purposes would amount to a one world government? I don't see how you could effectively monitor even the national resource management without at the very least a UN style organization with the ability to do more than scowl and send strongly worded letters.

The same way we do it now -- through voluntary compliance under international treaties. Ultimately, that's all treaties are - voluntary. But with respect to a global economy where all participants recognize mutual benefits, compliance is not typically a problem for most.

But it does raise the issue of why others will or should self-restrain if other major players are not on board. (see global warming and China's historic failure to restrict greenhouse gas emissions prior to 2015 cap and trade agreement)

 

[Sean Renaud]

The same way we do it now -- through voluntary compliance under international treaties. Ultimately, that's all treaties are - voluntary. But with respect to a global economy where all participants recognize mutual benefits, compliance is not typically a problem for most.

But it does raise the issue of why others will or should self-restrain if other major players are not on board. (see global warming and China's historic failure to restrict greenhouse gas emissions prior to 2015 cap and trade agreement)

I think the voluntary compliance only works so far. As you point out China simply refuses to play along and the measures we can use to force them are fairly limited.

To be perfectly honest I suspect that (and this is not a slight on corporations) I think this is a situation that we can either get out in front of and deal with on our terms or we can wait until the corporations do it. I can't imagine it taking but so much longer before there are enough corporations with enough lobbyists in enough countries to set long standing traditions and agreements that are everything but formally enforced.

 

[underguy1]

There is no such thing as Russian mass media. It's only what Putin tells them to print. He has made it a point to shut down as many independent news sources as possible, using his goon squads to raid the offices of those who put out real news and has even ordered the assassination of those who reveal the truth. Such as Boris Nemtsov.

When Russia stole Crimea the first thing they did was shut down every newspaper, radio station and tv channel which put anything anti-Putin or didn't conform to Putin's edicts. Afterwards, he installed his own people to pour out his propaganda, telling people how great things were despite not having electricity for half the day.

The only people who are being brainwashed are the Russian people. The world knows the truth.

Oh the irony.

 

[underguy1]

The same way we do it now -- through voluntary compliance under international treaties. Ultimately, that's all treaties are - voluntary. But with respect to a global economy where all participants recognize mutual benefits, compliance is not typically a problem for most.

But it does raise the issue of why others will or should self-restrain if other major players are not on board. (see global warming and China's historic failure to restrict greenhouse gas emissions prior to 2015 cap and trade agreement)

But the US, the UK, 'Israel' and a few others pay only lip service to international law and are in constant breach while lecturing others.

 

[underguy1]

Not from the U.S., are you? If you were you'd know what a homer is.



No, people see Russia as a threat because it continues to invade and attack its neighbors in a vain attempt to reconstitute the former Soviet Union.

There's a reason no country, when looking to improve itself, ever says, "We want to be like Russia, with a dictator as our leader who steals our businesses and tells us what to think."

Nor have any of the countries of the former Soviet Union ever wanted to go back to the way things were because they are very cognizant of the oppression and repression which they endured and which Putin is now trying to resurrect.

Take a look at any of the former Soviet satellite countries. Without exception every single country is now better off with more freedoms, more trade, more advancement, than Russia has. That alone should tell you something.



Powerful force? Their sole aircraft carrier has to have a tugboat shadow it every time it leaves port because it breaks down so often. Russia has to pay other countries to build its ships because it doesn't have the technical know-how nor capacity to do so.

The U.S. is a socialist country? Really? Do you have any idea how far from socialism the U.S. is? Russia is far closer to socialism, on any scale, than the U.S. is.

And speaking of overthrowing UN-recognized governments, why is that Russia is invading and attacking Ukraine except to overthrow the UN-recognized, democratically elected government of Ukraine? Or are those thousands of dead Russian soldiers dying because they're on vacation?

Funny how you Russian trolls try to hide behind UN legitimacy when it suits you but when you're trying to overthrow a government suddenly the UN doesn't have standing.



You do understand that globalization is not the brain-child of only the U.S. but every other country which wants to develop its trading partners, don't you? Increase in trade, when done correctly, benefits countries.

Also, you keep calling the U.S. a socialist country. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Then again, one shouldn't expect any less from a Russian troll. They wouldn't know the truth if it ran them over because there is no word for truth in the Russian language. All they know is what dictator Putin tells them because he does not allow independent radio, tv or news stations to exist because they would reveal the extent of his corruption and plundering of the Russian people.

There isn't a shred of truth in this post.

You come across like a State Department troll.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I think the voluntary compliance only works so far. As you point out China simply refuses to play along and the measures we can use to force them are fairly limited.

To be perfectly honest I suspect that (and this is not a slight on corporations) I think this is a situation that we can either get out in front of and deal with on our terms or we can wait until the corporations do it. I can't imagine it taking but so much longer before there are enough corporations with enough lobbyists in enough countries to set long standing traditions and agreements that are everything but formally enforced.

But the US, the UK, 'Israel' and a few others pay only lip service to international law and are in constant breach while lecturing others.

Both of you guys are unduly focused on authoritarian mechanisms of forced state behavior.

My nod to "voluntary compliance" rests on the foundation of, market forces - or perhaps a better phrase is "state interests," which drive compliance. This is "capitalism" and "democracy" at its best. We don't have a deal unless it is a win-win for both/all parties. Don't want to sign on? Fine. But there is a price to pay for sitting it out.

Sean, you missed my reference to China finally getting on board with greenhouse gas emissions as a result of the 2015 cap and trade agreement. It remains to be seen how sincere/effective their environmental efforts will be, but they obviously made the concession because they felt the need to make the effort.

 

[underguy1]

Both of you guys are unduly focused on authoritarian mechanisms of forced state behavior.

My nod to "voluntary compliance" rests on the foundation of, market forces - or perhaps a better phrase is "state interests," which drive compliance. This is "capitalism" and "democracy" at its best. We don't have a deal unless it is a win-win for both/all parties. Don't want to sign on? Fine. But there is a price to pay for sitting it out.

Sean, you missed my reference to China finally getting on board with greenhouse gas emissions as a result of the 2015 cap and trade agreement. It remains to be seen how sincere/effective their environmental efforts will be, but they obviously made the concession because they felt the need to make the effort.

Except that capitalism doesn't work that way. There is no such thing as a free market.

So called "free trade" is in fact managed trade. But managed by financial interests rather than government/s.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Both of you guys are unduly focused on authoritarian mechanisms of forced state behavior.

My nod to "voluntary compliance" rests on the foundation of, market forces - or perhaps a better phrase is "state interests," which drive compliance. This is "capitalism" and "democracy" at its best. We don't have a deal unless it is a win-win for both/all parties. Don't want to sign on? Fine. But there is a price to pay for sitting it out.

Sean, you missed my reference to China finally getting on board with greenhouse gas emissions as a result of the 2015 cap and trade agreement. It remains to be seen how sincere/effective their environmental efforts will be, but they obviously made the concession because they felt the need to make the effort.

I did miss it, or more accurately misread it. It's certainly more than worth a try. Though I stand by the believe that given time this naturally evolves in to something that most would call a one world government like it or not.