Point of view. A look from the other side.

This is a very naïve view, sir. Does Russia know of the neocon New American Century? Have they paid attention when that list of nations, which include Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, that were to be dealt with, were dealt with? Does Russia know they are also on that list? Well, it is public knowledge. Then you have after the fall of the USSR, the Bush admin giving Russia their word that they would not move nato one inch eastward. And we know this promise was broken. So what is nato and American forces doing today, in regards to Russia? So what we are doing, is ramping up tensions, with Russia, surrounding them with forces, and for WHAT? Some great Russian threat of conquest? No evidence to back that up. So Russians given their history of invasion, unlike the US, are paranoid, and they should be. We now have some people in DC speaking of winning a nuclear war with Russia, by offhand remarks. Russia hears all of this.

And yet you say Russia acts in the same old way, as if it is not called for? We have been ramping up tensions, so the question is WHY? For shits and giggles, or for something strategic, for the longer term? What is that longer term?

And it is also suspect, to me, that we are seeing classic propaganda tactics being used today by congress, by MSM, that blames Russia for interfering, by DNC hacking, in our election, and it is repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated...with not one shred of *******ned evidence ever presented to the American people. We are just supposed to believe it, with no evidence, and by the same bastards that told us saddam was in with Osama bin laden. Well, some of us will not buy into any of this, for it has an odor about it, which we have smelled before.

 

If you compare with the historical characters, then his psychological type is the same as that of Felix Dzerzhinsky or Maximilian Robespierre

In Russia, of course, no one compares it to Hitler. Otherwise, Putin's rating would not be so high. Many, on the contrary, accuse Putin of being soft and indecisive. For example, half of the Russians are in favor of direct military support for the Donbass, and 16% for its accession to Russia.

My personal opinion about this. I will not argue over it, because it's just my opinion. Putin is not a fanatic. Not a hard-line politician. He is a political player who has learned to play well in big politics. At the beginning of his career, he was not so experienced. And it does not matter for what reason, for ideological reasons or because of protecting your own corrupt interests (which I do not believe, but this is not the case that can be ruled out), but he cares about the well-being of Russia. The results of this in Russia are seen very well. We all remember the 1990s and 2000s and can build a trend.

The main problem of Russia today is not in Putin. And the fact that there are no equal politicians who could replace him. "The Russian opposition" today is concerned about anything, but not about the welfare of Russia (because of what has so depressing popularity).

 

I suggest that you look at the history of our foreign policy and include that in your Calculus. We conquered Germany and Japan and they are not some of our closest allies. We also know history well enough to know that there is certainly no way we would ever attempt to conquer Russia with a land Army. Russia will be much better off in the long run if it abandons its current kleptocratic system and would Orient itself more towards a European / North American System. The numbers and benefits of such a change are pretty clear.

 

I agree about putin. he understands the Russian mindset and knows how to play to it as far as up-and-coming politicians a kleptocracy like his pretty much squashes them

 

In Russia, no one is talking about a direct military invasion In the 21st century.Although, of course, the United States has examples of Afghanistan or Iraq, but Russia suffices examples of the fate of Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Ukraine ... And the USSR itself, which broke up not without "US assistance."

You are so sure that you know how to live better for others ... But look at what you have done with the countries you have climbed into in recent decades.

Russia does not believe the words. Russia believes what is happening around.

 

That's mostly what I think of him too. I always liked Putin. Because he strikes me as a Russian Nationalist who fights to put his people and country first. I think every country deserves to have a leader who puts it's people before anything else.

 

There is a serious problem Russia is not a mono-national country. Russia is a federation, the separate components of which have very strong cultural differences ...

Although I think there are many linguistic semantic subtleties that can not be translated into English. A characteristic feature of the Russian language is that we have separate words for describing nationality by state, nationality by birth and religion ... That's care for Russians as citizens of the country ("rossiyane") and concern for Russians as a nation ("russkie"). Are different concepts that have different words in Russian. And in English it sounds the same ("Russian") So Putin cares about Russians as residents of the country (including dozens of other nationalities), but not about Russians as a nation. By the way, this is what some of the Russian nationalists are setting against him.

 

It's really about the numbers just look at Japan Germany and the rest of Europe Afghanistan well we're doing as well in Afghanistan as you guys did. Compare South Korea with North Korea.

 

With you it's boring. Think up arguments more weighty

 

By Russian Nationalist I just means he puts the people of his country first, vs a globalist leader who would put non-Russians before your citizenry.

 

Reality isn't weighty enough for you

 

Yes, it certainly is. In Russia, everything is very difficult with a western level of tolerance. Residents of Russia do not want to submit to the pressure of minorities. For some it is a positive example, for someone - an example of barbarism and undemocratic. But it is.

 

That's good. I respect you guys for not bowing to the globalists. It is not natural to be tolerant of perverted sexual deviants. I think the west has dispatched homosexuals in your country to corrupt it like they have corrupted mine. Don't let them get away with it.

 

Which explains the United States. we are made up of people that were subject to repression from not only Russia but China and all of the various countries of Europe so you can measure the success of the United States and attributed it Old World repression the guy that started Google, an American company was born in Moscow that's what your intolerance gets, a stronger more prosperous America

 

I do not think that homosexuality was introduced to Russia from the West specially I think it got in together with other Western culture. Russia very easily absorbs the cultural peculiarities of those with whom it contacts or before whom it worships. And from the second half of the 1980s, Russia literally bowed before the West's culture. In fact, great respect for Western culture has not gone away and now. People just became more critical.

And earlier, for example, a kiss between men did not have a sexual background at all.It was just an expression of friendship: D Here is a shot from Soviet children's cinema in 1975. And it did not cause any association with homosexuality



And here is a Soviet poster of the Second World War period. Liberated lands meet soldiers-liberators

 

And again about the topic of the terrorist attack. Here is an unexploded bomb.



Yes, this is not a "cracker", as it exploded in the car. Lucky. If this bomb exploded, then the victims would be much more. Or it was not lucky, but the intelligence services worked - it could very well be that the signal had to come to blow up when the crowd gathered after the first explosion. But the connection was silenced (which is now always done in such cases) and the explosion did not occur.

 

Sometimes cell phones fail the bombers. A few years ago, terrorists were preparing an explosion for the New Year holidays. In Russia massively celebrate not so much Christmas, as the New Year itself, December 31. And the terrorists were preparing an explosive remote-controlled charge on the phone in a house near Moscow. When they were already ready to exit and activated the charge, they exploded. The official reason was then named the mistake of the terrorists themselves. But I think that everything was even easier. We have a tradition. Before the New Year, cellular operators send out SMS to all smiles. I think this SMS came to the phone, which was supposed to activate the detonator

 

No offense but that's ****ing gross lol

Anyways a lot of westerners will try to tell you that diversity is a strength. That is not true. America is very diverse and bend over backwards trying to please our minorities and it has only weakened us and driven us to the brink of civil war.

You are correct when you say Russia does not need it's minorities, minoriities need Russia.

 

And a little more about the public people of the Russian opposition. There is such a singer, Andrei Makarevich. It was very popular in the period of the collapse of the USSR and the beginning of the formation of the Russian Federation. In my youth, being an anti-Soviet radical, I was heard by his songs. After the Ukrainian crisis, he took a very active anti-government stance. Has the right to. But what forms did it take to acquire ...

Today he will have an entertainment concert in St. Petersburg, where the terrorist attack took place. When asked if there will be a concert, he replied (quote): "I do not think that there will be a cancellation. Today is not a day of mourning".

And then they wonder why Russia does not like this opposition ...

 

I, on the contrary, think that diversity is strength. But in another sense. "The progress of society requires systemic diversity. This can be called a heuristic rule." © A.Rozoff.

That's why I'm against globalism. From an evolutionary point of view, this is a dead end. Communities should develop independently.

I also have nothing against minorities. Personally, I have some negative attitude towards homosexuals. Even though there are a couple of such acquaintances. And I'm definitely against pursuing them somehow. But I begin to categorically object when such people begin to demand for themselves special rights that others do not have. If a homosexual demands respect for himself, not because he is such or such a person, but because he is a homosexual, I am absolutely against such a phenomenon.

 

Couldnt agree more. When Americans say diversity is our strength they mean displacing the majority population with foreigners and minorities is something to be encouraged. That's what they mean and it's destructive and evil in my opinion.

 

And here are the next acts of information war.

The Washington Times has apparently used a photo taken during the March 26 protests to illustrate a report about an explosion in St. Petersburg metro.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova pointed out that the Washington Times, a US newspaper, used a photo from the March 26 protests as an illustration for the article about today’s bombing in the St. Petersburg metro.



// https://sputniknews.com/world/201704031052243653-newspaper-photo-mistake-bombing/

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/3/russia-st-petersburg-subway-explosion-injures-unkn/

Now there, however, the photo was replaced.

 

your post isnt at all based in reality.

 

Perhaps, here we have a terminological misunderstanding. I noticed that very often hot and fruitless disputes arise when opponents use a different understanding of the terms they are arguing about. Even when they both argue in the same native language for them.

I do not see anything wrong with mixing cultures. It would be strange otherwise, since the whole of Russian culture is the result of a centuries-old blending of a huge mass of foreign cultures and peoples. We were ruled by the Vikings, we were attacked by the Tatar-Mongols, we accepted the Byzantine faith, mixed blood almost with all of Europe ...

But this is a question of the mutual dissolution of cultures. This I do not see now in attempts to asymmetize migrants in the US and in the West. So you, apparently, mean the problem when migrants arrive, but remain an isolated autonomous group. I believe that this is in the short term very bad, because it creates tension in society, increases crime. An isolated community often becomes uneducated, aggressive ...

If visitors come into the existing community, adopting its rules and norms, then there is nothing wrong with that. This is a positive diversity in all senses.

I myself am in many ways a product of this process My mother was born and grew up in the Russian outback. My father, an Uzbek, came to study at a university from Uzbekistan. And I came to the light Typical Russian

There is such a historical anecdote:

"At the court ball, when the Marquis de Ciustrin was examining the guests when Emperor Nicholas I approached him.

Do you think that all this is Russian?

"Of course, Your Majesty ..."

- And here not! This is the Tatar. It's a German. It's a Pole. This is a Georgian, and there are a Jew and a Moldovan.

"But then who are the Russians here, Your Majesty ?!"

"But all together they are Russian!"

That's how the Russian people were formed Actually, genetic studies show that the modern Russians are only 16% of the heirs of those tribes that lived here before the start of large mixing ...

Actually, the American people were formed in this way. This is also the result of the work of the great melting pot. But it must be melting. Mixing all in a single culture. And not the existence in one state of several isolated alienated groups.

 

And again about infowar.

Comrade from Germany writes to me:

I turned on the German n-tv right after the terrorist attack. The picture came from Russia 24, and comments were about the difficult and worsening economic situation in the country, about rallies on September 26, Putin's falling rating.