Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Western propaganda

    Share
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3147
    Points : 3270
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Western propaganda

    Post  kvs on Mon Oct 31, 2016 4:50 pm

    Svyatoslavich wrote:Brazilian lawyer Janaina Paschoal (author of the impeachment law against former president Dilma Rousseff) said that Russia is about to invade Brazil through Venezuela. Most Brazilians are, of course, laughing, and created many memes. But one of the biggest Brazilian newspapers (Folha de São Paulo) seems to be taking it seriously, even linking somehow the new RS-28 Sarmat missile with the invasion (the ridiculous title reads: "Russia could invade Brazil with Satan 2 missile".
    http://afolhabrasil.com.br/politica/russia-pode-invadir-o-brasil-com-o-missil-sata-2/
    Couldn't find anything in English, though.
    Even if Putin had any will to invade Brazil (and I am sure he hasn't), I think I don't need to list the reasons why it is just impossible.

    I am sad that Latin America is so badly f*cked up. The people there are nice and don't deserve the shit regimes and Uncle Scumbag bootlick
    elites and mass media. To worry about Russia when Uncle Scumbag has his schlong up Latin America's collect anus is simply too much.

    Note how this time around the Russian bogeyman is supposedly invading instead of spreading commie revolution.

    Svyatoslavich

    Posts : 333
    Points : 342
    Join date : 2015-04-22
    Location : Buenos Aires

    Re: Western propaganda

    Post  Svyatoslavich on Mon Oct 31, 2016 11:42 pm

    kvs wrote:I am sad that Latin America is so badly f*cked up.   The people there are nice and don't deserve the shit regimes and Uncle Scumbag bootlick
    elites and mass media.   To worry about Russia when Uncle Scumbag has his schlong up Latin America's collect anus is simply too much.  

    Note how this time around the Russian bogeyman is supposedly invading instead of spreading commie revolution.
    The worst part is that there is no alternative. It is not that the previous, leftist government, was a good option: it was severely ideologized with wrong economical policies, behind the curtains had their agreement with Washigton despite their "anti-imperialistic" rhetorics, and was corrupt to the core (just like the current government, by the way). The same is valid for Argentina and Venezuela. No Putin in the region, unfortunately.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4489
    Points : 4662
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Western propaganda

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Thu Nov 03, 2016 7:22 am

    Svyatoslavich wrote:
    kvs wrote:I am sad that Latin America is so badly f*cked up.   The people there are nice and don't deserve the shit regimes and Uncle Scumbag bootlick
    elites and mass media.   To worry about Russia when Uncle Scumbag has his schlong up Latin America's collect anus is simply too much.  

    Note how this time around the Russian bogeyman is supposedly invading instead of spreading commie revolution.
    The worst part is that there is no alternative. It is not that the previous, leftist government, was a good option: it was severely ideologized with wrong economical policies, behind the curtains had their agreement with Washigton despite their "anti-imperialistic" rhetorics, and was corrupt to the core (just like the current government, by the way). The same is valid for Argentina and Venezuela. No Putin in the region, unfortunately.


    Well in other news, it looks like South Korea's Park Geun-hye is likely going to get the same treatment, probably because she's not a big enough hawk:

    http://journal-neo.org/2016/11/03/the-scandal-around-park-geun-hye-and-choi-soon-sil-pre-election-exacerbation/
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5538
    Points : 5579
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Western propaganda

    Post  Militarov on Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:11 pm

    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5410
    Points : 5514
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Western propaganda

    Post  PapaDragon on Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:57 pm

    Militarov wrote:

    You have got to be sh*tting me... Suspect lol1
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1383
    Points : 1384
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Western propaganda

    Post  AlfaT8 on Fri Nov 04, 2016 12:46 am

    Militarov wrote:

    What the Holy F#ck. Shocked
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2065
    Points : 2083
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Western propaganda

    Post  KiloGolf on Fri Nov 04, 2016 2:13 am

    These are twitter memes made by Trump supporters. Chill
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1383
    Points : 1384
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Western propaganda

    Post  AlfaT8 on Fri Nov 04, 2016 2:32 am

    KiloGolf wrote:These are twitter memes made by Trump supporters. Chill

    Ah, i should have know, it mentions a frigin draft and an obvious fake @ss .gov website.

    Austin

    Posts : 6327
    Points : 6727
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    The Real Story Behind Hillary Clinton's Feud With Vladimir Putin

    Post  Austin on Fri Nov 04, 2016 8:39 am

    The Real Story Behind Hillary Clinton's Feud With Vladimir Putin

    http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/the-real-story-behind-hillary-clintons-feud-with-vladimir-putin-1621236?pfrom=home-lateststories


    In one of her last acts as secretary of state in early 2013, Hillary Clinton wrote a confidential memo to the White House on how to handle Vladimir Putin, Russia's newly installed and increasingly aggressive fourth president. Her bluntly worded advice: Snub him.

    "Don't appear too eager to work together," Clinton urged President Barack Obama, according to her recollection of the note in her 2014 memoir. "Don't flatter Putin with high-level attention. Decline his invitation for a presidential summit."

    It was harsh advice coming from the administration's top diplomat, and Obama would ignore key parts of it. But the memo succinctly captured a personal view about Putin on the part of the future Democratic presidential nominee: a deep skepticism, informed by bitter experience, that would be likely to define U.S.-Russian relations if Clinton is elected. Her lasting conclusion, as she would acknowledge, was that "strength and resolve were the only language Putin would understand."

    Putin has been thrust unexpectedly onto the center stage in the U.S. presidential race, with Republican contender Donald Trump expressing admiration for the Kremlin strongman even as intelligence officials investigate apparent Russian attempts to interfere in the campaign. Clinton, by contrast, has used tough talk about Russia to burnish her credentials as an experienced diplomat who can stand up to the United States' adversaries.

    For Clinton, the rhetoric reflects genuine disappointment and frustration from a tumultuous term as secretary of state during which cooperation between Moscow and Washington briefly soared, only to come crashing to Earth after Putin's reelection as president in 2012, following a four-year hiatus, according to current and former U.S. officials involved in Russian policymaking at the time. Clinton, who began her tenure by famously offering a "reset" of Russian relations, would end it by publicly blasting Putin's government on issues including alleged vote-rigging in Russia and Putin's support for authoritarian Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

    Putin would fire back with repeated attacks against her, often injecting an unusually personal tone into the growing diplomatic rift. The exchanges helped cement an adversarial view of Clinton on the Russian side that may explain, more than any other single factor, the apparent efforts by Russian operatives to influence the election by hacking email accounts of senior Clinton staff members, longtime Kremlin observers say.

    "She has policies and a history that the Russians don't like," said Michael McFaul, who became the U.S. ambassador to Moscow during Clinton's final year as secretary of state. "It's frequently forgotten because there's so much noise about Trump and Putin. But this history is real, and Putin doesn't forget these things."

    ---

    Clinton's strong views about Putin predated her arrival at Foggy Bottom in 2009 as Obama's first secretary of state. As a U.S. senator, she condemned Russia's military incursion in August 2008 in the Georgian republic and suggested that Putin, a former Soviet KGB officer who was then Russia's prime minister, was a throwback to the country's hegemonic past.

    President George W. Bush had famously vouched for Putin's character in 2001 by saying that he'd looked into the Russian's eyes and gotten "a sense of his soul." But Clinton, during her own first presidential campaign in early 2008, insisted that Bush had seen no such thing.

    "He was a KGB agent - by definition he doesn't have a soul," Clinton said.

    Just over a year later, Obama's surprise choice as secretary of state was tasked with managing the administration's "Russian reset" policy, which sought to take advantage of the leadership change in both Washington and Moscow to inaugurate a new era of cooperation. The new White House believed Russia's new president, Dmitry Medvedev - a St. Petersburg politician 13 years younger than Putin and lacking his predecessor's experience in the Soviet bureaucracy - might be more open to a real partnership.

    Former State Department and White House officials who attended early strategy meetings said that Clinton ultimately agreed with the approach. But she remained broadly skeptical that the relationship with Russia would ever extend beyond specific issues where Moscow saw an advantage in cooperation.

    "The reset was the president's idea - it was something he wanted to do," said Philip Gordon, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs during Clinton's tenure. "But there was this logic that we were in a terrible place with Russia, and we should give it a shot to see if we could get some concrete things done, in our own interest."

    Another senior U.S. official present during the discussions attributed Clinton's reluctance to lingering suspicions about Putin. The former KGB operative who served as president in the early 2000s had accepted the prime minister's job under Medvedev, but many Kremlin watchers believed that Putin was still Russia's de facto leader, and that Obama's attempts to woo Medvedev misunderstood the real power structure in the Kremlin. These observers watched Putin's hardening view toward the United States with increasing concern.

    "It was right to be skeptical that you could translate that [reset] into a durable, strategic partnership," said the official, who helped guide Russian diplomacy during Republican and Democratic administrations and who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal policy debates freely. "Structurally, we still faced a lot of problems dealing with Russia," including a "fundamental difference in worldview."

    The policy's official launch was a flub: At a Geneva news conference in March 2009, Clinton presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with a mounted red button emblazoned with the word "reset" in English, and the Russian word "peregruzka" - a translation error by the U.S. team that left the bewildered Lavrov puzzling over a term meaning "overload."

    ---

    Years later, Lavrov would dismiss the reset as "the invention of Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration." He noted pointedly in a Bloomberg News interview that he had a very good relationship with Condoleezza Rice, Clinton's immediate predecessor as secretary of state.

    Despite doubts, the new approach seemed initially to bear fruit.

    Within a little more than a year, the two governments had notched historic agreements, including a new treaty on reducing nuclear stockpiles and a pact allowing U.S. military planes to use Russian airspace in delivering supplies to troops in Afghanistan.

    Americans and Russians, working in unusual accord, achieved striking progress on some of the thorniest disputes before the United Nations. In 2010, Washington and Moscow cooperated on a package of unprecedented U.N. economic sanctions that ultimately drove Iran to negotiations about limiting its nuclear program. The administration worked with Moscow to overcome U.S. objections to Russia's long-standing effort to join the World Trade Organization.

    In 2011, Russia withheld its veto on the U.S.-led effort to authorize the international military campaign to stop Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi from slaughtering thousands of his own citizens - an act of diplomatic restraint that many U.S. officials regard as the "reset" era's high-water mark.

    "With the reset, we were never seeking goodwill with Russia; we were seeking a new strategy," said McFaul, the former U.S. ambassador. "It was most productive in terms of concrete outcomes - not holding hands and singing Kumbaya, but real stuff, including some of our biggest security and economic priorities."

    But beneath a more placid surface, old conflicts continued both at home and abroad, and new ones would emerge.

    In Washington, many of the administration's Russian initiatives were drawing skepticism from Congress. In 2010, Obama had announced that he was discontinuing a Bush-era Eastern European missile defense shield that Russia viewed as a military threat, in favor of a new program designed to combat potential strikes from Iranian short- and medium-range missiles. But many Republicans criticized the change - which had been recommended by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a Bush holdover - as an unwarranted and unwise favor to Russia, granted by a naive young administration.

    Russian officials began publicly ruing their tacit support for U.N.-approved military action in Libya, after the intervention expanded from a simple civilian-protection mission to a sustained bombing campaign that led to the overthrow and assassination of Gaddafi. The Kremlin now believed it had been tricked into allowing the U.N. resolution to move forward.

    Putin, according to U.S. officials who met with him at the time, concluded that the Americans were most interested in pursuing regime change for governments they disliked, first in Baghdad and Tripoli, and later in Damascus. Eventually he became convinced that it was the Kremlin that the United States most wanted to change. Logically, Clinton, a strong proponent of U.S. military action in Libya and Syria, would be on the side of those seeking new leadership in Moscow, he believed.

    Suddenly, the Russians were casting skeptical looks at joint programs that had received strong support in both capitals. One casualty was the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which funded the dismantling of Soviet-era nuclear, chemical and biological weapons systems to prevent them from being stolen by terrorists or purchased by rogue states.

    The program's co-founder, Sen. Richard Lugar, Ind., who served as the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during Clinton's tenure, began noticing a change in tone during his many visits to meet with the initiative's Russian partners. Powerful Russian military officials, some of them close allies of Putin, were beginning to perceive such ventures as part of the American plan to weaken the country. The military's political champion was Putin, who decided in 2011 to run for president again, replacing his protege Medvedev after a single term in office.

    "Putin had come to the point where he felt it was no longer necessary to cooperate," Lugar said, "and it might even be demeaning to Russia."

    ---

    In December 2011, despite a deepening economic crisis, Putin's United Russia party retained control of the Duma in parliamentary elections that independent monitoring groups described as fraudulent.

    Thousands of Russians took to the streets in protest, and Clinton - with the White House's explicit blessing - spoke publicly in their defense, condemning Russian officials for manipulating the vote and systematically harassing election observers.

    "The Russian people, like people everywhere, deserve the right to have their voices heard and their votes counted," Clinton said during a speech that month in Lithuania. "And that means they deserve fair, free, transparent elections and leaders who are accountable to them."

    After her speech, when demonstrations in Moscow grew still larger, Putin suggested that his political opponents were following marching orders from Clinton and her team.

    Opposition parties "heard the signal, and with the support of the U.S. State Department began active work," Putin said. Kremlin officials repeated the charge in private meetings with U.S. diplomats, expressing a vehemence that surprised some Obama administration officials.

    Even before the protests - and his own reelection as president in March 2012 - Putin had begun signaling the return of a more authoritarian and aggressive Russia. Beginning in late 2011, the Russian government would adopt policies stifling political dissent at home and increasing pressure on the former Soviet republics, from the Baltic to the Caucasus to Ukraine.

    Clinton began privately warning the White House on how Putin's return could affect a wide range of U.S. foreign policy priorities, such as promoting democracy in Eastern Europe and containing a Syrian civil war that was beginning to ignite sectarian violence and jihadist fervor throughout the Middle East.

    She "argued that we were in for a rougher patch and needed to be clear-eyed about that," said the senior U.S. official who worked for Republican and Democratic administrations. "It was a very honest analysis of the fact that, whatever hopes some people had early on for a more durable partnership, it just wasn't going to happen."

    In fact, things fell apart with surprising speed. In 2012, Putin abruptly halted Russia's participation in the Nunn-Lugar program. That same year, he expelled the U.S. Agency for International Development from Russia, charging interference in domestic affairs and ending USAID's multimillion-dollar support for Russian civil society organizations.

    Putin then repeatedly blocked U.S.-led efforts to resolve Syria's civil war, insisting on preserving the presidency of Assad, a close Russian ally. Two years later - well after Clinton had left office - Putin stunned the world by snatching the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine, something he had first threatened to do nearly a decade earlier.

    Yet, while each of those actions was consistent with Putin's combative style, Russia's disputes with the Obama administration took on a more personal tone after 2011, several current and former U.S. officials and Russian policy experts said.

    Today, with Clinton now aiming for the White House, it's not surprising that Putin might support clandestine efforts to undermine her candidacy - regardless of his views of her chief political opponent, the officials and experts said.

    "Putin has kind of got it in for Hillary," said Clifford Kupchan, chairman of the consulting firm Eurasia Group and a Russia expert who attended private meetings with Putin during the Clinton years. "The statements after the Duma riots were like kerosene on a fire, and it really made Putin angry."

    Putin last week denied taking sides in the U.S. presidential race, and he scoffed at allegations of Russian involvement in the hacking of Democratic officials' email accounts, a crime that U.S. intelligence agencies believe was instigated at the highest levels of the Russian government.

    Kupchan said he thinks that Russia's role in the hacking, if verified, was "more about sowing some chaos in the U.S. system than about any real hope of Trump winning." But he said it also reflects a shot across Clinton's bow, as her record suggests that she would be both tougher and more outspoken on Russia compared to her predecessor.

    "It may well be useful that she has a tough image," he said. "Mrs. Clinton has been through the same journey that a lot of us have gone through on Russia, which is dashed hopes."

    When it comes to Putin's Russia, he said, "she doesn't wear deeply tinted sunglasses of any kind."

    © 2016 The Washington Post

    (This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5538
    Points : 5579
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Western propaganda

    Post  Militarov on Fri Nov 04, 2016 10:06 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    Militarov wrote:

    What the Holy F#ck. Shocked

    Its poster made by "pro-Trumph" crowd online used to mock extensive propaganda in the US atm over female population to vote for Hillary coz she is a....female, sort of. Actually by research almost 80% of female voters that will vote for Hillary will vote for her just coz she is a woman. So this mocked that fact and her speech aganist Russia, Putin etc.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3147
    Points : 3270
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Western propaganda

    Post  kvs on Fri Nov 04, 2016 2:36 pm

    Militarov wrote:


    Its poster made by "pro-Trumph" crowd online used to mock extensive propaganda in the US atm over female population to vote for Hillary coz she is a....female, sort of. Actually by research almost 80% of female voters that will vote for Hillary will vote for her just coz she is a woman. So this mocked that fact and her speech aganist Russia, Putin etc.


    An excellent argument against universal suffrage. If 50% of the voters will vote based on such "issues" (whether the candidate is female or how hot the guy is) then they should not be voting at all. Such saps can be leveraged by malicious elements to get a grip on power. We see this right now in the US election. If the females had enough awareness about the nature of Killary and not what is between her legs then they would not be voting for her. I guess they also buy into all that humanitarian bombing BS as well.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1383
    Points : 1384
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Western propaganda

    Post  AlfaT8 on Fri Nov 04, 2016 10:21 pm

    Austin wrote:The Real Story Behind Hillary Clinton's Feud With Vladimir Putin

    http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/the-real-story-behind-hillary-clintons-feud-with-vladimir-putin-1621236?pfrom=home-lateststories


    In one of her last acts as secretary of state in early 2013, Hillary Clinton wrote a confidential memo to the White House on how to handle Vladimir Putin, Russia's newly installed and increasingly aggressive fourth president. Her bluntly worded advice: Snub him.

    "Don't appear too eager to work together," Clinton urged President Barack Obama, according to her recollection of the note in her 2014 memoir. "Don't flatter Putin with high-level attention. Decline his invitation for a presidential summit."

    It was harsh advice coming from the administration's top diplomat, and Obama would ignore key parts of it. But the memo succinctly captured a personal view about Putin on the part of the future Democratic presidential nominee: a deep skepticism, informed by bitter experience, that would be likely to define U.S.-Russian relations if Clinton is elected. Her lasting conclusion, as she would acknowledge, was that "strength and resolve were the only language Putin would understand."

    Putin has been thrust unexpectedly onto the center stage in the U.S. presidential race, with Republican contender Donald Trump expressing admiration for the Kremlin strongman even as intelligence officials investigate apparent Russian attempts to interfere in the campaign. Clinton, by contrast, has used tough talk about Russia to burnish her credentials as an experienced diplomat who can stand up to the United States' adversaries.

    For Clinton, the rhetoric reflects genuine disappointment and frustration from a tumultuous term as secretary of state during which cooperation between Moscow and Washington briefly soared, only to come crashing to Earth after Putin's reelection as president in 2012, following a four-year hiatus, according to current and former U.S. officials involved in Russian policymaking at the time. Clinton, who began her tenure by famously offering a "reset" of Russian relations, would end it by publicly blasting Putin's government on issues including alleged vote-rigging in Russia and Putin's support for authoritarian Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

    Putin would fire back with repeated attacks against her, often injecting an unusually personal tone into the growing diplomatic rift. The exchanges helped cement an adversarial view of Clinton on the Russian side that may explain, more than any other single factor, the apparent efforts by Russian operatives to influence the election by hacking email accounts of senior Clinton staff members, longtime Kremlin observers say.

    "She has policies and a history that the Russians don't like," said Michael McFaul, who became the U.S. ambassador to Moscow during Clinton's final year as secretary of state. "It's frequently forgotten because there's so much noise about Trump and Putin. But this history is real, and Putin doesn't forget these things."

    ---

    Clinton's strong views about Putin predated her arrival at Foggy Bottom in 2009 as Obama's first secretary of state. As a U.S. senator, she condemned Russia's military incursion in August 2008 in the Georgian republic and suggested that Putin, a former Soviet KGB officer who was then Russia's prime minister, was a throwback to the country's hegemonic past.

    President George W. Bush had famously vouched for Putin's character in 2001 by saying that he'd looked into the Russian's eyes and gotten "a sense of his soul." But Clinton, during her own first presidential campaign in early 2008, insisted that Bush had seen no such thing.

    "He was a KGB agent - by definition he doesn't have a soul," Clinton said.

    Just over a year later, Obama's surprise choice as secretary of state was tasked with managing the administration's "Russian reset" policy, which sought to take advantage of the leadership change in both Washington and Moscow to inaugurate a new era of cooperation. The new White House believed Russia's new president, Dmitry Medvedev - a St. Petersburg politician 13 years younger than Putin and lacking his predecessor's experience in the Soviet bureaucracy - might be more open to a real partnership.

    Former State Department and White House officials who attended early strategy meetings said that Clinton ultimately agreed with the approach. But she remained broadly skeptical that the relationship with Russia would ever extend beyond specific issues where Moscow saw an advantage in cooperation.

    "The reset was the president's idea - it was something he wanted to do," said Philip Gordon, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs during Clinton's tenure. "But there was this logic that we were in a terrible place with Russia, and we should give it a shot to see if we could get some concrete things done, in our own interest."

    Another senior U.S. official present during the discussions attributed Clinton's reluctance to lingering suspicions about Putin. The former KGB operative who served as president in the early 2000s had accepted the prime minister's job under Medvedev, but many Kremlin watchers believed that Putin was still Russia's de facto leader, and that Obama's attempts to woo Medvedev misunderstood the real power structure in the Kremlin. These observers watched Putin's hardening view toward the United States with increasing concern.

    "It was right to be skeptical that you could translate that [reset] into a durable, strategic partnership," said the official, who helped guide Russian diplomacy during Republican and Democratic administrations and who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal policy debates freely. "Structurally, we still faced a lot of problems dealing with Russia," including a "fundamental difference in worldview."

    The policy's official launch was a flub: At a Geneva news conference in March 2009, Clinton presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with a mounted red button emblazoned with the word "reset" in English, and the Russian word "peregruzka" - a translation error by the U.S. team that left the bewildered Lavrov puzzling over a term meaning "overload."

    ---

    Years later, Lavrov would dismiss the reset as "the invention of Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration." He noted pointedly in a Bloomberg News interview that he had a very good relationship with Condoleezza Rice, Clinton's immediate predecessor as secretary of state.

    Despite doubts, the new approach seemed initially to bear fruit.

    Within a little more than a year, the two governments had notched historic agreements, including a new treaty on reducing nuclear stockpiles and a pact allowing U.S. military planes to use Russian airspace in delivering supplies to troops in Afghanistan.

    Americans and Russians, working in unusual accord, achieved striking progress on some of the thorniest disputes before the United Nations. In 2010, Washington and Moscow cooperated on a package of unprecedented U.N. economic sanctions that ultimately drove Iran to negotiations about limiting its nuclear program. The administration worked with Moscow to overcome U.S. objections to Russia's long-standing effort to join the World Trade Organization.

    In 2011, Russia withheld its veto on the U.S.-led effort to authorize the international military campaign to stop Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi from slaughtering thousands of his own citizens - an act of diplomatic restraint that many U.S. officials regard as the "reset" era's high-water mark.

    "With the reset, we were never seeking goodwill with Russia; we were seeking a new strategy," said McFaul, the former U.S. ambassador. "It was most productive in terms of concrete outcomes - not holding hands and singing Kumbaya, but real stuff, including some of our biggest security and economic priorities."

    But beneath a more placid surface, old conflicts continued both at home and abroad, and new ones would emerge.

    In Washington, many of the administration's Russian initiatives were drawing skepticism from Congress. In 2010, Obama had announced that he was discontinuing a Bush-era Eastern European missile defense shield that Russia viewed as a military threat, in favor of a new program designed to combat potential strikes from Iranian short- and medium-range missiles. But many Republicans criticized the change - which had been recommended by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a Bush holdover - as an unwarranted and unwise favor to Russia, granted by a naive young administration.

    Russian officials began publicly ruing their tacit support for U.N.-approved military action in Libya, after the intervention expanded from a simple civilian-protection mission to a sustained bombing campaign that led to the overthrow and assassination of Gaddafi. The Kremlin now believed it had been tricked into allowing the U.N. resolution to move forward.

    Putin, according to U.S. officials who met with him at the time, concluded that the Americans were most interested in pursuing regime change for governments they disliked, first in Baghdad and Tripoli, and later in Damascus. Eventually he became convinced that it was the Kremlin that the United States most wanted to change. Logically, Clinton, a strong proponent of U.S. military action in Libya and Syria, would be on the side of those seeking new leadership in Moscow, he believed.

    Suddenly, the Russians were casting skeptical looks at joint programs that had received strong support in both capitals. One casualty was the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which funded the dismantling of Soviet-era nuclear, chemical and biological weapons systems to prevent them from being stolen by terrorists or purchased by rogue states.

    The program's co-founder, Sen. Richard Lugar, Ind., who served as the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during Clinton's tenure, began noticing a change in tone during his many visits to meet with the initiative's Russian partners. Powerful Russian military officials, some of them close allies of Putin, were beginning to perceive such ventures as part of the American plan to weaken the country. The military's political champion was Putin, who decided in 2011 to run for president again, replacing his protege Medvedev after a single term in office.

    "Putin had come to the point where he felt it was no longer necessary to cooperate," Lugar said, "and it might even be demeaning to Russia."

    ---

    In December 2011, despite a deepening economic crisis, Putin's United Russia party retained control of the Duma in parliamentary elections that independent monitoring groups described as fraudulent.

    Thousands of Russians took to the streets in protest, and Clinton - with the White House's explicit blessing - spoke publicly in their defense, condemning Russian officials for manipulating the vote and systematically harassing election observers.

    "The Russian people, like people everywhere, deserve the right to have their voices heard and their votes counted," Clinton said during a speech that month in Lithuania. "And that means they deserve fair, free, transparent elections and leaders who are accountable to them."

    After her speech, when demonstrations in Moscow grew still larger, Putin suggested that his political opponents were following marching orders from Clinton and her team.

    Opposition parties "heard the signal, and with the support of the U.S. State Department began active work," Putin said. Kremlin officials repeated the charge in private meetings with U.S. diplomats, expressing a vehemence that surprised some Obama administration officials.

    Even before the protests - and his own reelection as president in March 2012 - Putin had begun signaling the return of a more authoritarian and aggressive Russia. Beginning in late 2011, the Russian government would adopt policies stifling political dissent at home and increasing pressure on the former Soviet republics, from the Baltic to the Caucasus to Ukraine.

    Clinton began privately warning the White House on how Putin's return could affect a wide range of U.S. foreign policy priorities, such as promoting democracy in Eastern Europe and containing a Syrian civil war that was beginning to ignite sectarian violence and jihadist fervor throughout the Middle East.

    She "argued that we were in for a rougher patch and needed to be clear-eyed about that," said the senior U.S. official who worked for Republican and Democratic administrations. "It was a very honest analysis of the fact that, whatever hopes some people had early on for a more durable partnership, it just wasn't going to happen."

    In fact, things fell apart with surprising speed. In 2012, Putin abruptly halted Russia's participation in the Nunn-Lugar program. That same year, he expelled the U.S. Agency for International Development from Russia, charging interference in domestic affairs and ending USAID's multimillion-dollar support for Russian civil society organizations.

    Putin then repeatedly blocked U.S.-led efforts to resolve Syria's civil war, insisting on preserving the presidency of Assad, a close Russian ally. Two years later - well after Clinton had left office - Putin stunned the world by snatching the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine, something he had first threatened to do nearly a decade earlier.

    Yet, while each of those actions was consistent with Putin's combative style, Russia's disputes with the Obama administration took on a more personal tone after 2011, several current and former U.S. officials and Russian policy experts said.

    Today, with Clinton now aiming for the White House, it's not surprising that Putin might support clandestine efforts to undermine her candidacy - regardless of his views of her chief political opponent, the officials and experts said.

    "Putin has kind of got it in for Hillary," said Clifford Kupchan, chairman of the consulting firm Eurasia Group and a Russia expert who attended private meetings with Putin during the Clinton years. "The statements after the Duma riots were like kerosene on a fire, and it really made Putin angry."

    Putin last week denied taking sides in the U.S. presidential race, and he scoffed at allegations of Russian involvement in the hacking of Democratic officials' email accounts, a crime that U.S. intelligence agencies believe was instigated at the highest levels of the Russian government.

    Kupchan said he thinks that Russia's role in the hacking, if verified, was "more about sowing some chaos in the U.S. system than about any real hope of Trump winning." But he said it also reflects a shot across Clinton's bow, as her record suggests that she would be both tougher and more outspoken on Russia compared to her predecessor.

    "It may well be useful that she has a tough image," he said. "Mrs. Clinton has been through the same journey that a lot of us have gone through on Russia, which is dashed hopes."

    When it comes to Putin's Russia, he said, "she doesn't wear deeply tinted sunglasses of any kind."

    © 2016 The Washington Post

    (This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

    WTF, the U.S is the one playing victim here, get the F outta here, Russia isn't the one placing troops near U.S borders.

    P.S: This was written by 2 "journalists" from the WP?

    You should have posted this here: http://www.russiadefence.net/t2433-western-propaganda
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3147
    Points : 3270
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Western propaganda

    Post  kvs on Sat Nov 05, 2016 2:32 am



    Russians repress gays, Russians send gays to destroy America.

    The west, a pile of schizophrenic hate.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16510
    Points : 17116
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Western propaganda

    Post  GarryB on Sat Nov 05, 2016 6:09 am

    I am afraid I agree... Putin getting in the way of a solution in Syria is case in point...

    The US wants to destroy Syria and cares little that the head hunters and women burners they support consist of 1,000 different factions... none of which could actually work with each other... they only seem to be able to work with ISIS and Alquada... ironically.

    The US solution for Syria would look like the US solution in Libya... chaos.

    But then they don't care about peace and democracy... they just want Saudi and Quatar gas pipelines reaching Europe through Syria as competition to Iranian gas or Russian gas... the Syrian people could all burn for all America cares.

    Damn that Putin for thinking a stable government is best for Syria and that their problems are better solved around a talks table rather than from the muzzle of a rifle or machine gun.

    Doesn't he realise that all the worlds population is expendable and that anything goes as long as the US is satisfied?

    Clinton is a bitch and will probably be the next US president.

    I doubt that will actually make US Russian relations any worse than they are now.

    She will make some stupid decisions like a no fly zone in Syria and US soldiers will pay the price for that stupidity when US aircraft trying to enforce such a no fly zone will get painted with S-400 radar and forced to leave the airspace or be shot down.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Austin

    Posts : 6327
    Points : 6727
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Western propaganda

    Post  Austin on Sat Nov 05, 2016 6:41 am


    Austin

    Posts : 6327
    Points : 6727
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Western propaganda

    Post  Austin on Sat Nov 05, 2016 5:51 pm

    Garry , Like I mentioned My real fear is and I always think about it every time that once she becomes President with perhaps worst reputation any POTUS had to start with , She will try to deflect all the information put by Wikileaks which most likely then not will be investigated by congress by going to proxy war with Russian in Ukraine and Syria.

    How she successfully managed to divert all the Wikileaks allegation by simply blaming on Russian hackers , blaming Kremlim and the MSM was just cheering her.

    Imagine if the same person becomes president she wont stop of creating proxy war in Ukraine and Syria with Russia to divert all the congress investigation and trying to take the air from investigation.

    I am sure she can do all this and worse with the reputation she got .

    She might even use US military hacker which today news say have maneged to penetrate RUssian Military and do stupid things like shoot civil aircraft or something that can easily be blamed on Russian Military

    I hope Russia will be able to deal with her , I used to think Obama was the worse and here comes Hillary with her hatred towards Putin and now sure how low this will go.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16510
    Points : 17116
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Western propaganda

    Post  GarryB on Sun Nov 06, 2016 1:13 am

    The thing about US elections however is candidates like to talk tough and make the other guy look weak on defence, but when they actually get into power what they actually do and say is often rather different.

    First of all presidents can't actually do anything they like... that is what congress is actually for, and a hostile congress is the only thing that saves america from doing some very stupid things sometimes.

    Of course helping Al quada in Syria is americas duty while fighting them in Iraq is something they are slowly building up to... if it was important to their interests they would have done it long ago, but the sad thing is that ISIS is the sunni iraqis that were under saddam when America took them out. The regime that took their place are friendly to Iran and Syria so pro sunni fuckwits actually get US and Saudi support... that and the fact that Iraq was broken and left to pick up the pieces on their own, and that they actively tried to break Syria too led to the rise of ISIS so quickly.

    Hopefully she will get polonium poisoning and everything will again be Putins fault...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5538
    Points : 5579
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Western propaganda

    Post  Militarov on Sun Nov 13, 2016 7:43 pm

    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1383
    Points : 1384
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Western propaganda

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sun Nov 13, 2016 9:09 pm

    Militarov wrote:

    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3912
    Points : 3939
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Western propaganda

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Mon Nov 14, 2016 12:15 am

    Militarov wrote:

    A Jewish Canadian is now intended as American...What a victory for US edumacation.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3147
    Points : 3270
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Western propaganda

    Post  kvs on Mon Nov 14, 2016 4:48 am

    Militarov wrote:

    Non sequitur. But that is not surprising coming from the mentally deficient.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1383
    Points : 1384
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Western propaganda

    Post  AlfaT8 on Tue Nov 15, 2016 11:13 pm

    Yea, yea, these guys are known idiots, but they chose such a weird topic.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16510
    Points : 17116
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Western propaganda

    Post  GarryB on Sat Nov 19, 2016 9:31 am

    Part where they got pushed back to the 38th twice.Part where they got pushed back to the 38th twice.

    Wow... and you claimed to be here to educate us amateur civilians...

    Those four phases do depict the war... except that the first phase was the North Korean push that crushed the south korean forces. Phase two is what happened when UN forces arrived and pushed the NK forces back to near the border with China... phase three is what happened when Chinese forces reacted and pushed the UN forces back and phase four is where the front line stabilised to in a stalemate.

    Pushed back twice is what happened and had it not been for politicians and reluctant western leaders, fearing further escalation (an unfounded fear imo, esp after Stalin's death), the UN could have easily reached the Yalu for a second time. And secured it for good. Quite comfortably.

    Don't be stupid. The Chinese entered the war because they did not want UN/US bases on their border there. The war was a stalemate in terms of the battle... the UN forces were no more capable of pushing the Chinese back to the Yalu than the Chinese were able to push the UN forces off the land into the sea.

    Eventually they came out on top quite swiftly, pushing all these millions to the 38th and forcing the commies to stop the war that they started. Remember major US deployment started with the Pusan pocket.

    Of course... all they needed was another year and they would have been in Beijing... Rolling Eyes

    It was a stalemate... neither side was able to force a win or anything like a win and both sides decided to stop fighting.

    UN still came out on top. Look at today's border in Korea.

    Clearly you misunderstand some basic words in English. The UN is supposed to represent the entire world and it fought to a stalemate with a backward poor almost third world half of a country called North Korea... how the hell could that be considered a victory?

    Korea is not a US defeat, it's a western success story.

    You mean like Japan and Germany winning WWII because their economies were fixed after being bombed?

    Hahahaha... keep dreaming... mericka strong.



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5538
    Points : 5579
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Western propaganda

    Post  Militarov on Sat Nov 19, 2016 11:27 pm

    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2065
    Points : 2083
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Western propaganda

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Nov 19, 2016 11:59 pm

    Militarov wrote:

    I'll raise you with these two tongue




    Sponsored content

    Re: Western propaganda

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Oct 18, 2017 2:26 am