Russia - USA Relations

andrewlya wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

andrewlya wrote:..................
Why can't Russia adopt a practical aproach like the Arabs i.e. "to plow the money they make selling oil back into the west via investments" and make its nation one of the prosperous in the world? They have the tools and material to do that, they just need to get on with it!

But they are already making their nation one of the prosperous in the world lot more efficiently than before.

Why should they share their money with Americans when they can keep it all for themselves?

How do they make their nation prosperous, please give me an example?
I want Russians to be prosperous more than anyone.They deserve after what they have been through with Communism and US led sanctions as of late.  

Keep Manufa producion in house

Russia IT the example

kvs wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Yes, in due time.

Canada and Scandinavia did not reach those living standards overnight, neither will Russia.

As for Navalny, I'll leave that answer to our resident Russians.

Canada's living standards are grossly overestimated.  At the same time the standard of living
in Russia, including areas outside of Moscow and St. Petersburg is underestimated.   I can say
this because I can see both sides of the coin.

An important detail is that there is a serious time lag in the information space created by
the mass media.   I have read many articles over the last 20 years that are just ridiculously
out of date.   One that comes to mind is the 2003 article in The Atlantic that painted a
picture of Russia consistent with 1998 and not 2003.   People's perceptions are framed by
the mass media.  Unlike the Russian media, the Canadian and NATO media in general downplay
domestic problems and hype up foreign threats and focus attention abroad.   This is an obvious
machination.

Agreed.

PapaDragon wrote:

andrewlya wrote:..................
Why can't Russia adopt a practical aproach like the Arabs i.e. "to plow the money they make selling oil back into the west via investments" and make its nation one of the prosperous in the world? They have the tools and material to do that, they just need to get on with it!

But they are already making their nation one of the prosperous in the world lot more efficiently than before.

Why should they share their money with Americans when they can keep it all for themselves?

Another option could be that Russia owns all the resources but is still friendly to EU & the US, that would be ideal..

andrewlya wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

andrewlya wrote:..................
Why can't Russia adopt a practical aproach like the Arabs i.e. "to plow the money they make selling oil back into the west via investments" and make its nation one of the prosperous in the world? They have the tools and material to do that, they just need to get on with it!

But they are already making their nation one of the prosperous in the world lot more efficiently than before.

Why should they share their money with Americans when they can keep it all for themselves?

Another option could be that Russia owns all the resources but is still friendly to EU & the US, that would be ideal..

That would be great, if NATO and US wasn't trying to threaten, surround and overthrow Russian friendly nations and Russia itself. As well, if it didn't try to keep funding retards like Navalny and the rest whom are trying to sell their own country away.

Has anyone seen the laughable statements that were uttered by John McCain? That witless warmonger lamented that it was 'tragic' that the United States does not have the ability to act militarily against Russia in response to its apparent 'aggression' in the Ukraine. It's funny how it's tragic when the United States does not have the military means to bully, compromise or invade another Nation, but it's not tragic when the United States destroys a previously stable and relatively prosperous country like Libya and turns it [as well as Iraq] into a safe haven for terrorists. As a consequence of the U.S. invasion -an invasion that apparently delivered 'democracy'- a million people died in Iraq and over 1/3rd of the country is controlled by ISIL. That's the real tragedy. Source: http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/03/07/3378371/mccain-military-option-ukraine/


The world needs more regional blocks with large populations, common currencies, integrated markets and military alliances [like NATO] to push-back against the unipolar world that the Anglo-American Establishment seems hell-bent on pursuing. Russia -is in this regards- the indispensable Nation, without which no one could acquire the tools to defend themselves.

people actually believe this sh!t .... Ukraine Attacks = Russia bad Guys Russian offensive etc


https://news.vice.com/article/the-armys-top-general-points-a-spear-at-russia?utm_source=vicenewsfb

The US Army's Top General Points a Spear at Russia


By Ryan Faith

August 21, 2015 | 9:50 am


"We know the Russians are getting ready for something. We just don't know where."

General Raymond Odierno, then the top general in the US Army, said this to me a week before he retired on August 14. We were at a military exercise in the Mojave Desert, and Odierno was watching through a night-vision scope as Special Operations soldiers from the 75th Ranger Regiment touched down in tilt-rotor Ospreys and seized and cleared a runway several hundred feet away. This was Operation Dragon Spear, the last major military exercise Odierno observed before his retirement.

The scenario in the exercise centered on the trials and tribulations of America's put-upon allies, the Atropians, and their jerkwad neighbors to the north, the Donovians. In Atropia, pro-Donovian forces known as the Bilasuvar National Freedom Movement, along with their armed wing, the Bilasuvar Freedom Brigade, were in cahoots with the CASTRO criminal-terrorist network, and were up to all manner of naughty stuff. This was especially bad news, what with Atropia's valuable reserves of the nerve-gas antidote Atropine.

Just to be clear — and to avoid shouts of "No blood for Atropine!" — the military made up all of that for the exercise. But it wasn't mere playtime; there are some very important reasons why hundreds of US soldiers jumped out of perfectly good airplanes in complete darkness to defend a fictional country from a non-existent enemy. ....

...Etc Etc Etc

Godric:

You've got to laugh at the complete inversion of reality that the United States is trying to present to the rest of the world. The Americans so desperately want to cast Russia as a hostile country that has meddled in the domestic affairs of a smaller, significantly weaker neighbor and compromised its sovereignty despite the fact that the Americans engineered a government overthrow in Ukraine and yet that is presented to the rest of the world as right and proper. The Americans are hell-bent in their delusions that they can contain and surround a powerful country that is almost the size of South America. Ukraine is absolutely central in this American project; it must be weaned away from Russia's sphere of influence, integrated into the European Union [and most alarmingly] join NATO at some point.

Some people argue that Ukraine is a sovereign country and that the newly installed puppets in Kiev have every right to decide for themselves whether or not they should join something as arguably innocuous as the European Union. They argue that joining the EU is not tantamount to joining NATO despite the fact that prominent individuals like Robert Cooper have pushed for a European Union army that Ukraine would then inevitably join. How is that not NATO?

Cyrus the great wrote:
Has anyone seen the laughable statements that were uttered by John McCain? That witless warmonger lamented that it was 'tragic' that the United States does not have the ability to act militarily against Russia in response to its apparent 'aggression' in the Ukraine. It's funny how it's tragic when the United States does not have the military means to bully, compromise or invade another Nation, but it's not tragic when the United States destroys a previously stable and relatively prosperous country like Libya and turns it  [as well as Iraq] into a safe haven for terrorists. As a consequence of the U.S. invasion -an invasion that apparently delivered 'democracy'- a million people died in Iraq and over 1/3rd of the country is controlled by ISIL. That's the real tragedy.


The world needs more regional blocks with large populations, common currencies, integrated markets and military alliances [like NATO] to push-back against the unipolar world that the Anglo-American Establishment seems hell-bent on pursuing. Russia -is in this regards- the indispensable Nation, without which no one could acquire the tools to defend themselves.

He is such a war monger, Mccain is. I hope Donald Trump gets in as the US president! May have a bit of a change then..

Cyrus the great wrote:

Godric:

You've got to laugh at the complete inversion of reality that the United States is trying to present to the rest of the world. The Americans so desperately want to cast Russia as a hostile country that has meddled in the domestic affairs of a smaller, significantly weaker neighbor and compromised its sovereignty despite the fact that the Americans engineered a government overthrow in Ukraine and yet that is presented to the rest of the world as right and proper. The Americans are hell-bent in their delusions that they can contain and surround a powerful country that is almost the size of South America. Ukraine is absolutely central in this American project; it must be weaned away from Russia's sphere of influence, integrated into the European Union [and most alarmingly] join NATO at some point.

Some people argue that Ukraine is a sovereign country and that the newly installed puppets in Kiev have every right to decide for themselves whether or not they should join something as arguably innocuous as the European Union. They argue that joining the EU is not tantamount to joining NATO despite the fact that prominent individuals like Robert Cooper have pushed for a European Union army that Ukraine would then inevitably join. How is that not NATO?

They are trying to isolate Russia by absorbing all Russia's friendly customers, the customers who are Russia business partners..

They are trying to isolate Russia by absorbing all Russia's friendly customers, the customers who are Russia business partners..

But they have made an obvious and major blunder... there are strong economic ties between the Ukraine and Russia, but they were largely in one direction.

They have pulled a baby from its mother breast and the baby is refusing to latch back on because the EU and US have enormous breasts... and Russia has run off with the new found freedom of not being stuck with a 25 year old child that needs a lot of milk to keep alive.

the US and EU will have to provide milk to the Ukrainian child for likely the foreseeable future.

Personally I would like to see good relations between Russia and the US and EU, but at the end of the day the west needs to change its attitude. It wants Russia to be friends on its terms, which basically means loser of cold war and therefore resource bitch to the western global machine.

To be honest if they can't work out how to get by with good relations with Russia their chances with the rest of the world are pretty poor anyway.

The west wont let Russia get by owning its own natural resources... it will only accept what it will call privatisation... though what they actually mean is multinationalisation of its resources...

GarryB wrote:

They are trying to isolate Russia by absorbing all Russia's friendly customers, the customers who are Russia business partners..

But they have made an obvious and major blunder... there are strong economic ties between the Ukraine and Russia, but they were largely in one direction.

They have pulled a baby from its mother breast and the baby is refusing to latch back on because the EU and US have enormous breasts... and Russia has run off with the new found freedom of not being stuck with a 25 year old child that needs a lot of milk to keep alive.

the US and EU will have to provide milk to the Ukrainian child for likely the foreseeable future.

Personally I would like to see good relations between Russia and the US and EU, but at the end of the day the west needs to change its attitude. It wants Russia to be friends on its terms, which basically means loser of cold war and therefore resource bitch to the western global machine.

To be honest if they can't work out how to get by with good relations with Russia their chances with the rest of the world are pretty poor anyway.

The west wont let Russia get by owning its own natural resources... it will only accept what it will call privatisation... though what they actually mean is multinationalisation of its resources...

I think it is easier for the EU/EU to lure the West of Ukraine since the Western part of Ukraine have been occupied by Poles, Austrians, Germans (and now US and EU) have all worked to change that by supporting cultural/religious conversion, or at least independent Ukrainian identity (preferably anti-Russian). These efforts finally bore fruit when Central Ukraine briefly sided with Austrians during the 1918 civil war (although the southern and eastern Ukraine formed Soviet Republics).As a result of WWII, West Ukraine was attached to Ukrainian SSR as well. These lands have not been part of Russia since the Mongol invasion in the 13th century, and due to their Polish/Austrian/German masters spending the past 700 years nurturing Russophobia, were very anti-Russian, byproduct of which can be seen in the Western part of Ukraine and could be seen during the Maidan.

Whereas the East and South of Ukraine tends to take the Russian side because they are culturally and, more importantly, religiously affiliated with Russia. What I am saying is that Ukraine is a deeply divided country and the US/EU underestimated it, now we have violent conflicts in Donbas. I suggest watch a documentary by the BBC called Why some Ukrainians want to be part of Russia? Very interesting, people in the West should watch it all to understand why some support the West and why other support Russia.

andrewlya wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:
Has anyone seen the laughable statements that were uttered by John McCain? That witless warmonger lamented that it was 'tragic' that the United States does not have the ability to act militarily against Russia in response to its apparent 'aggression' in the Ukraine. It's funny how it's tragic when the United States does not have the military means to bully, compromise or invade another Nation, but it's not tragic when the United States destroys a previously stable and relatively prosperous country like Libya and turns it  [as well as Iraq] into a safe haven for terrorists. As a consequence of the U.S. invasion -an invasion that apparently delivered 'democracy'- a million people died in Iraq and over 1/3rd of the country is controlled by ISIL. That's the real tragedy.


The world needs more regional blocks with large populations, common currencies, integrated markets and military alliances [like NATO] to push-back against the unipolar world that the Anglo-American Establishment seems hell-bent on pursuing. Russia -is in this regards- the indispensable Nation, without which no one could acquire the tools to defend themselves.

He is such a war monger, Mccain is. I hope Donald Trump gets in as the US president! May have a bit of a change then..

Donald Trump does seem to acknowledge Russia's importance in the global chessboard; he says that he would mend ties with Russia and China, but conversely he says that the United States has been too diplomatic and that the world takes advantage of the United States when the opposite is true. Just read the book 'Super Imperialism: The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S. World Dominance' by Michael Hudson.

Cyrus the great wrote:

andrewlya wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:
Has anyone seen the laughable statements that were uttered by John McCain? That witless warmonger lamented that it was 'tragic' that the United States does not have the ability to act militarily against Russia in response to its apparent 'aggression' in the Ukraine. It's funny how it's tragic when the United States does not have the military means to bully, compromise or invade another Nation, but it's not tragic when the United States destroys a previously stable and relatively prosperous country like Libya and turns it  [as well as Iraq] into a safe haven for terrorists. As a consequence of the U.S. invasion -an invasion that apparently delivered 'democracy'- a million people died in Iraq and over 1/3rd of the country is controlled by ISIL. That's the real tragedy.


The world needs more regional blocks with large populations, common currencies, integrated markets and military alliances [like NATO] to push-back against the unipolar world that the Anglo-American Establishment seems hell-bent on pursuing. Russia -is in this regards- the indispensable Nation, without which no one could acquire the tools to defend themselves.

He is such a war monger, Mccain is. I hope Donald Trump gets in as the US president! May have a bit of a change then..

Donald Trump does seem to acknowledge Russia's importance in the global chessboard; he says that he would mend ties with Russia and China, but conversely he says that the United States has been too diplomatic and that the world takes advantage of the United States when the opposite is true. Just read the book 'Super Imperialism:  The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S. World Dominance' by Michael Hudson.

Yes, but out of all US candidates he is probably the most Russia friendly, I would vote for him.

andrewlya wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:

Godric:

You've got to laugh at the complete inversion of reality that the United States is trying to present to the rest of the world. The Americans so desperately want to cast Russia as a hostile country that has meddled in the domestic affairs of a smaller, significantly weaker neighbor and compromised its sovereignty despite the fact that the Americans engineered a government overthrow in Ukraine and yet that is presented to the rest of the world as right and proper. The Americans are hell-bent in their delusions that they can contain and surround a powerful country that is almost the size of South America. Ukraine is absolutely central in this American project; it must be weaned away from Russia's sphere of influence, integrated into the European Union [and most alarmingly] join NATO at some point.

Some people argue that Ukraine is a sovereign country and that the newly installed puppets in Kiev have every right to decide for themselves whether or not they should join something as arguably innocuous as the European Union. They argue that joining the EU is not tantamount to joining NATO despite the fact that prominent individuals like Robert Cooper have pushed for a European Union army that Ukraine would then inevitably join. How is that not NATO?

They are trying to isolate Russia by absorbing all Russia's friendly customers, the customers who are Russia business partners..

This goes beyond just targeting Russia's business markets and historical zones of interest... the United States wants to eliminate Russia as a geopolitical adversary. In this object, Russia must be controlled by Washington compliant quislings and made to allow Anglo-American control over its vast resources. It's funny how the Americans condemned Russia for the 2012 Russian foreign agent law when the Americans have a similar law that was passed in 1938.

andrewlya wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:

andrewlya wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:
Has anyone seen the laughable statements that were uttered by John McCain? That witless warmonger lamented that it was 'tragic' that the United States does not have the ability to act militarily against Russia in response to its apparent 'aggression' in the Ukraine. It's funny how it's tragic when the United States does not have the military means to bully, compromise or invade another Nation, but it's not tragic when the United States destroys a previously stable and relatively prosperous country like Libya and turns it  [as well as Iraq] into a safe haven for terrorists. As a consequence of the U.S. invasion -an invasion that apparently delivered 'democracy'- a million people died in Iraq and over 1/3rd of the country is controlled by ISIL. That's the real tragedy.


The world needs more regional blocks with large populations, common currencies, integrated markets and military alliances [like NATO] to push-back against the unipolar world that the Anglo-American Establishment seems hell-bent on pursuing. Russia -is in this regards- the indispensable Nation, without which no one could acquire the tools to defend themselves.

He is such a war monger, Mccain is. I hope Donald Trump gets in as the US president! May have a bit of a change then..

Donald Trump does seem to acknowledge Russia's importance in the global chessboard; he says that he would mend ties with Russia and China, but conversely he says that the United States has been too diplomatic and that the world takes advantage of the United States when the opposite is true. Just read the book 'Super Imperialism:  The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S. World Dominance' by Michael Hudson.

Yes, but out of all US candidates he is probably the most Russia friendly, I would vote for him.

Isn't it sad that Donald Trump is the most reasonable of American presidential candidates? All US candidates should try to mend ties with Russia because they can do nothing to eliminate its place on the global stage. The onus is on them to improve relations with the Russian Federation. Russia can do nothing to improve relations with the US because Russia is not threatening the United States and building military bases on its borders and conducting war games that are primed against the United States.

Cyrus the great wrote:

andrewlya wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:

andrewlya wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:
Has anyone seen the laughable statements that were uttered by John McCain? That witless warmonger lamented that it was 'tragic' that the United States does not have the ability to act militarily against Russia in response to its apparent 'aggression' in the Ukraine. It's funny how it's tragic when the United States does not have the military means to bully, compromise or invade another Nation, but it's not tragic when the United States destroys a previously stable and relatively prosperous country like Libya and turns it  [as well as Iraq] into a safe haven for terrorists. As a consequence of the U.S. invasion -an invasion that apparently delivered 'democracy'- a million people died in Iraq and over 1/3rd of the country is controlled by ISIL. That's the real tragedy.


The world needs more regional blocks with large populations, common currencies, integrated markets and military alliances [like NATO] to push-back against the unipolar world that the Anglo-American Establishment seems hell-bent on pursuing. Russia -is in this regards- the indispensable Nation, without which no one could acquire the tools to defend themselves.

He is such a war monger, Mccain is. I hope Donald Trump gets in as the US president! May have a bit of a change then..

Donald Trump does seem to acknowledge Russia's importance in the global chessboard; he says that he would mend ties with Russia and China, but conversely he says that the United States has been too diplomatic and that the world takes advantage of the United States when the opposite is true. Just read the book 'Super Imperialism:  The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S. World Dominance' by Michael Hudson.

Yes, but out of all US candidates he is probably the most Russia friendly, I would vote for him.

Isn't it sad that Donald Trump is the most reasonable of American presidential candidates? All US candidates should try to mend ties with Russia because they can do nothing to eliminate its place on the global stage. The onus is on them to improve relations with the Russian Federation. Russia can do nothing to improve relations with the US because Russia is not threatening the United States and building military bases on its borders and conducting war games that are primed against the United States.

Spot on,matey

The thing is that the west states that Russia is not allowed a sphere of influence and that all countries that border Russia should be free to make their own decisions without interference.

I think it is easier for the EU/EU to lure the West of Ukraine since the Western part of Ukraine have been occupied by Poles, Austrians, Germans (and now US and EU) have all worked to change that by supporting cultural/religious conversion, or at least independent Ukrainian identity (preferably anti-Russian).

When you say lure, you mean pull from Russias sphere of influence into the wests sphere of influence... in other words move from a place of partial Russian influence to Washington dominance via brussels...

The amusing thing is that the alienation of Russia from its neighbours by the west (which is not always successful BTW) has led Russia to look elsewhere for customers and trade partners. An american government official might see Russian moves to trade with central and south american countries as a response to try to hurt the US by undermining its sphere of influence/domination in the region, but it is actually quite normal... when a country is pushed out of a market it will always seek new markets to expand into to compensate... so america, asia, and africa will all be looked at to find new markets.... nothing to do with revenge or undermining the western sphere of influence in return... it is just commercial interests.

were very anti-Russian, byproduct of which can be seen in the Western part of Ukraine and could be seen during the Maidan.

All very true, but at the heart of it this is all about money... the ones turning west truly believe that the EU will save them... what they don't realise is that the Ukraine is not EU material the way it is... it will have to be broken down and destroyed and then rebuilt in the EU image to have a chance... and even then I doubt they will prosper... they don't have much to offer and have not much in common with the EU. they have to have laws to force locals to speak the native language...

I am sure they will enjoy being the front line for the new cold war...

Whereas the East and South of Ukraine tends to take the Russian side because they are culturally and, more importantly, religiously affiliated with Russia. What I am saying is that Ukraine is a deeply divided country and the US/EU underestimated it, now we have violent conflicts in Donbas. I suggest watch a documentary by the BBC called Why some Ukrainians want to be part of Russia? Very interesting, people in the West should watch it all to understand why some support the West and why other support Russia.

Sorry, the only BBC I will listen to is the Russian Air Force (VVS). The BBC has no credibility in my house.

To be honest I think Russia will be rather better off without the Ukraine... except the Crimea, which was pretty much Russian anyway.... except when it was Turkish or Ottoman or whatever.... hell for a while it was German...

Donald Trump does seem to acknowledge Russia's importance in the global chessboard; he says that he would mend ties with Russia and China, but conversely he says that the United States has been too diplomatic and that the world takes advantage of the United States when the opposite is true. Just read the book 'Super Imperialism: The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S. World Dominance' by Michael Hudson.

I hear what you are saying, but there is a history of US presidential hopefuls being super anti this or anti that just to get votes and to get into power but when they get in the rhetoric changes... most seem to realise they wont get much progress in a lot of areas if they don't talk to Russia and China and even Iran etc.

The onus is on them to improve relations with the Russian Federation. Russia can do nothing to improve relations with the US because Russia is not threatening the United States and building military bases on its borders and conducting war games that are primed against the United States.

Like I said... it is up to the west and US in particular... Russia is not trying to expand its empire and be aggressive... it is just trying to do business and is being rather less fussy as to who it trades with... note talks with Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan and its very good relationship with South Korea...

GarryB wrote:The thing is that the west states that Russia is not allowed a sphere of influence and that all countries that border Russia should be free to make their own decisions without interference.

I think it is easier for the EU/EU to lure the West of Ukraine since the Western part of Ukraine have been occupied by Poles, Austrians, Germans (and now US and EU) have all worked to change that by supporting cultural/religious conversion, or at least independent Ukrainian identity (preferably anti-Russian).

When you say lure, you mean pull from Russias sphere of influence into the wests sphere of influence... in other words move from a place of partial Russian influence to Washington dominance via brussels...

The amusing thing is that the alienation of Russia from its neighbours by the west (which is not always successful BTW) has led Russia to look elsewhere for customers and trade partners. An american government official might see Russian moves to trade with central and south american countries as a response to try to hurt the US by undermining its sphere of influence/domination in the region, but it is actually quite normal... when a country is pushed out of a market it will always seek new markets to expand into to compensate... so america, asia, and africa will all be looked at to find new markets.... nothing to do with revenge or undermining the western sphere of influence in return... it is just commercial interests.

were very anti-Russian, byproduct of which can be seen in the Western part of Ukraine and could be seen during the Maidan.

All very true, but at the heart of it this is all about money... the ones turning west truly believe that the EU will save them... what they don't realise is that the Ukraine is not EU material the way it is... it will have to be broken down and destroyed and then rebuilt in the EU image to have a chance... and even then I doubt they will prosper... they don't have much to offer and have not much in common with the EU. they have to have laws to force locals to speak the native language...

I am sure they will enjoy being the front line for the new cold war...

Whereas the East and South of Ukraine tends to take the Russian side because they are culturally and, more importantly, religiously affiliated with Russia. What I am saying is that Ukraine is a deeply divided country and the US/EU underestimated it, now we have violent conflicts in Donbas. I suggest watch a documentary by the BBC called Why some Ukrainians want to be part of Russia? Very interesting, people in the West should watch it all to understand why some support the West and why other support Russia.

Sorry, the only BBC I will listen to is the Russian Air Force (VVS). The BBC has no credibility in my house.

To be honest I think Russia will be rather better off without the Ukraine... except the Crimea, which was pretty much Russian anyway.... except when it was Turkish or Ottoman or whatever.... hell for a while it was German...

Donald Trump does seem to acknowledge Russia's importance in the global chessboard; he says that he would mend ties with Russia and China, but conversely he says that the United States has been too diplomatic and that the world takes advantage of the United States when the opposite is true. Just read the book 'Super Imperialism: The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S. World Dominance' by Michael Hudson.

I hear what you are saying, but there is a history of US presidential hopefuls being super anti this or anti that just to get votes and to get into power but when they get in the rhetoric changes... most seem to realise they wont get much progress in a lot of areas if they don't talk to Russia and China and even Iran etc.

The onus is on them to improve relations with the Russian Federation. Russia can do nothing to improve relations with the US because Russia is not threatening the United States and building military bases on its borders and conducting war games that are primed against the United States.

Like I said... it is up to the west and US in particular... Russia is not trying to expand its empire and be aggressive... it is just trying to do business and is being rather less fussy as to who it trades with... note talks with Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan and its very good relationship with South Korea...

I agree on all points. Im glad that Russia and China get along well. At least 35 countries will join the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). This is a fierce competitor to American World Bank and the fact that US puppet countries such as New Zealand, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Luxembourg have join China's led Bank, the United States' officials have expressed concerns about whether the AIIB would have high standards of governance, and whether it would have environmental and social safeguards, basically the US come up with some lame excuses as they are afraid that they may lose their sphere of influence in those countries.According to The Economist the United States is reported to have used diplomatic pressure to try and prevent key allies, such as Australia, from joining the bank, and expressed disappointment when others, such as Britain, who joined the Bank. So, what I say well done China.

Reading through their lies... what they mean is that this new banking system wont be under their control so they wont be able to manipulate it to their advantage... of course they don't want it...

But no one wants to play with the rich kid any more because he keeps changing the rules half way through games so he always wins.

Of course that is the lesson of Monopoly... being the banker is an enormous advantage... when you cheat.

As I posted in another thread about the intelligence;

Non-parliamentary parties indignant about meeting of U.S. diplomats, Russian opposition

MOSCOW, September 6. /TASS/. Russian parties, which are not represented in the parliament, are indignant about the information about a meeting in Kostroma of U.S. diplomats and Russian oppositionists.
"This situation is abnormal, as it is not just a meeting of some representatives of a foreign country (as international contacts are necessary), but a meeting of an embassy staff, those, who are involved in promoting of their country’s foreign policy," Vyacheslav Maratkanov of the Right Course Party. He said a meeting between diplomats and parties "is beyond activities of an embassy."
The politician said the meeting featured Bradford Bell, First Secretary of the U.S. Embassy, who, he said, is a "professional provocateur, used to work in the Balkans, has been participating actively in "promoting of democracy" to the south and south-east." Maratkanov said "consultations of the kind are a bad sign on the eve of elections to the State Duma (Russian parliament)."
He paid attention to how the Russian opposition behaves during the current election campaign.
"We participate in elections in six regions," he said. "We are opposition. Though the constructive opposition. At regions, where non-constructive opposition participates, they are not interested in results, they do not discuss regional agendas, no, they are using federal resources and absolute denial. Those are ideas of those who finance them - foreign funds."
Head of the Rodina (Fatherland) Party, a deputy of the State Duma, Alexei Zhuravlev said the U.S. diplomats had requested a meeting with his party in Kostroma. He wants to file an inquiry with the Russian Foreign Ministry regarding the actions of the U.S. representatives.
"They did request, persistently, called with a share of boldness," he told TASS on Sunday. "They were told immediately we are not going to have any meetings, we do not have any interests with the U.S. embassy."
He said representatives of the embassy at least ten times called his colleagues in the party asking for a meeting in Kostroma.
The politician says it might have been a "shelter operation" for a meeting with oppositionist Alexei Navalny and other representatives of the opposition.
The party leader said he had filed an inquiry with the Foreign Ministry and would "make another inquiry to the Foreign Ministry if they have ever allowed the meeting.
The media earlier published information about a meeting in Kostroma between the U.S. diplomats with representatives of political parties, including with Alexei Navalny.

So the Rodina party has decided to file an inquiry to the foreign ministry over this, and this could have implications for US personnel working at the embassy.  The political fallout may try to be softened by both sides, but Russia could actually go as far as do what Venezuela did by limiting number of US staff available at the embassy, and potentially kicking out the ambassador.

Its seems like tensions between Moskva and Washington DC gets into sports.

https://www.rt.com/news/314735-wrestling-championships-russia-anthem/

Americans play wrong anthem after Russia takes gold at World Wrestling Championships in Las Vegas

Mixing up anthems is a trap that many events and organizations have fallen into. The World Wrestling Championships in Las Vegas has followed suit, with the award ceremony paused mid-song, followed by an awkward version of the correct tune.

Two-time Greco-Roman wrestling world champion Roman Vlasov (2011, 2015) had to defeat two world champions en route to the finals, where he faced Danish Mark Madsen. The Russian thought all his hard work had finally paid off, and it was time to relax and bask in his glory.

But several seconds into the song he realized that something was very out of place… that’s because the song that was blasting through the speakers was actually Mikhail Glinka’s ‘Patrioticheskaya Pesnya’ (Patriotic Song) – a piece very briefly used as the Russian anthem during the tumultuous ’90s, before Vladimir Putin’s administration reinstated the world-famous melody at the turn of the millennium.

As Vlasov stood there, dumbfounded, someone must’ve caught on to his look of surprise, because the song was finally paused. That came only at the 49-second mark, however. The champion then politely gestured to whomever was in charge to correct the mistake. According to Kommersant daily, the champ refused to come down from the pedestal until the Americans played the correct anthem.

“I didn’t immediately realize what anthem was playing. But when the music stopped, I told the organizers I wouldn’t budge from the spot until I heard the real Russian anthem,” he said.

“We bust our backs all year round for this moment. I would have stood there until my legs gave out!”

Championships management promptly corrected the mistake, but followed it up with a rather giddy and cartoonish version of the current Russian anthem.

Only two days ago, the boss of the Russian Wrestling Federation, Mikhail Mamashvili, was denied a visa to the US. No explanation was offered.

For Vlasov, the win became the second in his career. The athlete is also an Olympic champion in the under-74kg category.

higurashihougi wrote:Its seems like tensions between Moskva and Washington DC gets into sports.

https://www.rt.com/news/314735-wrestling-championships-russia-anthem/

Americans play wrong anthem after Russia takes gold at World Wrestling Championships in Las Vegas

Mixing up anthems is a trap that many events and organizations have fallen into. The World Wrestling Championships in Las Vegas has followed suit, with the award ceremony paused mid-song, followed by an awkward version of the correct tune.

Two-time Greco-Roman wrestling world champion Roman Vlasov (2011, 2015) had to defeat two world champions en route to the finals, where he faced Danish Mark Madsen. The Russian thought all his hard work had finally paid off, and it was time to relax and bask in his glory.

But several seconds into the song he realized that something was very out of place… that’s because the song that was blasting through the speakers was actually Mikhail Glinka’s ‘Patrioticheskaya Pesnya’ (Patriotic Song) – a piece very briefly used as the Russian anthem during the tumultuous  ’90s, before Vladimir Putin’s administration reinstated the world-famous melody at the turn of the millennium.

As Vlasov stood there, dumbfounded, someone must’ve caught on to his look of surprise, because the song was finally paused. That came only at the 49-second mark, however. The champion then politely gestured to whomever was in charge to correct the mistake. According to Kommersant daily, the champ refused to come down from the pedestal until the Americans played the correct anthem.

“I didn’t immediately realize what anthem was playing. But when the music stopped, I told the organizers I wouldn’t budge from the spot until I heard the real Russian anthem,” he said.

“We bust our backs all year round for this moment. I would have stood there until my legs gave out!”

Championships management promptly corrected the mistake, but followed it up with a rather giddy and cartoonish version of the current Russian anthem.

Only two days ago, the boss of the Russian Wrestling Federation, Mikhail Mamashvili, was denied a visa to the US. No explanation was offered.

For Vlasov, the win became the second in his career. The athlete is also an Olympic champion in the under-74kg category.

Here's the video, not sure why the hell they put such a ridiculous version of the Russian anthem on considering when you search youtube for the Russian anthem it's the very first result, so who ever did this must have really work hard looking for such an odd version of the anthem.

Wanted to ask a question, are the Republicans the most anti Russia American political party? And which US party are more lenient towards Russia? By the way, why do people call Tea Party as an extreme party? Don't know much about the US political parties.

andrewlya wrote:Wanted to ask a question, are the Republicans the most anti Russia American political party? And which US party are more lenient towards Russia? By the way, why do people call Tea Party as an extreme party? Don't know much about the US political parties.

They are right wing extremist parties and no republicans are not lenient towards Russia. You need to understand US isn't a democracy and both dems and repbs are nothing but stooges getting bribes aka lobbying to push their agendas. It's a corrupt oligarchy. That's how fascism works in US.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In fact, when it comes to elections and the leaders elected as a result, Russia and Syria seem a whole lot more democratic than the U.S. of A. For example, take the 2000 presidential elections in the U.S.:

54.2% of the population turned out to vote,
47.87% of whom voted for Bush (48.38% voted for Gore).

In other words, out of all eligible American voters, 25.9% voted for Bush. He won, of course, despite Gore receiving more votes, as Putin pointed out. But can you imagine a Russian journalist asking David Cameron a question like this?

"Mr. Cameron, given the horrific abuse of power by the Obama regime, the violence against peaceful protesters and the murder of civilians by the security services called the 'police', how do you envisage the shape of any peace process and eventual settlement in the United States? Is the U.S. ready to accept, for example, a partition for the U.S.? Will Mr. Obama ultimately have to stand aside? And if he does, what kind of leader might replace him?"

Not gonna happen.

Now, take the 2012 American presidential elections:
58.2% of the population turned out to vote,
51.06% of whom voted for Obama.
Thus, 29.7% of eligible voters voted for Obama.
That's not bad, or at least it's not as bad as the Bush election.

Now, let's cross the pond and look at Russia's 2012 elections:

65.25% of the population turned out to vote,
63.64% of whom voted for Putin.
Thus, 41.5% of Russian voters actually voted for Putin.

Even better! And better yet, 90% of Russians, regardless of if they voted for him or not, support him and think he's doing his job well! In contrast, Obama's approval rating is sitting at around 46% - hardly a base of popular support.

And Assad? Many armchair critics of this 'dictator' are probably unaware that he was re-elected just last year, after 3 years of fighting a war against foreign mercenaries. In the 2014 elections:

73.42% of the population turned out to vote,
88.7% of whom voted for Assad.
So, 65% of Syrians voted for Assad.

This was in the midst of a refugee crisis. While many countries allowed Syrians within their borders to vote at their respective embassies, Belgium, Canada, Egypt, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE and the United States did not allow the elections to be held in their Syrian embassies.

Two out of every three Syrians voted for Assad. One out of four Americans voted for Bush. One out of three Americans voted for Obama. Obviously something is wrong with this picture.