• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

French MPs paid from Russian coffers for Crimea propaganda trip?

Fallenangel said:
It's not about letting anyone off the hook, it's about people not having a slightest idea about different aspects of Russian internal and external affairs and the driving forces behind the processes that the country went through in the past few decades. Lack of this understanding and praise for ideas like the supposed glorious and free Russia's 90's, constantly lead to misjudgement of Russia's interests and complete absence of any sensible policy when it comes to Russia
Click to expand...

The general story that I have read is that Yeltsin, a sick man, handpicked Putin because he wanted, above all, protection in his old age. He didn't have much further to go.

Whilst in office, Yeltsin had allowed a number of friends "collar" certain privileged markets, which is the way Berezovsky made millions owning a TV-channel, amongst other things. Of course, when Yeltsin left office, Berezovsky's situation became perilous under Putin, and he scampered to Britain. But a number of oligarchs under Yeltsin did make a great amount of money by owning/exploiting previous state assets.

Then Putin brought in his own oligarchs and started ripping off Russia's natural resources by privatizing them and place "friends" in possession of or heads of the companies. Frankly, such resources (principally oil and minerals) since they are below the surface typically belong to a nation as a whole. But, that did not stop Putin. As an example, he put Khodorkovsky in jail and confiscated his mineral assets. This was a warning to the other oligarchs to "stay in place" or obtain the same fate. (Fabricating "evidence" for a Russian court is child's play.)

(Of course the smart ones expatriated at least a significant part of the loot, placing them is safe accounts in London or Switzerland or perhaps even Panama. And, to this day, confiscating these accounts are perhaps the only real pressure that the West has on Putin and his "friends".)

Which is how Putin became Tsar Vladimir (permanent head of state) and will remain so for as long as the Russians are blinded by the fact that the entire system is a House of Cards. However the key was electing and reelecting Tsar Vladimir, such he remains in power. Which is how, by marriage to Putin's best friend's son (Shamalov, of the Bank Rossiya that is employed by most of Russia's elite), his daughter (Yekatarina) is now also a multimillionaire if not billionaire.

Without being Russia's first elected Tsar (then reelected and probably will be reelected again), he probably fears for his life given the number of people he has ... uh, "neutralized".

How wrong have I got that rendition of historical fact? It's all public knowledge that I picked up on the Internet* over the years - but who knows what is true and what isn't?

Perhaps only Tsar Vladimir ... ?

*For instance, see here.


___________________________
 
Last edited:
Lafayette said:
The general story that I have read is that Yeltsin, a sick man, handpicked Putin because he wanted, above all, protection in his old age. He didn't have much further to go.

Whilst in office, Yeltsin had allowed a number of friends "collar" certain privileged markets, which is the way Berezovsky made millions owning a TV-channel, amongst other things. Of course, when Yeltsin left office, Berezovsky's situation became perilous under Putin, and he scampered to Britain. But a number of oligarchs under Yeltsin did make a great amount of money by owning/exploiting previous state assets.

Then Putin brought in his own oligarchs and started ripping off Russia's natural resources by privatizing them and place "friends" in possession of or heads of the companies. Frankly, such resources (principally oil and minerals) since they are below the surface typically belong to a nation as a whole. But, that did not stop Putin. As an example, he put Khodorkovsky in jail and confiscated his mineral assets. This was a warning to the other oligarchs to "stay in place" or obtain the same fate. (Fabricating "evidence" for a Russian court is child's play.)

(Of course the smart ones expatriated at least a significant part of the loot, placing them is safe accounts in London or Switzerland or perhaps even Panama. And, to this day, confiscating these accounts are perhaps the only real pressure that the West has on Putin and his "friends".)

Which is how Putin became Tsar Vladimir (permanent head of state) and will remain so for as long as the Russians are blinded by the fact that the entire system is a House of Cards. However the key was electing and reelecting Tsar Vladimir, such he remains in power. Which is how, by marriage to Putin's best friend's son (Shamalov, of the Bank Rossiya that is employed by most of Russia's elite), his daughter (Yekatarina) is now also a multimillionaire if not billionaire.

Without being Russia's first elected Tsar (then reelected and probably will be reelected again), he probably fears for his life given the number of people he has ... uh, "neutralized".

How wrong have I got that rendition of historical fact? It's all public knowledge that I picked up on the Internet* over the years - but who knows what is true and what isn't?

Perhaps only Tsar Vladimir ... ?

*For instance, see here.


___________________________
Click to expand...

The time you spent typing about "Tsar Putin" you could have spent actually reading and learning things about Russia, as you've got most of the events wrong.

Berezovsky is one of several oligarchs that emerged in the 90's from combination of ruthless criminal and political wars. He and several other oligarchs controlled most aspects of the economic and political life in Russia at the time. These people earned their billions during the wild privatisation and voucher era in the early 1990 to ~1996, where huge companies and Russia's natural resources were either sold for pennies or simply stolen through elaborate schemes.

These people pushed their hands heavily into politics as well, for instance in 1996 they have ensured that Yeltsin won the elections that he shouldn't have won, and when Yeltsin was about to go Berezovsky actually created Putin as he needed someone that he would be able to control after Yeltsin. However, Berezovsky has miscalculated and his supposed marionette didn't really want to obey.

Putin started to reform both Russia's politics and economy shifting the centres of power to people that he personally and his close circle could trust, hence, all the shifts in power and wealth leading to imprisonment and exile of many of oligarchs and political figures that opposed that shift. From that point, Putin and his closest allies started to build a power vertical that allows them to control to some extent Russia's wealth, industry and political life.

Russians aren't blinded, contrary to you, they have actually lived through the 90's and experienced all the things I've described above (and much more) on their own skin. They are simply disillusioned with the lies and promises they were fed during the 90's and they prefer stability over wars, rampant crime and their country being sold to whoever pays more.

Fallen.
 
Last edited:
Fallenangel said:
Russians aren't blinded, contrary to you, they have actually lived through the 90's and experienced all the things I've described above (and much more) on their own skin. They are simply disillusioned with the lies and promises they were fed during the 90's and they prefer stability over wars, rampant crime and their country being sold to whoever pays more.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback. Sarcasm apart. (You can't seem to write anything without it.)

I don't find it terribly different to what has been reported in the news.

It is a great shame for the Russian people, however, that their economy has been robbed of them by a bunch of money-hungry crooks.

Russia needs another revolution ...
_________________________________________________
 
Lafayette said:
Thanks for the feedback. Sarcasm apart. (You can't seem to write anything without it.)

I don't find it terribly different to what has been reported in the news.

It is a great shame for the Russian people, however, that their economy has been robbed of them by a bunch of money-hungry crooks.

Russia needs another revolution ...
_________________________________________________
Click to expand...

Hmmm...my account seems quite significantly different from what you've described above.

...and no, thanks but no, you can keep your colour revolutions to yourself, Russia still hasn't fully recovered neither from the results of the communist one nor from the so called democracy of the 90's.

Fallen.
 
Fallenangel said:
Hmmm...my account seems quite significantly different from what you've described above.
Click to expand...

Like tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee.

Moving right along ...
__________________
 
Lafayette said:
Like tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee.

Moving right along ...
__________________
Click to expand...

Funny isn't it?!? You were completely wrong on pretty much everything in your recollection of Russia's recent history, especially when it comes to Putin's and Berezovsky's role, yet you don't even have the guts to admit your own ignorance.

...yeah sure, do whatever you want mate... but pls next time before you open your mouth at least try to educate yourself a bit about the topic you wish to discuss.

Fallen.
 
Last edited:
Don't even bother with him. Nothing about Russia is true unless and until it gets his personal stamp of approval.

As I mentioned in my previous post, it's been over two years now and he has never admitted that Putin was wrong to invade Crimea and Donbas.
 
Simpleχity;1066181493 said:
Don't even bother with him. Nothing about Russia is true unless and until it gets his personal stamp of approval.

As I mentioned in my previous post, it's been over two years now and he has never admitted that Putin was wrong to invade Crimea and Donbas.
Click to expand...

Says the man that has posted more fakes than probably anyone on this forum, the guy that speaks Russian on a level of Google translator, and the one that still has absolutely no idea of what happens in the countries he constantly posts about.

/facepalm


Fallen.
 
Fallenangel said:
Says the man that has posted more fakes than probably anyone on this forum, the guy that speaks Russian on a level of Google translator, and the one that still has absolutely no idea of what happens in the countries he constantly posts about.
Click to expand...

I've put it right in his face twice now in this very thread.

And he still evades condemning Putin's invasions.

Nothing fake about that.
 
Simpleχity;1066181511 said:
I've put it right in his face twice now in this very thread.

And he still evades condemning Putin's invasions.

Nothing fake about that.
Click to expand...

I've answered your questions about Crimea and Donbass multiple times in multiple threads, so stop playing dumb... and if you still don't get it, I always made clear that returning Crimea was a not mistake nor was the support for DNR and LNR. As both those things were directly aimed at securing Russia's national interests both abroad and at home.

Now, it is your turn. Do you condemn the ATO that was launched by the Ukrainian government against its own people?

EDIT: Let me guess, your answer would be along the lines of: "but, but ebil Putler and ruSSIans!"

Fallen.
 
Last edited:
Fallenangel said:
I've answered your questions about Crimea and Donbass multiple times in multiple threads, so stop playing dumb... and if you still don't get it, I always made clear that returning Crimea was a not mistake nor was the support for DNR and LNR. As both those things were directly aimed at securing Russia's national interests both abroad and at home.
Click to expand...
Don't couch it in terms of 'national interests'.

The ugly fact is, you support Putin's predatory invasion and subsequent illegal annexation of Crimea.

You also support Putin inserting Russian special forces (GRU/Spetznaz) soldiers into eastern Ukraine to create occupied 'statelets'.

Bout time you publicly fessed up.

Fallenangel said:
Now, it is your turn. Do you condemn the ATO that was launched by the Ukrainian government against its own people?
Click to expand...
If Ukraine were to declare war on Russia for invading (Putin would love it!), then Russian military forces would pour across the border (Russia controls 410km of Ukraine's border).

So Ukraine labels the Russian invaders 'terrorists' and conducts an Anti-Terrorist Operation (ATO) to expel the Russian forces.

The Ukrainian military is fighting for Ukraine on Ukrainian land.

Not so the Russian military....

under_att_eng.png
 
Simpleχity;1066182340 said:
Don't couch it in terms of 'national interests'.

The ugly fact is, you support Putin's predatory invasion and subsequent illegal annexation of Crimea.

You also support Putin inserting Russian special forces (GRU/Spetznaz) soldiers into eastern Ukraine to create occupied 'statelets'.

Bout time you publicly fessed up.


If Ukraine were to declare war on Russia for invading (Putin would love it!), then Russian military forces would pour across the border (Russia controls 410km of Ukraine's border).

So Ukraine labels the Russian invaders 'terrorists' and conducts an Anti-Terrorist Operation (ATO) to expel the Russian forces.

The Ukrainian military is fighting for Ukraine on Ukrainian land.

Not so the Russian military....
Click to expand...

You see, it was so easy... I already knew your exact answer: "ebil Russians and ebil Putin", it is obviously much easier to blame various boogeymen instead of trying to realise what actually happened. It's a common trait these days, more slogans, less understanding, more cries about Putin less analysis of the actual events on the ground...

Russia's national interests played in fact a dominant role in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, and especially the disregard that both Maidan's leaders and the West exhibited towards them. Hence, the surprise when instead of sitting on the sidelines Russia decided to secure a strategic port and to score multiple points on the domestic and international arena. Russia shares the blame for the origin of the conflict as well, as it failed to secure a crucial alliance that it needed, instead taking Ukraine for granted.

Regarding Donbass, you conveniently ignore the fact that ATO was declared before the appearance of people like Strelkov, you also conveniently ignore the fact that it began to counter the local distress that people expressed towards the events post Maidan and the self-imposed rulers that came to power at the time. Instead of talking to people, these supposed leaders that came to power on the blood of Berkut and Maidan protesters decided to treat their own people like ****.

However, I'm sure that you will simply disregard both Donbass and Crimea population and their will, as they all must be "Putin's agents", "collaborators" or "terrorists" - this is how people that didn't support the new Maidan styled Ukrainian government are being called today on Ukrainian TV.





Fallen.
 
Last edited:
Read a bit and educate yourself...


H0CPZT580Sk.jpg

First edition May 2016 - Polity Books - 400 pages
 
Simpleχity;1066185596 said:
Read a bit and educate yourself...

First edition May 2016 - Polity Books - 400 pages
Click to expand...

Which in English means that you give up and have absolutely nothing to answer to my above post beyond the slogans that you've already used.
Cool, good to know... next time try to activate your brain before you spout your usual stuff about "ebil ruSSians".

I can post pics as well btw...



Fallen.
 
Fallenangel said:
You see, it was so easy... I already knew your exact answer: "ebil Russians and ebil Putin", it is obviously much easier to blame various boogeymen instead of trying to realise what actually happened. It's a common trait these days, more slogans, less understanding, more cries about Putin less analysis of the actual events on the ground...

Russia's national interests played in fact a dominant role in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, and especially the disregard that both Maidan's leaders and the West exhibited towards them. Hence, the surprise when instead of sitting on the sidelines Russia decided to secure a strategic port and to score multiple points on the domestic and international arena. Russia shares the blame for the origin of the conflict as well, as it failed to secure a crucial alliance that it needed, instead taking Ukraine for granted.

Regarding Donbass, you conveniently ignore the fact that ATO was declared before the appearance of people like Strelkov, you also conveniently ignore the fact that it began to counter the local distress that people expressed towards the events post Maidan and the self-imposed rulers that came to power at the time. Instead of talking to people, these supposed leaders that came to power on the blood of Berkut and Maidan protesters decided to treat their own people like ****.

However, I'm sure that you will simply disregard both Donbass and Crimea population and their will, as they all must be "Putin's agents", "collaborators" or "terrorists" - this is how people that didn't support the new Maidan styled Ukrainian government are being called today on Ukrainian TV.

Fallen.
Click to expand...
This is something I've often wondered about. Do you think the West was really surprised that Russia moved on Crimea? Given the strategic, cultural, and historic significance I thought them moving in under the circumstances she was faced with was a no-brainer.

Did the West really believe that Russia would just sit back and leave the fate of Crimea to whatever Maidan's leaders and those supporting them decided? OR, was the reaction of Kiev and the Western powers just a display of faux outrage over an event that they knew was going to happen and they could do nothing to prevent?
 
Last edited:
Jack Fabulous said:
This is something I've often wondered about. Do you think the West was really surprised that Russia moved on Crimea? Given the strategic, cultural, and historic significance I thought them moving in under the circumstances she was faced with was a no-brainer.

Did the West really believe that Russia would just sit back and leave the fate of Crimea to whatever Maidan's leaders and those supporting them decided? OR, was the reaction of Kiev and the Western powers just a display of faux outrage over an event that they knew was going to happen and they could do nothing to prevent?
Click to expand...

I don't think that the West believed in anything, they simply acted without really analysing or caring for the consequences of their decisions. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union there was a significant decrease in the quality and number of actual experts that can adequately analyse Russia's motivation and produce any meaningful policy suggestions. Hence, the complete lack of understanding of the events on the ground, mixing cause and effect and constant surprise with whatever Russia does or does not do.


Fallen.
 
SUMMUM MALUS

Simpleχity;1066182340 said:
So Ukraine labels the Russian invaders 'terrorists' and conducts an Anti-Terrorist Operation (ATO) to expel the Russian forces. The Ukrainian military is fighting for Ukraine on Ukrainian land. Not so the Russian military....
Click to expand...

The Russian people are already paying for the Putin's inane foreign policy, the purpose of which is to draw focus away from the internal economic catastrophe brought on by only two factors:
*The Russian economy is regressively non-productive because of a lack of necessary investment (with the exception of arms manufacturing), and,
*It has been raped of its national assets (once owned by the Russian people as a whole) by Putin's oligarchs who keep their mouths shut whilst he follows whatever inept "foreign-policy" he dreams up.

This rip-off of state owned properties was seen a long, long time ago (as early as 2005) and is nothing new. See here. Since, only the largeness of the booty has changed. From here:
The capital flight out of Russia is still ongoing and according to the data of the Russian Central Bank, the total amount of capital outflow is expected to be $128B in 2014 (well that was the estimate in November, and the final number will very likely be higher than 128 billion dollar) and probably $50-75B in 2015.
Click to expand...

Poor Russian oligarchs, so poor ...

There are hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign accounts that could have been better used to reinvest in the Russian economy. Meanwhile, the Russian military has already burnt through almost all of its budget for the entire year.

This sort of inept national management is the summum malus of incompetence, as the country goes into a nosedive over a badly designed foreign policy in Syria the purpose of which is to keep the Mediterranean Sea port of Latakia (which happens to be Assad's home town).

Why the Russians do not take the streets is amazing. Are they all on medication ... ?
____________________________
 
Lafayette said:
SUMMUM MALUS

Why the Russians do not take the streets is amazing. Are they all on medication ... ?
____________________________
Click to expand...

Or ... just a thought ... maybe they aren't as ignorant about the actual reality and their past as you are ... ?
You're supposedly advising Russian's what they should do and how they should react, when your own recollection of Russia's modern history is comically wrong.

Fallen.
 
Last edited:
Fallenangel said:
Or ... just a thought ... maybe they aren't as ignorant about the actual reality and their past as you are ... ?
You're supposedly advising Russian's what they should do and how they should react, when your own recollection of Russia's modern history is comically wrong.
Click to expand...

You keep repeating this tiresome claptrap about "not knowing the real situation". (And therefore, by inference, only you do.)

It is true, I don't live in Russia. Thankfully.

But I doubt what is printed - based upon news and information already posited - is off base.

So, to sell your art, why not go kiss some oligarch's arse instead of accusing others in this forum that "we don't have the right information".

And therefore, ipso facto, only you do.

So borrrinnnngggggggggggggg ... !
_________________________________
 
The French were the USSR's representatives in NATO until the USSR folded. It was a joke in the comm center when I was in the service and when President Kennedy put in the "red phone" with a direct line to the Kremlin that the only way to get a message to the Kremlin faster was to stamp it Top Secret and leave it where a Frenchman could see it. Of course, a few years ago it would be to take the Top Secret message and send it to Hillary Clinton on her private server.

Thinking the French are our ally is like thinking a hooker really loves you.
 
Lafayette said:
You keep repeating this tiresome claptrap about "not knowing the real situation". (And therefore, by inference, only you do.)

It is true, I don't live in Russia. Thankfully.

But I doubt what is printed - based upon news and information already posited - is off base.

So, to sell your art, why not go kiss some oligarch's arse instead of accusing others in this forum that "we don't have the right information".

And therefore, ipso facto, only you do.

So borrrinnnngggggggggggggg ... !
_________________________________
Click to expand...

One doesn't have to live in Russia to at least attempt to learn something about the country and its past. I also never claimed to know everything and that I have all the answers, it does not make your lack of knowledge about Russia's modern history any less evident though.

There is indeed an abundance of materials and information about the country and its recent history, from multiple sources, both pro and anti Kremlin ones. My problem with what you write is that it seems that you read none of them, because as I've already pointed out to you, even your basic chronological account of the events in Russia's modern history is often completely wrong.

BTW. Don't worry ... my art sells pretty well without the need for oligarchs, and I also do other stuff as well... contrary to you, these other stuff actually include me learning about things.

BTW. 2. I wonder why you think that using expressions in Latin makes you look more knowledgeable in a debate about Russia/Ukraine?!?

Fallen.
 
France is part of the UN Security Council.
Russia is part of the UN Security Council.
UK - which recently 'Brexit' from the EU, enabling Russia and China - is part of the UN Security Council.
China - known ally of Putin and totalitarian gov't with piss-poor human-rights records (second only to NKorea) - is ALSO part of the UN P5.

And don't get me started on the U.S. allowing the likes of Trump and Hillary this close to the WH (BOTH HAVE DONE BUSINESS WITH THE KREMLIN AND ARE LIKELY PUTIN ALLIES).

So, really, the antagonist in this scenario is the UN Security Council. Seriously, who gave them the right to rule the world?
**** EM!
LOOK AT THE STATE OF OUR GEOPOLITICS RIGHT NOW ITS UTTERLY ****ING STUPID.
 
Fallenangel said:
inted out to you, even your basic chronological account of the events in Russia's modern history is often completely wrong.
Click to expand...

I've not only read them, I've cited them.

You just do not know how to debate - ad hominens are not a viable rebuttal ...

M... r... a...
_______________________
 
Abbazorkzog said:
And don't get me started on the U.S. allowing the likes of Trump and Hillary this close to the WH (BOTH HAVE DONE BUSINESS WITH THE KREMLIN AND ARE LIKELY PUTIN ALLIES).
Click to expand...

Rubbish allegation unless you explain and prove your point.

You are indulging yourself with sarcasm - just one more in a long-line of people who haven't the foggiest notion around here of what debate is:
A formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward ...
Click to expand...

Arguments, not sarcasm, not invective, not salacious remarks but verifiable "arguments":
In philosophy and logic, an argument is a series of verifiable statements typically used to persuade someone of something or to present reasons for accepting a conclusion.
Click to expand...

Get it ... ?
______________________________
 
Last edited:
Lafayette said:
*Snip*
Click to expand...

Oh, so you're one of those people that don't think gaining hundreds of millions of dollars from paid speeches that often result in the outsourcing of strategic resources to foreign governments and the empowering of dictators and ruthless oligarchs in Kazakhstan and African countries such as Nigeria via currying political favor through a private institution isn't the least bit suspicious and any one who thinks so should be chastised ridiculed and targeted with knee-jerk ad-hominem attacks on people, accusing them of being morons,

like this childish filth:

You are indulging yourself with sarcasm - just one more in a long-line of people who haven't the foggiest notion around here of what debate is
Click to expand...

These are FACTS. But go ahead, flail and bitch and moan and whine about how much my dramatizations bother you and get under your pitifully thin skin due to your feeble and skewed reality based upon cognitive dissonance and personality cultism.

This thread isn't even about the Clintons, but FINE, we'll do it your way. I mention Clinton in an off-handed side-note/foot-note and you zero-in on that ONE part of my post and completely overreact and accuse me of all of this imbecilic asininity which is a mere disingenuous ascertainment of a subliminal regurgitation of your failings as a thinking individual...

...and all this development goes to show is that you, Lafayette, do not care about Russian war crimes. You just have a worrisome obsession with power-vicinity and a fetish for it as is evidenced by you jumping at the slightest opportunity to flail about in the ecstasy of overzealous adulation and ****-stroking of the establishment talk-points, particularly the hypocritical black-and-white view-point that is wholly incompatible with geopolitics in any way, shape or form, demonstrating your complete and total lack of knowledge regarding geopolitics in that fantasy land in which you live where politicians can be infallible as long as they are American. And if that involves denial of the complicity of UN Security Council members with Kremlin corruption, so be it.

By the way, your denial of Trump's Kremlin connections have also been noted.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom