Dedicated Russian thread

It's a very quick and glib rundown of purportedly 1000 years of Russian history, but apart from a very brief account of Kievan Rus' Christianisation under Prince Vladimir in the late 10th Century, emphasis then shifts to Ivan the Terrible in the 16th century. There is no mention of the destruction of Kievan Rus by the Mongols, nor of the rise of a prieviously insignificant trading post called Moscow into the Mongol's principal client state of Muscovy and enforcer among the other Russian principalities prior to its overthrow of the Mongols and assumption of their oppressive regime against all the other Russias. Moscow usurped and stole the legacy of Kievan Rus. One can easily argue that modern Ukraine is the real successor state to Kievan Rus. The state that calls itself Russia is only the direct successor to Muscovy.

I would also argue (as opposed to the claim in the film) that it was not Russian sacrifice which liberated the World from Nazi German oppression, but Muscovite greed and desire for domination that precipitated the start of WW2 with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the joint invasion of Poland in September 1939. Moscow intended Germany to fight France and the UK to a standstill, and then to steamroller through the remains. It ended up having to fight for its own survival and did so with massive economic aid from the West. However, it maintained its prewar aims as much as it could, ending up with domination of half of Europe (and not all of it). In order to achieve this Moscow sacrificed millions of the subject peoples of its Empire.

There are several other minor (and not so minor inconsistensies and errors), such as the map at 1.02.48 which purportedly shows a Soviet Empire/ USSR encompassing Finland, parts of Sweden and Norway, parts of West Germany and Austria, all of the Balkans including Yugoslavia and Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Syria, Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, parts of China, Mongolia and all of the Korean Peninsula.

I suppose its OK as an introduction to the topic for your average western viewer who is relatively ignorant on this topic, but it actually isn't that serious a programme as it propagates several Muscovite myths.
I can't recall reading about any historian who said that any televised history of any period or country did a balanced and comprehensive coverage of the topic. Some people say that this is because real history just doesn't translate well to the screen, and we should get used to it being just entertainment rather than education.

Some Hollywood producers have openly admitted to simply making sh*t up in historical films instead of portraying what actually happened because they thought their version was more entertaining. In the end it's all about making money rather than educating people.
 
Bit of progress.

If we can be a hostile enviroment to migrants, we can be one for Russian influence peddlars.

Kremlin media chiefs are pulling one of their most controversial mouthpieces out of the UK amid claims of an “increasingly hostile” political environment.

Russian officials confirmed yesterday that they will close the Edinburgh and London operations of the state news outlet Sputnik, regarded by Nato as one of President Putin’s “disinformation weapons”.

It arrived in 2016 with ambitions to carve out a slice of the UK media market and hired people such as Tommy Sheridan, the one-time socialist firebrand who is now a candidate for Alex Salmond’s Alba Party.

Sputnik said it was moving its English-speaking reporting to Washington and Moscow to “reallocate [its] global resources in the most efficient way”. About 20 jobs will be lost. The decision is understood to have surprised staff as the agency had been advertising for new recruits as recently as last month.


It is believed staff were informed this week that the contract for the UK business was not being renewed by its parent organisation Rossiya Segodnya, the Russian government news agency. This body, which is also known as Russia Today, is headed by Dmitri Kiselyov, the main news anchor for the government-controlled national TV station Channel One and a core Putin ally sanctioned for his role in the 2014 annexation of Crimea. That agreement is understood to have been Sputnik’s only real source of income in the UK and expired on March 31.

As a result its staff are formally being made redundant from April 5.
Stewart McDonald, the SNP’s defence spokesman, said the broadcaster’s withdrawal was good news. “Russian state media and all of those who contribute to it, and profit from it, have been a stain on Scotland’s reputation for quality news output,” he said.
Sputnik opened its Edinburgh office two years after its launch, across the road from the Russian consulate and close to the first minister’s official residence at Bute House.
The organisation runs newswires, radio broadcasts and various online services as well as having its own photography database and public opinion polling services.

Initially Nikolai Gorshkov, a former BBC correspondent and editor, was hired to oversee the UK operation.
He repeatedly denied the decision to have the headquarters in Edinburgh and a satellite operation in London was influenced by any desire to encourage Scottish independence and build discontent towards Westminster.
Gorshkov told the BBC in 2017 property prices were cheaper in the Scottish capital which meant he could spend more on journalists.
He said: “We’re not trying to influence Scottish thinking, because being based in Edinburgh, we do now realise how fiercely independently minded the Scots are. You can’t influence a Scot.”
One person familiar with the situation in the UK indicated there had been concerns raised about the “increasingly hostile” political environment in the UK. Last summer the Westminster Intelligence and Security Committee published a long awaited Russia Report warning of Kremlin meddling in the UK and Scotland.



Hope they keep going south and clean up the City of London.
 
Meanwhile, the Kremlin continues its dirty tricks:
 
Bit of progress.

If we can be a hostile enviroment to migrants, we can be one for Russian influence peddlars.





Hope they keep going south and clean up the City of London.
Is anybody blaming Brexit yet for the loss of another employer in Britain?
 
Interesting take on Putinism on the Foreign Policy website:

An excellent article.

Especially in the ideology bit; left right, immaterial apart from its utility to do harm to the enemy of Russian interests.

I am not a Russian expert; but the rise of the "siloviks"(силовики́), security elite class of people, has much to explain why Russia and its policy is the way it is.
 
tenor.gif
So many great lines....
 
Interesting take on Putinism on the Foreign Policy website:
For what good it might do, I've always found FP to be hugely America-centric and views every other country through the lens of their impact on the US rather than on their own terms.

They don't seem able to accept that the US may not be the centre of everyone else's universe too.
 
For what good it might do, I've always found FP to be hugely America-centric and views every other country through the lens of their impact on the US rather than on their own terms.

They don't seem able to accept that the US may not be the centre of everyone else's universe too.
Most US media are very US centric and look at things only from the perspective of the US, so Foreign Policy are not unusual in that respect. They tend to try to force every other country's politics into American defined pigeonholes and when it doesn't fit they assume these foreigners must be "hiding something" because Americans find it difficult to imagine that other people in other places may have different opinions on things than Americans.

Of course this sort of failing is a bit more embarrassing for a publication which calls itself "Foreign Policy".

I don't normally follow the UK and European media, but I have noticed the same thing to some degree with stories posted here on subjects which have some connection with Canada. When people have a profound ignorance about a subject there seems to be tendency to try to fill in the gaps in their knowledge with projections from their own experience or political prejudices rather than simply admitting that they don't know.
 
For what good it might do, I've always found FP to be hugely America-centric and views every other country through the lens of their impact on the US rather than on their own terms.

They don't seem able to accept that the US may not be the centre of everyone else's universe too.
That is true of many US organisations and individuals.
 
Interesting CNN report on Russia’s Arctic military build-up and weapon testing.
 
When people have a profound ignorance about a subject there seems to be tendency to try to fill in the gaps in their knowledge with projections from their own experience or political prejudices rather than simply admitting that they don't know.

Much better and more accurate than some of the stuff I see on social media.

Have you ever thought of taking over as manager of the Green Slime account?

images
 

Zhopa

War Hero
For what good it might do, I've always found FP to be hugely America-centric and views every other country through the lens of their impact on the US rather than on their own terms.

I didn't get far enough to tell for sure because of the paywall, but it would be entirely in character for Natalia Antonova to write something hugely America-centric since that is very much how she has been since arriving there all of, ooh, five years ago.

I still struggle a bit getting to grips with her recent metamorphosis into generally accepted serious commentator.

1617919276837.png
 
Interesting news report of the release of the (obviously unclassified bits) of the latest official "Global Trends" US Int analysis concerning Russian long-term trends:

An excerpt:
“Russia is likely to remain a disruptive power for much or all of the next two decades even as its material capabilities decline relative to other major players,” the report states. “Russia’s advantages, including a sizable conventional military, weapons of mass destruction, energy and mineral resources, an expansive geography, demographics, and a willingness to use force overseas, will enable it to continue playing the role of spoiler and power broker in the post-Soviet space, and at times farther afield.”

The report suggests Russia will continue to use information warfare to amplify divisions in the West, aiming to “engender cynicism among foreign audiences, diminish trust in institutions, promote conspiracy theories, and drive wedges in societies.”

The original paper is here:
 
New book just out that I’m getting into: “Stalin’s War” by Sean McMeekin. Just the latest well researched history that exposes Moscow’s role in enabling and provoking the start of WW2 and it’s continuous pursuit of expansionist objectives, before during and after it.

There is no doubt that Stalin engendered the war in order to have the “capitalist powers” fight among themselves so that Soviet Russia could then exploit the aftermath.

 

Zhopa

War Hero
This looks interesting. Please let us know what you make of it when you get to the end.
 
More on Russian PMCs:
 
Well.... :D
 

Latest Threads

Top