Syria - the Russian persepctive

#61
#62
EU condemns Russia over Aleppo, to impose more Syrian sanctions

So Russia is accused by EU 28 foreign ministers but no one case with date, time, place was mentioned.
Do they raise it with you then? I know you're high up in the troll factory but I didn't realise it was that high? I would (logically) assume that this is the press release. Any specifics would have been raised directly with the Russian Federation.
What coalition strike was investigated? When it has happened and what is result of the investigation?
To investigate anything Date, Time, Place and some other details are needed.
The one on Syrian soldiers. As mentioned previously, it's not Russia where you get a fall guy, falsely accuse on trumped up charges and have a show trial like certain female Ukrainian pilots. This is the West where claims are investigated, facts ascertained and blame and/or lessons identified apportioned.

You must know what I'm talking about. After all, you've been following the MH17 investigation. Facts ascertained and confirmed despite the denials, false evidence and mischief of the accused. It takes time but the right culprit is often in the frame rather than for example picking up two random Chechnyans off the street and accusing them of murdering your opposition leader.
 
#63
Do they raise it with you then? I know you're high up in the troll factory but I didn't realise it was that high? I would (logically) assume that this is the press release. Any specifics would have been raised directly with the Russian Federation.

The one on Syrian soldiers. As mentioned previously, it's not Russia where you get a fall guy, falsely accuse on trumped up charges and have a show trial like certain female Ukrainian pilots. This is the West where claims are investigated, facts ascertained and blame and/or lessons identified apportioned.

You must know what I'm talking about. After all, you've been following the MH17 investigation. Facts ascertained and confirmed despite the denials, false evidence and mischief of the accused. It takes time but the right culprit is often in the frame rather than for example picking up two random Chechnyans off the street and accusing them of murdering your opposition leader.
So you have at hands only one example of investigation in mistaken or 'mistaken' strike in Syria by the US-led coalition. And the investigation is not completed yet.
Can you recall even one another investigation?
 
#64
So you have at hands only one example of investigation in mistaken or 'mistaken' strike in Syria by the US-led coalition. And the investigation is not completed yet.
Can you recall even one another investigation?
Not off the top of my head, no. Can you? I suppose I could google it and I'm sure there will be hits. I'm also sure they'll be investigated as well.

Can you even point to one incident of the (alleged) bombing of civilians in Aleppo and elsewhere in Syria that Russia even admits its planes were there, let alone dropped ordinance, let alone investigated?

For example, the UN convoy. I'm sure it was a mistake and I may even concede there may have been a rebel vehicle mixed up in the convoy. However, as a typical example Russia puts the blame on someone else and denies it was anything to do with them. Where's the investigation? The statements? The investigation team? The collection of evidence? None. Just bluff and bluster as usual
 
#65
Spent an evening reading these two links last night, the first one is really a lesson in history that is highly relevant today, the second is about the question of so called NGO's of course its quite right to ask how an organization can really be called such.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-cia-mi6-intel-ops-and-sabotage/29126




This incisive article by veteran war correspondent Felicity Arbuthnot was published by Global Research a year ago, on February 2, 2012.

You will not read it in the New York Times.

At a time of mounting media fabrications –when “objective truths are fading” and “lies are passing into history”– this analysis reveals the diabolical modus operandi of US-NATO terrorism and how covert intelligence ops are applied to trigger conditions which are conducive to the collapse of nation states. One of these “conditions” is the outright killing of innocent civilians as part of a cover operation and then blaming president Bashar Al Assad of having committed atrocities against his own people .



Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research , January 27, 2012

http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/10/23/syrias-white-helmets-war-by-way-of-deception-part-1/

 
#66
Spent an evening reading these two links last night, the first one is really a lesson in history that is highly relevant today, the second is about the question of so called NGO's of course its quite right to ask how an organization can really be called such.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-cia-mi6-intel-ops-and-sabotage/29126




This incisive article by veteran war correspondent Felicity Arbuthnot was published by Global Research a year ago, on February 2, 2012.

You will not read it in the New York Times.

At a time of mounting media fabrications –when “objective truths are fading” and “lies are passing into history”– this analysis reveals the diabolical modus operandi of US-NATO terrorism and how covert intelligence ops are applied to trigger conditions which are conducive to the collapse of nation states. One of these “conditions” is the outright killing of innocent civilians as part of a cover operation and then blaming president Bashar Al Assad of having committed atrocities against his own people .



Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research , January 27, 2012

Syria’s White Helmets: War by Way of Deception – Part I

Some views on the Kremlin propaganda outlet known as Global Research:
Globalresearch - RationalWiki
Journalistic Ethics and Norms: How legitimate is The Centre for Global Research? - Quora
Michel Chossudovsky - Wikipedia

If you want to post propaganda Spider, at least caveat it with such.

Felicity Arbuthnot writes for the Morning Star.... 'nuff said:
Felicity Arbuthnot

We all know Global Research have linked the Syrian White Helmets with JaN/JFaS. As it comes from a Kremlin propaganda outlet it's almost guaranteed to be a lie.

As you're an allegedly intelligent person, please find articles in Global Research that criticise the Russian govt. There must be one surely? If they are indeed an independent research site rather than a propaganda outlet
 
#68
You're quoting Global Research? Really?
Scraping the barrel a bit aren't you?
Sure but is there any truth in what the articles say? answer yes a lot because both articles are based around facts ie Whitehall documents in the first, and in the second do white helmets benefit from western money and do they enhance a western agenda and was its creator ex British military?, YES. .

Most people see this conflict as having no good side, everyone in Syria now from a child to a fighter pilot is a pawn in a game.

Some views on the Kremlin propaganda outlet known as Global Research:
Globalresearch - RationalWiki
Journalistic Ethics and Norms: How legitimate is The Centre for Global Research? - Quora
Michel Chossudovsky - Wikipedia

If you want to post propaganda Spider, at least caveat it with such.

Felicity Arbuthnot writes for the Morning Star.... 'nuff said:
Felicity Arbuthnot

We all know Global Research have linked the Syrian White Helmets with JaN/JFaS. As it comes from a Kremlin propaganda outlet it's almost guaranteed to be a lie.

As you're an allegedly intelligent person, please find articles in Global Research that criticise the Russian govt. There must be one surely? If they are indeed an independent research site rather than a propaganda outlet
Thanks Mr Fingerz ( interesting you popped up the same time as he last posted also interesting you have a similar massive post count).

But unfortunately you have proved yourself as innocent as a naked baby on matters of Syria so I don't give a toss what you think or say.
 
#69
Sure but is there any truth in what the articles say? answer yes a lot because both articles are based around facts ie Whitehall documents in the first, and in the second do white helmets benefit from western money and do they enhance a western agenda and was its creator ex British military?, YES. .

Most people see this conflict as having no good side, everyone in Syria now from a child to a fighter pilot is a pawn in a game.
Agreed on based on facts and the pawn aspect. The rest is risible
Thanks Mr Fingerz ( interesting you popped up the same time as he last posted also interesting you have a similar massive post count).
I take back my comment on you allegedly being intelligent. I've been on Arrse over 12 years so it's likely I will have a large post count.
But unfortunately you have proved yourself as innocent as a naked baby on matters of Syria so I don't give a toss what you think or say.
You've proved you are willing to believe Kremlin propaganda and unable to distinguish fact from fiction. Stick to maintaining lawns Spider
 
#70
Not off the top of my head, no. Can you? I suppose I could google it and I'm sure there will be hits. I'm also sure they'll be investigated as well.
Try google and ... you will find nothing. There was no any investigation (with exception of bombing of Syrian troops, that is hard to deny).
Can you even point to one incident of the (alleged) bombing of civilians in Aleppo and elsewhere in Syria that Russia even admits its planes were there, let alone dropped ordinance, let alone investigated?

For example, the UN convoy. I'm sure it was a mistake and I may even concede there may have been a rebel vehicle mixed up in the convoy. However, as a typical example Russia puts the blame on someone else and denies it was anything to do with them. Where's the investigation? The statements? The investigation team? The collection of evidence? None. Just bluff and bluster as usual
Why Russian MoD has to investigate some bombings where RuAF didn't take part?
How it is possible to perform any investigation on the territory controlled by the rebels?
By the way, now Russian TV shows gen.Konashenkov who described in details the raid of two Belgian F16's that according to him bombed Syrian village with civilian casualities. The route was shown in details.
The Belgians deny everything.
Assad could demand from Belgium to inform him about routes of Belgian military aircrafts in sovereign Syrian airspace. Next time 'unknown' aircrafts could be shot down... In this case it would be hard for Belgians to deny anything.
 
Last edited:
#71
Try google and ... you will find nothing. There was no any investigation (with exception of bombing of Syrian troops, that is hard to deny).
Russian google sh1t comrade. Need capitalist google:
US airstrikes allegedly kill at least 73 civilians in northern Syria
Civilian death toll on the rise from American-led airstrikes against Isis
The first two hits, need I go on?
Why has Russian MoD investigate some bombings where RuAF didn't take part?
It's called looking to make sure a slip up hasn't been made. "Comrade, were we in area 'x'?" "No" "Okay"

Rather than "we have received reports into the deaths of civilians in area 'x' Hold on, we'll investigate. Initial reports advise we weren't in the area but we'll make sure. All of the i's dotted. All of the t's crossed. Nope, not us. Try those scallywags the Syrians
How it is possible to perform any investigation on the territory controlled by the rebels?
See the Guardian reports above
By the way, now Russian TV shows gen.Konashenkov who described in details the raid of two Belgian F16's that according to him bombed Syrian village with civilian casualities. The route was shown in details.
The Belgians deny everything.
Maybe they're using Kremlin 'deny everything Baldrick' tactics?
Assad could demand from Belgium to inform him about routes of Belgian military aircrafts in sovereign Syrian airspace. Next time 'unknown' aircrafts could be shot down... In this case it would be hard for Belgians to deny anything.
Yeah, okay :rolleyes:
 
#72
Sure but is there any truth in what the articles say? answer yes a lot because both articles are based around facts ie Whitehall documents in the first, and in the second do white helmets benefit from western money and do they enhance a western agenda and was its creator ex British military?, YES. .

Most people see this conflict as having no good side, everyone in Syria now from a child to a fighter pilot is a pawn in a game.



Thanks Mr Fingerz ( interesting you popped up the same time as he last posted also interesting you have a similar massive post count).

But unfortunately you have proved yourself as innocent as a naked baby on matters of Syria so I don't give a toss what you think or say.
faceplam.jpg
faceplam.jpg
faceplam.jpg
faceplam.jpg
faceplam.jpg
faceplam.jpg
is all I can say.
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#74
Moat of whom appear to Kremlin trolls...
Some of them, certainly. There's also a fair sprinkling of 'USA bad no matter what' types but the majority, I think, appreciated seeing a point of view not usually articulated in Western media.

Not saying I agree with it and brighter people than me have dismantled it up there^ but I broadly welcome seeing the (public) reasoning behind the Russian thinking in this regard.
 
#75
You are right. Indeed there were some civilian casualities caused by US bombing that was hard to deny. And there was formal investigation.
A single attack on a village outside the city last week killed at least 74 named civilians, mostly women and children, and potentially more than 50 others, according to multiple observers. That makes the bombing of Tokhar village one of the deadliest single air assaults on civilians of the entire war.
The US says its bombs have caused 55 civilian deaths since the coalition air war against Isis was launched two years ago.
The US military has launched a formal investigation into the bombing, but has not said how many deaths it is investigating.
What is the result of the investigation? It is unclear.
 
#76
You are right. Indeed there were some civilian casualities caused by US bombing that was hard to deny. And there was formal investigation.

What is the result of the investigation? It is unclear.
That's almost an apology Sergey ;-)

Compare and contrast with your MoDs 'deny everything Baldrick'

I don't know what the outcome is and if the investigation is complete yet. It's the West you know. These things take time. I'm sure if you write to the Guardian they will take up your cause.
 
#77
That's almost an apology Sergey ;-)

Compare and contrast with your MoDs 'deny everything Baldrick'

I don't know what the outcome is and if the investigation is complete yet. It's the West you know. These things take time. I'm sure if you write to the Guardian they will take up your cause.
It was hard to deny that bombings for Washington.
But what exactly Russian MoD has to investigate? What specific case?
 
#78
#79
.........That would then move onto the 'Russian mindset' and plenty of people have commented on that, victim, always somebody else's fault, Russia strong etc. @Condottiere has done a short piece on this.............
Once again thanks for that Scalieback.

Yes, if anyone just enters "Muscovite Mindset" and "Muscovite Mentality" into the ARRSE search function (across the whole site) there's lots of instances when I mention this and a few when I explain it at length.

I've just done a short search and found the post where I encapsulate this mentality in a number of succint points.
Chronicles of war in Ukraine | Page 932 | Army Rumour Service
An academic currently specialising in Russian affairs recently asked if he could use this in a paper he was writing. So I was chuffed to bits.

Reproduced below for the indolent (and to annoy KGB-R again).

Our resident Muscovite propaganda merchant wrote the following (along with some incoherent ramblings) with reference to the inquiry into the downing of MH-17:

"…………... The investigators themselves could be absolutely unbiased. But there are decision makers - those who decide when the report will be published, what version is 'preferable'. Final decision makers reside in Washington………………"

This provides an excellent window into the “Muscovite mentality” as conditioned by about eight centuries of totalitarian rule and autocratic despotism.

(I need to clarify here that I use the term “Muscovite” to denote the ruling class [and its ignorant though loyal serfs] of what is now generally known as Russia. In actual fact there used to be many “Russias” or Russian princedoms which were all consumed by Muscovy. It is indicative that when the Prince of Muscovy was proclaimed a Tsar [Emperor], he was proclaimed Tsar of all the “Russias” [whether they liked it or not] and claimed Moscow as the inheritor of and successor to Rome and Constantinople – thus self-assuming a leadership role for European civilisation and an ambition for world power).

A short and not exclusive summary of the “Muscovite Mentality”.

1. For a Muscovite it is inconceivable that state power is not concentrated at the apex of the pyramid. In Muscovy, this is at the Kremlin and usually rests in one man or a small cabal. No important decision can be made by any other organ. A Muscovite genuinely believes that all political and economic power in the West, is ultimately controlled from Washington - just as Moscow strives to control all political and economic power in as large an area as it can, so does Washington. Multiple power centres cannot be allowed to exist within a political entity as this undermines the power of the centre.

2. A Muscovite sees world affairs as a giant “zero-sum game” with the strings being pulled by the major power centres. For a Muscovite the “Main Adversary” remains the USA. So anything which a Muscovite perceives as detrimental to Muscovy is advantageous to the USA. An independent Ukraine is detrimental to Muscovy, therefore the USA must be causing the independence movement there. For a Muscovite independent NGOs undermine the power of the State, therefore they must be operating under the aegis of Washington. Any citizen of Russia that protests against the Kremlin, is perceived by a Muscovite to be weakening the State, therefore they are being supported by Washington and can be considered traitors.

3. The concept of “Rule of Law” is totally alien to a Muscovite. A Muscovite firmly believes that “the law” is just a tool to serve the ruler in order to make the State strong. It is for the ruler to make the law and to apply it or change it as required.

4. The concept of “Separation of Powers” is totally alien to a Muscovite. The “Executive” is the only Power. The “Legislative” and the “Judicial” are mere [often cosmetic] appendages to facilitate the rule of the “Executive”.

5. The concept of “Separation of Church and State” is totally alien to a Muscovite. The Church serves the State and it is inconceivable that the Church can be regarded as a separate power base.

6. The concept of an empowered “Civil Society” is totally alien to a Muscovite. There can be no organisations which are not answerable to the State. The citizen is there to serve the State. The State is not there to serve the citizen, but to use him/her as it sees fit.

7. The concept of a “Free Press” is totally alien to a Muscovite. The media is there to serve the State. The media must reflect the State position. If independent media offer a different point of view, then they are attacking the State and are seen as traitorous. Of course as this is seen as detrimental to the State, it therefore must have the backing of Washington.

8. The Muscovite sees the world from this point of view and naturally assumes that the rest of the world must have a similar viewpoint [for a Muscovite any different viewpoint is obviously unnatural]. As Muscovy sees all other political entities as competitors in a “zero-sum game”, therefore they all must view Muscovy in the same way. As Muscovy is therefore constantly under threat, it must defend itself. Attack is the best form of defence, therefore Muscovite aggression is logically defensive in nature and thus Muscovy pursues a “peace-loving” policy [even when invading other countries]. There is no contradiction in the “Muscovite mindset”.

9. Muscovy currently feels extremely threatened. Not from without, but from within. The peoples of “all the Russias” are finally, slowly but surely realising that there is a truth in the world that is not the “truth” of the Kremlin. That there is another way of organising a society than that which has been forced upon them by Muscovy for centuries. The countries and nations that had been subjugated to the “Muscovite Yoke” are incrementally breaking away and making it successfully in the modern “free” world. That Ukraine, the seat of the original great principality of Kievan Rus [the legacy of which was stolen and warped by Muscovy] was moving away from Muscovite control, precipitated a crisis. If the so called “Little Russians” can embrace change in the organisation of their society - what will stop the so called “Great Russians” from following suit? [Incidentally the Muscovites coined the terms “Little and Great Russians”. The inhabitants of Ukraine and Belarus were originally called “Rusi” or “Ruthenes” as opposed to the “Rossiyani” further east in the Principalities of Pskov, Novgorod, Muscovy etc.]

10. The "Muscovite mindset" also appears to be quite racist. This explains the pre-occupation with the West and particularly the USA as the "Main Adversary"; whereas a more logical conclusion would be that the primary threat to Russia, in terms of sovereignity (economic and political) is from China. But the Muscovite tends to look down arrogantly on non-Europeans (conveniently forgetting his own historic tutelage at the hands of the Mongols). However, it is because of this that the "Muscovite mindset" views the Chinese political system as similar to its own and thus not a threat in the way the Western political system is, in its potential to undermine the control of the Kremlin through its (perceived insidious) appeal to the masses.

I await the denials and howls of anguish from the Putin-bots.

(Edited the following morning with point 10. added - which I originally added in a follow-on post.)
 
#80
.........An academic currently specialising in Russian affairs recently asked if he could use this in a paper he was writing. So I was chuffed to bits..........
The same academic pointed me in the direction of this book:

"The Russian Tradition" by Tibor Szamuely
The Russian Tradition, by Tibor Szamuely, reviewed by Deena Stryker
Tibor Szamuely (historian) - Wikipedia

And enquired whether I had read it as my conclusions seemed to borrow from it. (I had not).
 
Last edited:

Latest Threads

Top