Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Russian Gov advises it's children abroad to return to home


Rush17

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Spitfire_Spiky said:

That is a scary thought, especially when you add North Korea into the picture who is another strong ally of China. As as said before the lines are being drawn:

 

Team US

- USA

- Great Britain

- Saudi Arabia

- Most of the European Unin

 

Team Russia

- Russia

- China

- Iran

- North Korea

- Syria

 

It has the makeup for quite the global war if anything serious goes down.

I don't know who wins this war, but I do know any subsequent war "will be fought with sticks and stones" (Albert Einstein) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Hutton Wink said:

Like always, it's about distraction.  The US has been encircling and provoking Russia for years, trying to get them into a war.  Latest is all the US intervention in Russia's ally Syria, bombing Syrian soldiers enabling ISIS to advance.  Putin has been playing it smarter than them, but he might realize that the way it's going there won't be any way out.  The US economy is a shambles, and their government has to find ways to distract people -- the election is a prime one, but once it's over they'll have to fabricate more stuff to feed to CNN, Fox, and CNBC.  False flag attacks are one of their favourites, of course.

Didn't Russia invade (annex) parts of the Ukrain?  The Russians, under Putin, are pretty aggressive too, no?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason this style of rhetoric out the USSR..errrr Russia ever stopped was because they lost so much clout as they rebuilt their crumbling country, after the collapse of the USSR in the 90's.  Russia is a power once again, and the same East vs West rhetoric will resume.  It's not all that different than the anti-Russia rhetoric from Western media.  It's a game that ol' Poots loves to play and is quite goods at.  At the end of the day, Russia and the USA need to have this polarized relationship, it keeps everyone honest.  If Russia could have been a stronger voice in the early 2000's, the USA would not have been able to get away with all the games they played.  At the end of the day, Russia and the USA are Frenemies, they need each other.  This is a non-issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ya the winter on fire documentary on netflix is rather interesting. you see the people fight for their freedom then russia comes in and takes over.

 

it was a really good doc.  it's cool graphic for netflix is what got me to watch it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Hutton Wink said:

Like always, it's about distraction.  The US has been encircling and provoking Russia for years, trying to get them into a war.  Latest is all the US intervention in Russia's ally Syria, bombing Syrian soldiers enabling ISIS to advance.  Putin has been playing it smarter than them, but he might realize that the way it's going there won't be any way out.  The US economy is a shambles, and their government has to find ways to distract people -- the election is a prime one, but once it's over they'll have to fabricate more stuff to feed to CNN, Fox, and CNBC.  False flag attacks are one of their favourites, of course.

 

Great post HW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spitfire_Spiky said:

We do that and we instantly side with Russia in the US vs Russia battle. Might not be such a good idea.

I extend a warm invitation to Putin to come down to the Kiniski's Reef Tavern for a pint on Canada

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Western media suppresses news of U.S./Russian clash and U.S. climbdown over Syria

The Western media is failing to report the public news that the US publicly backed down over its plans to attack Syria after receiving a Russian warning, so that it can continue to advocate military action without provoking alarm on the part of the Western public.

 

http://theduran.com/western-media-suppresses-news-of-us-russian-clash-and-us-climbdown-over-syria/

 

An objective observer of international news would be forgiven for thinking that last week witnessed the most dangerous moment of the post-Cold War era.

What were undoubtedly well sourced media reports confirmed that discussions were underway within the US government about possible attacks on the Syrian military. 

These reports appeared in Reuters, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, and confirmed that a meeting would take place at “staff level” on Wednesday 5th October 2016 to discuss military options to present to the President.

The military option which appeared to be the most strongly favoured was covert military strikes on Syrian army bases.

These reports provoked a warning from the Russian military on Tuesday 4th October 2015 that any US aircraft engaged in attacks on Syrian army bases risked being shot down by the Russian air defence troops stationed in Syria.  This was not an empty threat since the Russian military has stationed advanced S-400 and S-300MV Antey-2500 anti aircraft missiles in Syria.

On Thursday 6th October 2016, two days after the Russian warning and directly following the staff meeting, the US announced that all plans for military action in Syria had been called off.

In other words last week the US publicly disclosed that it was considering military action in Syria, where the Russian military is present, and then called it off following a Russian warning against it doing so.

At any time during the Cold War this would have been called a superpower confrontation, and it would have completely dominated the world news for days on end, with huge alarm about the risk of imminent nuclear war.  As it is, it was the first instance I can think of when the US and Russian militaries publicly squared off against each other – with one side publicly threatening to shoot down the aircraft of the other – since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.

In the event, what is truly astonishing about these events is that in the West they have gone by almost completely unreported. 

In Britain there some sparse reporting of the US threats to launch military strikes on Syria.  The Russian warning that this might lead to US aircraft being shot down has however gone almost completely unreported.

There are in my opinion two reasons for this.

The first is that the talk of covert US strikes on Syrian bases was almost certainly never intended seriously but was just an empty bluff, and the Western media was almost certainly aware – and was probably told – of the fact from the start. 

Adam Garrie of The Duran has carefully explained the absurdity of the proposal:

“The fact that this has already happened makes this one of the most curious twists of linguistic and logical acrobatics in memory.  The US has targeted Syrian troops not just through their Islamic terrorist proxies but directly. John Kerry then apologised for a ‘mistake’, an aerial assault which lasted for 4 hours.  Then the US said ‘we want to make more mistakes only this time on purpose’.  Then they admitted that they were going to lie about it and now they’re saying ‘we’re not going to do it after all, please trust us this time’.”

As Adam Garrie says, it makes no sense to plan a supposedly ‘secret’ strike and then publicly announce the strike in advance by disclosing the plan to the newspapers.  That fact alone makes it a virtual certainty that this nonsensical plan was never intended seriously.  

More likely it was a bluff to scare the Syrians and the Russians into calling off their offensive against the Jihadis occupying eastern Aleppo.   

If that was its purpose then it failed the moment the Russians called the bluff by giving their warning, which caused the US to back down.

That however brings me to the second reason for the Western media blackout, and it is far less reassuring.

This is that the heavily militaristic and interventionist Western media does not want the Western public to know that the US backed down after receiving a public warning of retaliatory action from the Russian military. 

This is not just because the Western media does not want the US and Western public to know about the US’s humiliation.  It is because it does not want the Western public to know of the colossal risks of the dangerous strategy of military intervention in Syria which it is recklessly advocating.

The result is that though the option of serious military action was rejected by the US last week after a public superpower clash which threatened to escalate into a direct military confrontation, the Western public is almost entirely unaware of the fact.

This is what made possible the surreal debate the British House of Commons held about Syria two days ago, discussing military action in Syria as if this option was still on the table. 

Over the course of this debate – which lasted a mere 3 hours – Boris Johnson, Britain’s hapless Foreign Secretary, whose earlier writings about Syria show that he certainly knows better, tried to hide his embarrassment and lack of options by ludicrously – and illegally – calling for protests outside the Russian embassy. 

In subsequent comments to a House of Commons Committee he again made clear that a no-fly zone is not in fact on the agenda, but again tried to hide his empty hand by talking of “kinetic options” (ie. military options) which he knows the US has already ruled out.  That he is perfectly well aware of this he slipped out when he said that 

“[whilst it is time to] look again at the more kinetic and military options but be realistic – we cannot do anything without the Americans and we are still a pretty long day’s march from getting there”.

One of the most depressing aspects of the whole Syrian conflict – and of the succession of conflicts which have preceded it – is how the Western media has become not just a cheerleader but an active and determined lobbyist for Western military action whenever the possibility arises. 

The repeated failure of Western military action to achieve the results promised, and the ever escalating risks of military action, never seems to change anything.  One gets the impression that it is the momentary vicarious thrill of military action, and the assertion of power that comes with it, rather than any thought of the larger consequences, that now drives events.

Regardless of the reasons, the Western media’s suppression of news of what happened last week is a journalistic crime. 

The USSR tightly controlled its media but it did not hide the reality of the Cuban missile crisis from its people. 

That boundary, the Western media has now crossed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Rush17 said:

can Canada opt out please? lol.  I don't want any involvement in this nonsense.

 

can't we solve issues without violence at least in the civilized world.   I get some places are still in mid evil like times. but not change the world with information instead of force.

 

 I guess the whole noradd north American defense system is kinda hard to reverse. it's unfortunate but it almost seems like no one is a good guy this time. 

 

it's unfortunate this is unfolding in this manner.  Russia ant no saint either but it's been the US aggression that's creating the majority of this tension.  Russia is simply responding in kind. they have done little up too this point and I respect them for being so patient.  

 

why does the world gotta be so crazy.

While I don't agree that WW3 is imminent, if it did happen, it would be tough for us to stay out of it.

 

When people look at a map and think of traveling, we tend to think east-west. But in a war between Russia and the USA, the shortest route would be over the top of the world and of course, right through Canadian airspace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

While I don't agree that WW3 is imminent, if it did happen, it would be tough for us to stay out of it.

 

When people look at a map and think of traveling, we tend to think east-west. But in a war between Russia and the USA, the shortest route would be over the top of the world and of course, right through Canadian airspace.

Both countries wouldn't hesitate to use our airspace. There would likely be falling planes, pieces and munitions in Canada. It would be very scary for a lot of people as we would be caught in the cross fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Realtor Rod said:

Both countries wouldn't hesitate to use our airspace. There would likely be falling planes, pieces and munitions in Canada. It would be very scary for a lot of people as we would be caught in the cross fire.

Exactly my point.

 

I guess it took you mistaking the content of one of my posts for us to agree on something, eh Rod?:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Spitfire_Spiky said:

Yes they annexed Crimea from the Ukraine and then "allegedly" supported a the Donetsks rebel uprisings in Ukraine.

 

The United States admittedly funded neo-fascists to overthrow the democratically-elected government of Ukraine, to the tune of $5billion.  The Russians came in to understandably protect their own interests, just as the US would have done if Canada's government had been overthrown by Chinese Marxists.  Crimea then had a referendum, and over 96% voted to separate from the usurped Ukraine... but according to the West, the overwhelming will of the people is illegitimate but the overthrow of a government by foreign interests is?  Again, that would be like having Russia take over our government by force, then we in BC vote to separate from them but the Russians then label us "rebels" and "insurgents", and refuse to allow it.

 

8 hours ago, Salmonberries said:

Regardless of the reasons, the Western media’s suppression of news of what happened last week is a journalistic crime. 

The USSR tightly controlled its media but it did not hide the reality of the Cuban missile crisis from its people. 

That boundary, the Western media has now crossed.

 

I remember back in the early 80s reading USSR magazine in the college library, and giggling at it.  Oh the propaganda, when they said that the US purposely sent that Korean plane into Russian airspace to get it shot down.  Those poor gullible Russian people, subjected to government lies.  Well guess what -- we are exactly the same now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a way out of confrontation. The U.S. (and their shadow banker handlers) can always just withdraw from Syria, forget about regime change, forget about the pipeline, forget about covertly supporting Al Nusra and ISIS as boots on the ground, stop lying that they care about civilians, reset relations with Russia and admit that they overplayed their hand. But they won't do that. Russia and Syria won't give up either. So with this in mind, best case scenario (except for the people of Syria) is a never ending civil war in Syria, which is essentially the status quo. Worst case, direct war with Syria, Russia, Iran initially possibly drawing China in later. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...