Posted on 10/05/2015 9:38:30 PM PDT by Wayne07
(Google Translation)
With the start of operations in Syria began an active information war against Russia. As our country should act in these circumstances?
- I would not attach any special significance. We must be prepared for such an attack. Although neither Russian nor American nor European politicians do not like to talk, and carefully avoided the phrase "cold war", but we have a de facto live in a "cold war" with the United States. Not with Europe, and it is with America.
Some of its manifestations could be seen in 2008 in South Ossetia, and then during a sharp aggravation of the situation in Syria, in 2013, and it became quite obvious after the events in Ukraine. Of course, at the official level and in Moscow and Washington will deny it, and perhaps rightly so: it is better that this "cold war" was an episode, and not turned into a protracted standoff.
But she also began and involves primarily an information war. Under conditions of nuclear parity direct military conflict between the US and Russia is simply impossible. It will be a draw, which will bury our planet, so the main front - the information, the struggle for world public opinion. Let's see who we criticize? USA, Canada, European countries, some Arab regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey.
But this is not the whole world. Along with countries that we are criticized, there are those who support us. By the way, this "cold war," our position is stronger than they were during the Soviet era, as we do not impose anything on anyone, there is no ideological confrontation, there is opposition against the common sense of irresponsibility.
(Excerpt) Read more at translate.google.com ...
Obama's cluelessness has reignited the Cold War, and it is getting warm.
here is a little more from the article:
You know what the problem is Americans? They do not offer a positive agenda. They say: "We are against Assad. We are against Hussein. We are against Mubarak, and so on. " And for whom do you then? States do not offer a positive solution. Our position is stronger, it is morally justified. With proper positioning of the information it produces sympathy. That's scary for some states. We must conduct counter-propaganda must clarify our position, nothing wrong with that, on the contrary - it reinforces the image of our country: to show who we are, who we are and what we offer. And we propose concrete steps.In Syria, acts and so-called anti-terrorist coalition led by the United States. Can we expect a revitalization of its actions?
It's already happened: the Americans immediately began to report on the new blow to the IG. But it was not without irony. They reported the destruction of two excavators, one motorcycle. Of course, it looks a little funny. I do not exclude that now from the coalition will begin a serious blow to the "Islamic state", because they have to show that they are also doing something. But it is nice if the militants are constantly subjected to military pressure. From the standpoint of the history of international relations, Syria has now developed a unique situation in one country two forces led military campaign against the same opponent in parallel. This has never happened before. This is the uniqueness of the current "cold war". Of course, in some areas it will be very different from the previous one, will not be such a hard division into two camps. It is no longer bipolar "Cold War" - it is multipolar.
… but we have a de facto live in a “cold war” with the United States. Not with Europe, and it is with America. …Molotov-Ribbentrop redux? and if so, what is Europe up to?
Jogged my memory to some info I need to follow on about Mineral riches in Afghanistan that are amazing...
Would not take much of a concerted effort to gain control, the current residents are not rocket scientists..
Water resources in Libya Far beyond what has been reported, part of the reason Big Q was forced out..
More value than the oil...
And multiple times more...
Lots of intrigues out there
I think Europe is beyond being an enemy, it’s just a limp socialist wasteland. But realistically, this kind of rhetoric is meant to divide the US and Europe, and to pacify Europe so they are less likely help us.
There are those writing opinion pieces that have no idea that Syria has been in Russia’s orbit for decades. This is, completely, the Russians’ show.
Not a good idea to underestimate them. Nobody thought that they would get as far as they did economically either, even with the euro problems—which, like the current “refugee” problem, was a beneficial crisis designed for the purpose of power consolidation.
The whole purpose of the European Union is for the creation of a so-called “third power”.
“help us”
They are the ones who need help.
The US can be energy independent and can afford to let the middle east go to hell.
But the Europeans have a problem. The Russians want control of the natural resources so tbey can blackmail the europeans into a accepting their incursions into the Ukraine, etc.
ISIS says, “al-Putin Akhbar”. Those who aren’t bombed to dust, that is.
Very true, and it meant that if we were going to butt in, we better have had a strong strategy and coalition, and we had neither. So besides looking inept, we provoked Russia. It wouldn't be stretch to guess Putin is willing to act much more aggressively in Crimea in response to Obama trying to unsettle Assad. Tit for tat.
I understand the main purpose of the EU was to prevent future wars between UK/France/Germany by binding them together. Unfortunately, that vision came at a time before they were considering existential threats from the middle east and Asia.
I have a serious problem with foreign language commentators reporting in English.
There is serious ambiguity in ever using the word "militants" when referring to physical conflict. It could mean anything from ISIS/ISIL, to the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the New Black Panthers...
Lavrov basically embarrassed and ridiculed John Kerry at the UN last week, making him wait well over an hour to meet, and giving a lengthy presser before a very short meeting with Kerry, that he left ANGRY.
The whole situation made Kerry look like an ass.
AS USUAL, this involves a Democrat, though, and the US Press wouldn’t DARE to even mention it.
(just IMAGINE the coverage had the Russians done this to Condaleesa Rice!) But the rest of the world’s media has.
Take it with a double grain of salt because the text is in Russian, run through Google translate. That said, I think they use the word militant to jab at the US because they are intentionally not differentiating ISIS and the US backed opposition to Assad.
That’s their stated goal. The real goal was to be a “third power” in between the US and the USSR, and that has not changed even in spite of the new “identity” of the USSR (currently being called the “Eurasian Union”). The history of Europe typically shows wars ensuing rather than peace when its countries unite.
As for the Middle East, consider their policies back in the 60s and 70s, when they went under different names (such as European Coal and Steel Community and European Economic Community). They have historically been anti-Israel and aiding the revanchism of Islam.
...being propped up by US taxpayer dollars which subsidize it's security.
“But the Europeans have a problem.”
That’s for sure. The Europeans are sitting on a 400 year supply of coal, while Britain has a minimum 100 year supply of gas under its feet, energy that can be extracted with today’s fraking technology. However, the Europeans have been so brainwashed with the global warming propaganda that they are paralyzed in fear about extracting those energy resources.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.