Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military

Russian State TV Anchor: Russia Could Turn US To "Radioactive Ash" 878

Posted by samzenpus
from the lighten-up-francis dept.
An anonymous reader writes with a Ukraine news roundup. "'Russia is the only country in the world realistically capable of turning the United States into radioactive ash,' anchor Dmitry Kiselyov said on his weekly news show on state-controlled Rossiya 1 television. ... His programme was broadcast as the first exit polls were being published showing an overwhelming majority of Crimeans voting to leave Ukraine and join Russia. He stood in his studio in front of a gigantic image of a mushroom cloud produced after a nuclear attack, with the words 'into radioactive ash.' ... Kiselyov has earned a reputation as one of Russia's most provocative television news hosts, in particularly with his often blatantly homophobic remarks. But he is also hugely influential with his weekly news show broadcast at Sunday evening prime time. Putin last year appointed Kiselyov head of the new Russia Today news agency that is to replace the soon to be liquidated RIA Novosti news agency with the aim of better promoting Russia's official position. — Russia has threatened to stop nuclear disarmament treaty inspections and cooperation. Russian troops are reported to have seized a natural gas terminal in Ukraine outside of Crimea. There are reported to be 60,000 Russian troops massing on Russia's border with Ukraine."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Russian State TV Anchor: Russia Could Turn US To "Radioactive Ash"

Comments Filter:
  • by ackthpt (218170) on Monday March 17, 2014 @11:44AM (#46506475) Homepage Journal

    I see the Putin Propaganda Machine is in full-Stalin mode.

  • by ranton (36917) on Monday March 17, 2014 @11:49AM (#46506521)

    I would be surprised if someone like Rush Limbaugh hasn't said something similar about Russia on their US based cable/radio news programs in the past few weeks. I'm sure both of our nations have their own crackpot news agencies.

  • by bkmoore (1910118) on Monday March 17, 2014 @11:50AM (#46506535)
    For as long as Putin and his cronies are in power, the U.S. and the rest of the western world should offer any law-abiding Russian citizen who wants to leave an automatic green card, work permit, etc. We cannot realistically or morally change Russia from the outside. The most powerful weapon against fanaticism would be allowing regular law-abiding Russians to vote with their feet. We could always use some more scientists and engineers anyway...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 17, 2014 @11:50AM (#46506537)

    Certainly I'd be more worried about their intentions to sink the US dollar by selling all their reserves held in that currency. A lot cheaper than firing several ICMBs, and much more effective...Regarding the economic warfront, I don't see any tactical advantages for the US here. Imagine the Russians selling all their US dollars, China following them, and bringing the value of a dollar bill cheaper than paper toilet...

  • by JudgeFurious (455868) on Monday March 17, 2014 @11:51AM (#46506553)
    And the United States is the only country in the world realistically capable of turning the USSR....err "Russia" into radioactive ash. For crying out loud are we really going to do all of this again? Why?
  • by Dan East (318230) on Monday March 17, 2014 @11:52AM (#46506559) Homepage Journal

    The difference is that Limbaugh doesn't speak for a state-controlled news agency, and thus Limbaugh's opinions are only that of a single man with a microphone and do not represent the government of an entire country.

  • Re:So..... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Mashiki (184564) <mashiki&gmail,com> on Monday March 17, 2014 @11:54AM (#46506587) Homepage

    No, but both Palin and Romney could tell several years ago that Russia was an actual problem. Unlike Obama and his red line fickleness. Well that's alright, he's off to his what? 197th round of golf, and later today he'll be flying out to Hollywood for his 290th fundraising event. Pressing issues you know.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 17, 2014 @11:56AM (#46506605)

    Do you really think there is no state control involved american media? Ha hahahahah! Hehehheheheh!

  • by Maimun (631984) on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:00PM (#46506657)
    for many years. The writing has been on the wall all the time. Those idiotic threats are just the tip of the iceberg. It would be wrong to downplay them with the arguments like "some idiot lost his nerves". The bellicosity has been on the rise in Russia for many years and no, the reason is not that they were unjustly insulted by the West. The fascist-like regime wants to expand and dominate. It is that simple. The fascizoids can never be stopped by appeasement. The appeasement did not work before WWII and will not work now. The only argument they understand is raw power. For them, politeness and tolerance are signs of weakness and met with derision. Maybe, I hope, one day the Russian people will kick the fascists out of power but for the forseeable future this is wishful thinking.

    Well, international relations are heating up again, coffee-break is over and the West should better wake up and start doing something. If raw power is the only thing that can stop the bad guys, raw power we must accumulate.

  • by Xest (935314) on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:03PM (#46506681)

    Yes, because everything wrong on Earth is the West's fault, and Russia is a perfectly little angel that produces nothing other than rainbows and unicorns.

    In other news Kim Jong Un was re-elected with 100% of the popular vote for being such a glorious leader of the people.

  • by supersat (639745) on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:03PM (#46506691)
    In Capitalist America, news agencies control the state!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:04PM (#46506697)
    this is not possible,i am from east . if they do this , their own economy will fall
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:08PM (#46506749)
    >wouldn't have the balls

    Most of us would say "isn't insane," rather than "doesn't have the balls." Do you self-identify as a violent wacko?
  • by Ottawakismet (2798639) on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:10PM (#46506779)
    a fake vote where supposedly all the ukrainians and tatars also wanted to join Russia. Ya right. 97% approval is the kind of election result dictatorships produce, honest elections never get that result. Support for separation was 40%, so its a total lie that suddenly everyone wants separation.
  • by Opportunist (166417) on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:13PM (#46506825)

    Because nobody buys the terrorist gambit anymore and we need a reason to keep the military complex funded.

  • by Jeff Flanagan (2981883) on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:14PM (#46506835)
    Plenty of Russians came out to protest Putin's actions. He appeals to their ignorant social conservatives, and sadly also appeals to the worst of our Republican types.

    Stupid people love violence and superstition, and Putin exploits that just like American Republicans do.

    There are plenty of sane Russians, just like there are plenty of sane Americans. We just both suck at marginalizing our wackos.
  • by Rob Riggs (6418) on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:15PM (#46506845) Homepage Journal
    It's very easy for the U.S. to pay off the U.S. debt. It is denominated in U.S. dollars.
  • by bjdevil66 (583941) on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:17PM (#46506873)

    This CANNOT be posted enough. [youtube.com] Obama was 100% wrong, and Romney was 100% right.

    Call it sour grapes for the 2012 election, but the guy that lost saw the potential problems coming - and our current administration mocked him for it. And Romney haters mocked him online and in the media.

    Bottom line: As of today, when it comes to international relations, the executive branch looks like it's being run today by an amateur - supported by amateurs, all living in the same intellectual bubble full of yes men.

  • Re:Mr Obama (Score:4, Insightful)

    by thrich81 (1357561) on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:17PM (#46506877)

    As someone who lived through the '80s with a couple of close calls of mutual annihilation, I'd rather not have those foreign policies back.

  • by gtall (79522) on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:21PM (#46506921)

    Well, nukes are only about 5-10% of the U.S. defense budget. Now are there any more strawmen you are hiding in your closet?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:22PM (#46506939)
    Oh, come on. The people voting for Putin in Russia have almost the same mindset that the people that voted Bush/Cheney did in the U.S. The two countries are surprisingly similar.
  • by GodfatherofSoul (174979) on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:23PM (#46506947)

    It doesn't help that certain segments of Congress keep talking up Putin like he's the second coming of Alexander the Great. Russia is a broke EX world power. Pushing around pissant satellite states and a spigot on a pipeline are about the extend of their power. We need to treat them that way and stop giving them far more credit than they deserve. All we're doing is emboldening Putin.

    The dude goes around shirtless. That should be clue enough he's an attention whore and we all know what happens when you give an attention whore more attention.

  • by Rockoon (1252108) on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:23PM (#46506949)
    Exactly.

    When speaking with an Egyptian co-worker (a Christian who finally got the rest of his family out of Egypt only recently) he had remarked that the reason that most people in the world take what Americans say on television so seriously because in most of the world (Egypt for example) you cannot say things on television that the State doesnt agree with without getting into serious trouble, so they myopically assume that the same must also be true in America. If Timmy Talking Head says that he hates Muslims on American T.V, and the American government didnt arrest him immediately, then most of the world assumes that the official State position of America must be to hate Muslims.

    Now here we have some myopic American assuming that the rest of the worlds media is just like American media. Its not.

    Now as far as Putin, NPR recently had an interview with chess Grand Master Gary Kasparov who has for a long time been outspoken against Putin. He pointed out that the KGB had a file on Putin long before he became the glorious leader which included a personality profile. The KGB had determined that Putin had an unusually low sense of danger, the kind of guy that thinks he can get away with just about anything, and that might include launching a nuclear first strike against America.
  • by MightyMartian (840721) on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:23PM (#46506955) Journal

    Have you thought about the costs to Russia? Such a mass sell off would indeed slaughter the price of the dollar, and thus would cut the value of Russia's greenback reserves enormously. Sure the US and the rest of the global economy would be in agony, but Russia would have cut off its own nose despite its face.

    Russia is not some infinitely powerful state. By and large, it's a petro-state, and any move that causes precipitous global economic decline will do it significant damage in the process.

  • by MightyMartian (840721) on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:24PM (#46506969) Journal

    How would Russia survive it better when it relies upon energy exports to keep its economic ship afloat? Guess what the first victim of a major economic slowdown is...

  • by rvw (755107) on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:24PM (#46506975)

    The US invaded Iraq without UN approval and with false proof (remember the WMD) to "liberate" it. Now Russia does the same with Crimea, only the proof is much more valid, even if this poll was a complete farce. What's new?

    Disclaimer: I'm EU citizen and totally against all this idiotic behavior. But let's be honest - the US has no moral standing in cases like this anymore, even if Obama is not to blame for Iraq. And the EU, well, they simply have no backbone in foreign policy.

  • by X.25 (255792) on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:26PM (#46507013)

    The difference is that Limbaugh doesn't speak for a state-controlled news agency, and thus Limbaugh's opinions are only that of a single man with a microphone and do not represent the government of an entire country.

    Wait - you believe that something being said on state owned TV station is in the name of government and entire country?

    What is wrong with you people?

    You probably never lived in a country with 'state owned TV' if you can make statements this retarded. Sigh.

  • by MightyMartian (840721) on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:28PM (#46507035) Journal

    The West didn't intervene in the Prague Spring, and they won't likely directly intervene now. Ukraine isn't worth the pain of open warfare.

    Beyond that, the US has been for weeks now trying to push for vast overarching sanctions. It's the EU that lacks the backbone. For full sanctions to really work, it has to be both the US and the EU.

  • by wonkey_monkey (2592601) on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:30PM (#46507069) Homepage

    Hindsight is 20/20.

    How many other things were said at the time by either candidate but weren't borne out by time?

  • "I'm fairly sure that Obama wouldn't have the balls to push the Red Button regardless of Putin wanting to,
    or common sense.

    It takes bigger balls to find actual solutions.

    I like how people have suddenly for got that turning either country into a 'radioactive waste land' will throw the whole world back to the stone age. Possible even eliminating humans from the planet.

    " China (and maybe India, too) would be "
    eating popcorn? no. More like panicking to figure out how to survive the massive radioactive cloud.

  • by dunkelfalke (91624) on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:35PM (#46507149)

    For both economic reasons - Ukraine is piss-poor compared to Russia, and for ethnic reasons - Ukrainians are a minority in Crimea.

  • by Kvasio (127200) on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:38PM (#46507183)

    China has a choice here, as they could switch to Euro.
    Russia won't switch to Euro, so what would they buy instead? Gold? they are gold supplier. Would make no sense. Yen? They did not end WW2 yet.

    And TV idiot forgot, that in global nuclear conflict there are no winners. With the possible exception for rats, cockroaches and tardigrades.

  • by Xest (935314) on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:39PM (#46507217)

    To be fair support for separation was higher (roughly 50%) but support for joining Russia was only 41% before Putin's thugs turned up armed and en-masse to rig the vote.

    You're right though, the referendum was a joke, I don't even know why dictators like Putin do this, you'd think if you're going to rig a vote you at least make it semi-believable at like 60% or something, but really, 97%, are they actually trying to take the piss or what? 82% turnout and 97% vote for joining Russia does indeed imply that Ukrainians and Tatars that are almost universally opposed to joining Russia voted for exactly that. This alone shows what an absolute complete and utter farce it was.

    As if the hijacking of all Crimean comms in and out, radio, TV, and surrounding of military bases and refusal to allow international observers in whilst beating up journalists wasn't obvious evidence enough that a fraudulent vote was about to follow. I'm not sure who exactly they're trying to convince short of the few useful idiots that are dotted about here and there, but what do they matter? It's almost like they're just trying to convince themselves they're doing the right thing, as it sure as hell ain't convincing anyone else that matters.

  • by Hodr (219920) on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:41PM (#46507233) Homepage

    I'm not sure I understand all of this talk of "dumping", or maybe it's the people proposing the action that don't understand it. They can only do 3 things with those bonds, cash them in, sell them to someone else for a loss (dumping?), or burn them.

    The first option does nothing, as claiming matured bonds is what you are supposed to do. The third option is awesome, free money.

    The second option, if they had enough to kill the world market (which I don't think they do) for US bonds might have an impact, but only if they price very low and somehow managed to keep the US itself from buying them.

    The fact of the matter is, as soon as they post 100B in US T-Bills for substantially lower than the market rate someone will buy them all instantly and they will no longer exert pressure on the market for new debt.

    If they doled them out slowly, there isn't enough to cause an issue.

  • by Xest (935314) on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:42PM (#46507281)

    China wont join Russia because if it sells it's US dollars then it just means it's tanked the main country in the world it's dependent on for exports meaning it'll kill it's own economy.

    Russia doesn't have enough dollars to matter.

    Economically, Russia finds itself on the losing side of history once again here if it tries to push it's luck.

  • by MightyMartian (840721) on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:49PM (#46507379) Journal

    This obsession with "moral standing" is ludicrous. Do you think the British Empire had heap loads of moral standing on September 1, 1939? Do you think the US and the USSR had barrels of "moral standing" hanging around when they joined the fight against the Nazis?

    Nations do shit things, sometimes for perceived benefit, or simply out of greed. If we allowed every ill actions we had done in the past hold us back, no one would ever intervene when some other nation state violated the general rules of international conduct?

    Russia signed an agreement in the 1990s guaranteeing Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine's nuclear stockpiles. Thus, even excluding any notions of territorial integrity that have been a part of international law since the end of WWII, Russia is in violation of its own treaty with Ukraine.

    So yes, it sucks ass that the US invaded Iraq, but do you seriously want the US to sit in the corner and refuse to come out when Russia starts enlarging itself with trumped up referendums, because a decade ago it did a naughty thing?

  • by MightyMartian (840721) on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:54PM (#46507465) Journal

    Wipe out its major cities, and whatever functioning infrastructure remains, it will be heavily damaged and the Russian state will be compromised. Hitler almost managed it, but didn't have the resources to pull it off. Even with Russia's natural protections, Germany came damned close to driving the Soviet regime east of the Urals.

    All these war games were played out half a century ago. In an open exchange of ICBMs, both countries, and pretty much everyone in between, gets all but wiped out. That the Russian leadership might hole up in some Siberian outpost is a given, but by the same token the Continental US is a big fucking place too, and you don't think the plans are still on the books to move the Executive, Judicial and enough for the Legislative for a quorum to some undisclosed location?

    A major nuclear exchange between Russia and the US would be catastrophic for both countries, and I doubt whatever crawled out of the glowing rubble of such an exchange would much resemble the two nations that went in.

  • by Kiuas (1084567) on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:55PM (#46507473)

    The fascist-like regime wants to expand and dominate. It is that simple. The fascizoids can never be stopped by appeasement. The appeasement did not work before WWII and will not work now. The only argument they understand is raw power. For them, politeness and tolerance are signs of weakness and met with derision. Maybe, I hope, one day the Russian people will kick the fascists out of power but for the forseeable future this is wishful thinking.

    Agreed. Putin is basically doing "blitzkrieg" on the world political stage and currently has the ball. He's constantly been referring to "the situation in Ukraine" and "the situation in Crimea" as being something that justifies the actions of "pro-russian militias" (note: the Kremlin denies that they have any direct control over the troops occupying Crimea, officially they're supposed to be militias regradles of the fact that they're using equipment thus far only seen in service with the Russian special forces). Putin's playing the victim card to the west, and the nationalistic chest-beating "for the motherland" -card to his own citizens - all the while giving a strong signal to people like me living next to his country (in my case Finland) that any Russian promises regarding the respect for international law and sovereignty are better used as toilet paper.

    West should better wake up and start doing something.

    Yes.

    If raw power is the only thing that can stop the bad guys, raw power we must accumulate.

    The west does not need to accumulate power. The west (that is the US/NATO) already controls the largest military force in the history of mankind. We have power, we need the will to use it. If we let this slip Russia will keep chiseling ex-USSR nations piece by piece using the same lame "we're just protecting out citizens" -excuse as the west re-enacts the 30s and tries to appease a man who clearly doesn't give a shit about talk. The west can "condemn" the actions as many times and as "harshly" as we want, but until a line is drawn and it is made clear to Russia that the crossing of this line will lead to military action, Putin will keep controlling the ball.

  • by KingMotley (944240) on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:59PM (#46507529) Journal

    Of course he would. Their missiles and ours have self destructs that can be used mid-flight. Once russia sees the incoming mess, they know they must self-destruct theirs, and we supposedly will do the same.

    Of course, if the missiles do hit us, well, then we have no way of self-destructing ours.

  • by rjhubs (929158) on Monday March 17, 2014 @01:05PM (#46507613)
    I don't really view this as troll. Certainly Russia has its share of responsibility, however, since the fall of the Soviet Union. The "West" has been deliberately acting in a way that would seem provocative from a Russian perspective. We keep adding NATO member closer to Russia's borders, despite the promises we made to Russia after the fall. We've expanded missile defense equipment to many of these countries. We have NGOs working on our behalf trying to establish pro-West leaders in the Ukraine, Imagine how the US would feel if Russia was trying to put a pro-Russian candidate in Mexico?
  • by Hategrin (3579025) on Monday March 17, 2014 @01:07PM (#46507641)
    Really? Some madman fires nukes at you because he thinks you think you have a bigger dick than he does. The only way you could have stopped them was to gurantee that you would retaliate, but you decided being a pushover was morally superior, so that didn't happen. The missiles are in the air. How do you stop them?
  • by Erikderzweite (1146485) on Monday March 17, 2014 @01:09PM (#46507667)

    It's not as simple as that: most Ukrainian people, especially the elderly are very likely to have voted in Russia's favour. Not only because they were living side by side with Russians and are nostalgic for the good ol' times, but also because of the pensions which are about four times higher in Russia. The right-wing radicals that are very vocal among the Ukrainian government gave a strong trump to Russia as well.

    As for Tatars: Tatarstan's president (federal Republic in Russian Federation) was in Crimea promoting tolerance to Russians. He is well respected among the Tatar community and was busy explaining that Tatars and Russians can indeed live peacefully together. Plus the above-mentioned economic factor. Of all groups, the Tatars are, of course, most opposed to the Russians, but you won't feed your family with politics alone.

  • by s.petry (762400) on Monday March 17, 2014 @01:09PM (#46507669)

    And US propaganda is different how exactly? Because you think the US Government is on the same team as you perhaps?

    Issues like this are not singular, but if you are going to call out Russian propaganda then call it out on both sides. US propaganda is portraying Russia in Crimea like the US invasion of Iraq, but it's not even close. I keep waiting for US media to start falsely claiming that Russians are out murdering everyone in the Ukraine and that actually started happening today when reporters were telling stories about people disappearing.

    First, look at Crimea from a military strategy point. Russia has had military and naval bases there for decades. If the Philippines had a revolt you are telling me the US would sit and do nothing to protect their military bases there? Come now, you and I both know we would and should. We have those bases for the same reason Russia has bases in Crimea. In fact the US has over 800 [globalresearch.ca] bases (depending on the source over 1,000) and is exerting pressure on not just Russia but China. You would be well suited to read that whole article by the way, since it backs most of my statements.

    The US denounces military expansion by other countries, but we continue to expand ourselves. This is in addition of course to drone strikes in dozens of countries, the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, and funding and providing weapons for the majority of colored revolutions which caused lots of death and destruction.

    Next, Crimea was about to be an independent autonomous country free of the Ukraine in May. They tend to side with Russia since Russia has lots of military there, and until Nikita Khrushchev gave the land to the Ukraine was part of Russia. This part gets magically lost by any US media discussing Crimea. I work with many people from Russia, Georgia, and the Ukraine. They tend to laugh at how bad US propaganda is, and how it portrays very little truth. Eastern Ukraine is pro Russian, and Western Ukraine not so much. What you hear in the US is the Western spin, and what you hear in Russia is Eastern spin. Somewhere in the middle is the population of the Ukraine and Crimea, who want both sides to leave them alone and let them decide their own future.

    Let me be very clear, I'm not backing Russia nor do I think Russia is necessarily correct. At the same time, I'm not backing the methods the US has been using for imperialism either.

    Didn't we see the most growth in Democracy during times of peace where the US was the example for other countries to follow? We were founded with expressly that concept in mind, we are not supposed to invade or go to war. We are supposed to defend ourselves and be an example for other countries to follow.

    We are failing in that regard today, and the increases in turmoil all over the world is in great part due to US meddling and instigating conflicts. Imperialism has changed, where instead of the US taking over a whole territory US and US Friendly businesses take over instead. No need for troops when you control the economy, but making millions off people poor causes lots of resentment.

  • by Hategrin (3579025) on Monday March 17, 2014 @01:14PM (#46507731)
    You're missing the point. If you decide to let a madman wipe off half the planet, he will, and nomatter how much you hate your country or try to satisfy him he's going to do it, unless you say "if you hit me I'll hit you back", then no nukes get fired, because you *ghasp* stood up for yorself and the only thing bullies understand is strength. I never thought I'd see libs stoop so low to actually sacrifice their lives and the lives of their family for the glory of Mother Russia. SMH
  • Extinction. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DiscountBorg(TM) (1262102) on Monday March 17, 2014 @01:20PM (#46507825)

    China won't be able to pick up the pieces because a large-scale nuclear war means a decade of nuclear winter, the end of the ozone layer, and the possible annihilation of our entire species.

    With our last breath, we 'won!' because it was better to go extinct than to look 'weak.'

    I'll vote for cooler heads.

  • by Quila (201335) on Monday March 17, 2014 @01:33PM (#46508015)

    It takes bigger balls to find actual solutions.

    Very true. This is why Obama just wanted to bomb Syria instead of looking for a more peaceful resolution like Putin did.

  • Crimea Crisis (Score:2, Insightful)

    by prefec2 (875483) on Monday March 17, 2014 @01:37PM (#46508087)

    We all know that Putin's goal is an Eurasian-Union on the territory of the former USSR. The two main trigger of this goal are the continuous expansion of NATO in Europe and the declining power of Russia, which he thinks must be compensated. The NATO did a lot of frightening moves in recent years, like installing an anti-missile shield in eastern Europe, the entry of the former Baltic state into the NATO, destabilization of Russian partners in Europe. And finally Baroso topped it by forcing the Ukraine to decide either be with Russia or with the EU. All these moves are aggressive towards Russia. And since the West fucked up in Kosovo with "let the people decide where we want to belong to" Putin had the easy opportunity to do the same on Crimea. Now the situation is highly volatile. And some people in the USA and the EU think. Maybe war is also an option. The Russian are therefore sending a reminder message: We have really many nuclear warheads and can remove you from the face of the earth. To solve this crisis we should stop kicking Russia. Yes, the Ukrainian people should be protected, but remember the present government in the Ukraine includes fascists (e.g., Oleh Tyahnybok, Svoboda Party) and oligarchs (Yulia Tymoshenko) which have no interest in a pluralistic democratic Ukraine, just like Yanukovych.

    This is not what the Maidan demonstrators wanted.

    A solution can only be found with Russia. And a useful solution would include a neutral position of the Ukraine where Russia and the EU are both partners of the country. Then the TV comments will also become more civilized.

  • by MightyMartian (840721) on Monday March 17, 2014 @01:50PM (#46508227) Journal

    Stalin managed lots of things; like selling Germany steel up until the morning of the German invasion. Churchill famously reminded Stalin of this fact when Stalin went into one of his infamous telegraph tirades demanding more of the Arctic convoys shipping materials from the US and Canada to Britain be redirected to Russia.

    Russia did not survive WWII all on its own. It too was a beneficiary of Western aid; both directly via Lend Lease, as well as aid in gaining control of the Trans-Iranian Railroad, and ultimately opening the Second Front with the Normandy Invasion, which finally forced Germany into the nightmare two-front war.

    Russia has never been as invincible as it liked to portray itself. Even when it ultimately drove out invaders, the costs were massive.

  • by prezkennedy.org (786501) on Monday March 17, 2014 @02:15PM (#46508523) Homepage Journal
    So you're saying the United States isn't a power house in agriculture? http://www.mapsofworld.com/wor... [mapsofworld.com]

    Why, I don't even see Russia on that list.

  • by MightyMartian (840721) on Monday March 17, 2014 @02:19PM (#46508565) Journal

    Double standards are what they are. Whether you, Russia or the King of Jupiter like it or not, it is not in anyone but Russia's best interests to have it absorbing up chunks of Eastern Europe based on the same flimsy arguments that Germany put forward over the Sudetenland seventy five years ago.

    Moral standing arguments are nothing more than thinly veiled arguments to sit on our hands and do nothing. Well fuck you and fuck the double standard. Russia should be put under crippling sanctions, its foreign assets should be seized, its foreign nationals put on the next planes back to Russia. At some point the oligarchs that Putin relies on for his powerbase will blink and then we can back to reasonable talk, without Russian forces sitting in a state that Russia itself guaranteed the territorial integrity of twenty years ago.

  • by reve_etrange (2377702) on Monday March 17, 2014 @03:23PM (#46509275)

    Printing money == instant inflation.

    All the US money (bonds and dollars) we have were "printed." Every year that the Federal gov't runs a deficit, it prints that amount of new money. And yet, no inflation crises materializes.

    At a huge cost for Americans.

    Which Americans? Inflation may cost our wealthy creditors, but it will help the much, much larger part of us who have mortgages, student loans, car loans, credit card debt, business loans, etc. - especially considering that our economic growth is currently hampered by a persistent debt overhang caused by a deflationary credit crises.

    Also, higher inflation will server to reduce the trade deficit by disincentivizing imports in favor of domestic alternatives, and by making our exports cheaper in foreign markets. Both of these effects will increase domestic production and employment.

  • by quantaman (517394) on Monday March 17, 2014 @04:15PM (#46509933)

    To be fair support for separation was higher (roughly 50%) but support for joining Russia was only 41% before Putin's thugs turned up armed and en-masse to rig the vote.

    You're right though, the referendum was a joke, I don't even know why dictators like Putin do this, you'd think if you're going to rig a vote you at least make it semi-believable at like 60% or something, but really, 97%, are they actually trying to take the piss or what? 82% turnout and 97% vote for joining Russia does indeed imply that Ukrainians and Tatars that are almost universally opposed to joining Russia voted for exactly that. This alone shows what an absolute complete and utter farce it was.

    As if the hijacking of all Crimean comms in and out, radio, TV, and surrounding of military bases and refusal to allow international observers in whilst beating up journalists wasn't obvious evidence enough that a fraudulent vote was about to follow. I'm not sure who exactly they're trying to convince short of the few useful idiots that are dotted about here and there, but what do they matter? It's almost like they're just trying to convince themselves they're doing the right thing, as it sure as hell ain't convincing anyone else that matters.

    I don't think the 97% number is supposed to be believable, it's supposed to be intimidating. 60% implies there was strong opposition and dissenters aren't alone, or worse, that even rigging it 60% was the best they could do. No one was going to believe the result regardless so they might as well get a big number.

    97% says "sure we rigged it, but you don't know how much, do you really want to share your non-conformist political opinions with strangers on the hope that your odds are better than 1 in 20 of finding someone with a like mind?"

[Crash programs] fail because they are based on the theory that, with nine women pregnant, you can get a baby a month. -- Wernher von Braun

Working...