Толстый и тонкий

[apostata]

Vjerujem.

To da uvijek emocionalno reaguješ kada je upitanju sloboda medija, to si već bezbroj puta dokazao.

 

[Eraserhead]

Vjerujem.

To da uvijek emocionalno reaguješ kada je upitanju sloboda medija, to si već bezbroj puta dokazao.

Cus medija.

[adam]

jebat ga. ne vidim da se razlikuju od sky-a, foksa ili nekih slicnih mandrila. 

 

potpuno besmislen potez, ne znam zaista cemu vodi. nije prvi put da se britanci upucaju u nogu kad su u pitanju odnosi s rusijom. budale. 

[Eraserhead]

jebat ga. ne vidim da se razlikuju od sky-a, foksa ili nekih slicnih mandrila.

 

potpuno besmislen potez, ne znam zaista cemu vodi. nije prvi put da se britanci upucaju u nogu kad su u pitanju odnosi s rusijom. budale.

Taman koliko se sky i fox nisu razlikovalo od recimo RTSa. Ili koliko se Informer ne razlikuje od Danasa. U tom slucaju je sve to isto.

[Meazza]

+1

 

Treba i koji Tomahavk da im bace.

[MancMellow]

jebat ga. ne vidim da se razlikuju od sky-a, foksa ili nekih slicnih mandrila. 

 

potpuno besmislen potez, ne znam zaista cemu vodi. nije prvi put da se britanci upucaju u nogu kad su u pitanju odnosi s rusijom. budale. 

 

doduse, paralelno se HMTQ sastaje sa ruskim patrijarhom.

 

slucajno se pogodilo da je istovremeno i Irinej gost u kanterberiju.

[adam]

doduse, paralelno se HMTQ sastaje sa ruskim patrijarhom.

 

slucajno se pogodilo da je istovremeno i Irinej gost u kanterberiju.

pa mora kraljica da primi patrijarha, mnogi je ruski oligarh ovde parkirao kintu, ne moze bas toliko da vrda.

 

razlog posete (pa tako i skupa u kanterberiju) je obelezavanje 300 godina postojanja ruske crkve u britaniji. a nisam imao pojma da je i irinej tu. 

 

@eras - fox i sky news su na polju vesti na nivou ovdasnje zute stampe, nista vise i nista manje. sta se pise u sun-u, to ces cuti na sky news-u. fox je jos gori. rt je otprilike taj kalibar, samo iz drugog ugla. a sad, da li je i koliko rupertovo govno mirisljavije od putinovog, time se ne bih bavio. govna su govna. 

 

p.s. sad kad spomenuh ruperta setih se da je dennis potter svoj tumor nazvao rupert po njemu, car!

[Prospero]

Ludilo se nastavlja.

 

@SimonOstrovsky: Security shakeup ahead in Russia. FSB to be upgraded to ministry (MGB) effectively giving it powers of the old KGB

 

 

[...]

 

Meanwhile,The Daily Telegraph sought to scare readers by noting that the title MGB was the same as that used by the Soviet security services under Stalin (at least part of the time). According to theTelegraph, ‘Kremlin critics were horrified by the possible rebirth of an organisation synonymous in Russia with political oppression. “It’s time to get out [of the country],” wrote Elshad Babaev, a Twitter user. “Anyone who can should take the opportunity”.’

 

Since then, the much touted new super-agency has mysteriously failed to materialize. On Monday, Komsomolskaia Pravda published an interview with Putin’s former chief of staff Sergey Ivanov, in which Ivanov was asked whether it was true that he was going to head this agency. Ivanov replied:

 

This is one hundred percent fake! No Ministry of State Security has been considered or will be considered. I can confidently say that. It’s a classic example of somebody thinking up a fake, throwing it out, and then people commenting on it for a long time. It’s the production of news in the absence of real news.

[Eraserhead]

Odlican Economist.

 

FOUR years ago Mitt Romney, then a Republican candidate, said that Russia was America’s “number-one geopolitical foe”. Barack Obama, among others, mocked this hilarious gaffe: “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the cold war’s been over for 20 years,” scoffed the president. How times change. With Russia hacking the American election, presiding over mass slaughter in Syria, annexing Crimea and talking casually about using nuclear weapons, Mr Romney’s view has become conventional wisdom. Almost the only American to dissent from it is today’s Republican nominee, Donald Trump.

 

Every week Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, finds new ways to scare the world. Recently he moved nuclear-capable missiles close to Poland and Lithuania. This week he sent an aircraft-carrier group down the North Sea and the English Channel. He has threatened to shoot down any American plane that attacks the forces of Syria’s despot, Bashar al-Assad. Russia’s UN envoy has said that relations with America are at their tensest in 40 years. Russian television news is full of ballistic missiles and bomb shelters. “Impudent behaviour” might have “nuclear consequences”, warns Dmitry Kiselev, Mr Putin’s propagandist-in-chief—who goes on to cite Mr Putin’s words that “If a fight is inevitable, you have to strike first.”

 

In fact, Russia is not about to go to war with America. Much of its language is no more than bluster. But it does pose a threat to stability and order. And the first step to answering that threat is to understand that Russian belligerence is not a sign of resurgence, but of a chronic, debilitating weakness.

 

Vlad the invader

As our special report this week sets out, Russia confronts grave problems in its economy, politics and society. Its population is ageing and is expected to shrink by 10% by 2050. An attempt to use the windfall from the commodity boom to modernise the state and its economy fell flat. Instead Mr Putin has presided over a huge increase in government: between 2005 and 2015, the share of Russian GDP that comes from public spending and state-controlled firms rose from 35% to 70%. Having grown by 7% a year at the start of Mr Putin’s reign, the economy is now shrinking. Sanctions are partly to blame, but corruption and a fall in the price of oil matter more. The Kremlin decides who gets rich and stays that way. Vladimir Yevtushenkov, a Russian tycoon, was detained for three months in 2014. When he emerged, he had surrendered his oil company.

 

Mr Putin has sought to offset vulnerability at home with aggression abroad. With their mass protests after election-rigging in 2011-12, Russia’s sophisticated urban middle classes showed that they yearn for a modern state. When the oil price was high, Mr Putin could resist them by buying support. Now he shores up his power by waging foreign wars and using his propaganda tools to whip up nationalism. He is wary of giving any ground to Western ideas because Russia’s political system, though adept at repression, is brittle. Institutions that would underpin a prosperous Russia, such as the rule of law, free media, democracy and open competition, pose an existential threat to Mr Putin’s rotten state.

 

For much of his time in office Mr Obama has assumed that, because Russia is a declining power, he need not pay it much heed. Yet a weak, insecure, unpredictable country with nuclear weapons is dangerous—more so, in some ways, even than the Soviet Union was. Unlike Soviet leaders after Stalin, Mr Putin rules alone, unchecked by a Politburo or by having witnessed the second world war’s devastation. He could remain in charge for years to come. Age is unlikely to mellow him. 

 

Mr Obama increasingly says the right things about Putinism—he sounded reasonably tough during a press conference this week—but Mr Putin has learned that he can defy America and come out on top. Mild Western sanctions make ordinary Russians worse off, but they also give the people an enemy to unite against, and Mr Putin something to blame for the economic damage caused by his own policies.

 

Ivan the bearable

What should the West do? Time is on its side. A declining power needs containing until it is eventually overrun by its own contradictions—even as the urge to lash out remains.

 

Because the danger is of miscalculation and unchecked escalation, America must continue to engage in direct talks with Mr Putin even, as today, when the experience is dispiriting. Success is not measured by breakthroughs and ceasefires—welcome as those would be in a country as benighted as Syria—but by lowering the chances of a Russian blunder.

 

Nuclear miscalculation would be the worst kind of all. Hence the talks need to include nuclear-arms control as well as improved military-to-military relations, in the hope that nuclear weapons can be kept separate from other issues, as they were in Soviet times. That will be hard because, as Russia declines, it will see its nuclear arsenal as an enduring advantage.

 

Another area of dispute will be Russia’s near abroad. Ukraine shows how Mr Putin seeks to destabilise countries as a way to stop them drifting out of Russia’s orbit (see article). America’s next president must declare that, contrary to what Mr Trump has said, if Russia uses such tactics against a NATO member, such as Latvia or Estonia, the alliance will treat it as an attack on them all. Separately the West needs to make it clear that, if Russia engages in large-scale aggression against non-NATO allies, such as Georgia and Ukraine, it reserves the right to arm them.

 

Above all the West needs to keep its head. Russian interference in America’s presidential election merits measured retaliation. But the West can withstand such “active measures”. Russia does not pretend to offer the world an attractive ideology or vision. Instead its propaganda aims to discredit and erode universal liberal values by nurturing the idea that the West is just as corrupt as Russia, and that its political system is just as rigged. It wants to create a divided West that has lost faith in its ability to shape the world. In response, the West should be united and firm.

 

 

[MancMellow]

taj tekst kao da je preprič ovog

 

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8845913/russia-war#nato

 

koji je vrlo "insightful", iako se i na njega ima šta dodati. ali daje bolji uvid zato što dobrim delom daje i percepciju druge strane

[namenski]

....osim nesto para koje danas ima, sutra nema, niti moze da ponudi tehnologiju, niti bilo sta drugo, pa ni ideologiju.

 

[MancMellow]

....osim nesto para koje danas ima, sutra nema, niti moze da ponudi tehnologiju, niti bilo sta drugo, pa ni ideologiju.

 

nisu oni baš toliki slepci kad je u pitanju čisto sposobnost za razvoj savremenih vojnih tehnologija, a ipak imaju i neke prirodne resurse. opasna je situacija u kojoj se oni uparuju sa nekim ko ima ljudske i materijalne resurse. 

Edited October 22, 2016 by MancMellow

[eumeswil]

Svakom gung-hou na obe strane prikazivati Threads svaki bogovetni dan dok im ne pozli.

 

 

Edited October 22, 2016 by miki.bg

[namenski]

nisu oni baš toliki slepci kad je u pitanju čisto sposobnost za razvoj savremenih vojnih tehnologija, a ipak imaju i neke prirodne resurse. opasna je situacija u kojoj se oni uparuju sa nekim ko ima ljudske i materijalne resurse. 

Ovo je vec tema za poseban topik, steta sto bi se momentalno pretvorio u znasevecsta  :D

Ukratko: moderna vojna tehnologija, kao i tehnologija uopste, davno ne zivi u Rusiji: ovo sto se sad vidi i na sta se lozi su restlovi sovjetske tehnologije obogaceni po nekom dostupnom zapadnom tehnoloskom novotarijom.

Tehnologija nije samo pojedinacno domet - ovo za one koji potegnu suhojizaciju^tm na primer: ona je i sposobnost da se proizvede serija od recimo 500 borbenih aviona, koji su prethodno razvijani najmanje deceniju i to u neprekidnom nizu, kao deo koncepcije kakva god da je, da se uvede u naoruzanje i da se odrzava i modernizuje narednih 30-ak godina.

Pricam samo o klasicnom modelu: nove necu ni da pominjem, bas kao ni kontinuirani i doktrinom vodjeni razvoj i istrazivanja.

Airbus ce sad negde da slavi 10,000-ti isporuceni putnicki avion, inace tehnoloski vrh u vazduhoplovstvu: za to je ujedinjenoj Evropi trebalo 40 i nesto godina.

Toliko je trebalo, podudarnost je slucajna, ali i ilustrativna, i Boingu da svoje sedmice proizvede u istoj kolicini.

Rusija se muci sa svojim slicnim proizvodom evo vec onoliko, a pri tom se ostavila razvoja motora i okrenula zapadnim licencama, itd, itd, sa sve izgubljenom prednoscu ne samo u - opet na primer - konstrukciji tenkova, nego i u doktrini njihove primene, da ne pominjem pucanje u metalurgiji, jednoj od retkih oblasti u kojoj je pokojni CCCP do kraja zadrzao prednost.

 

Ali i pre svega: opasno bi bilo potcenjivati Rusiju.

Pritisnuta uza zid, ona moze mnogo toga: cena tog napora bi bila ogromna, ali ne bi bilo prvi put da se to potcenjivanje nekom obije o glavu.

 

A kombinacija o kojoj govoris: resursi, ljudski i materijalni, tehnologija - ima smisla samo uparena sa ideologijom.

Bez toga se svede samo na jalovo pokazivanje misica - kao u Siriji, na primer.

[Dagmar]

nisu oni baš toliki slepci kad je u pitanju čisto sposobnost za razvoj savremenih vojnih tehnologija, a ipak imaju i neke prirodne resurse. opasna je situacija u kojoj se oni uparuju sa nekim ko ima ljudske i materijalne resurse. 

 

Ko bi želeo da se upari sa njima?