Hey,

This is a blog post I just made about my opinion on Putin and the current Russian situation. Its not a good post, but sums up my opinion neatly I think.

I have been following the Russian story closely for a number of years. One of my best friends at school was a Russian who's father was a professor in Physics. They had defected to Ethiopia in the 80`s when Russia was still the Soviet Union (USSR), and by the 90`s his father ended up as a professor here in South Africa and he attended my school.

I spent many weekends at his house and in the process learnt to read the Russian alphabet and a smattering of the language, but I did spend a lot of time reading up on their history and politics.

I was once told that the Russians were the most over educated under employed people in the world, and in a way I could understand this. Most of the Russians I have met are extremely intelligent people, and their conversation and insights are very informative. However it seems they have a major flaw in their cultural way of thinking. Russians seem to have this S&M fetish for tyranny.

We all hoped that comparing penis *cough* sorry I mean missile size would have ended at the end of the Cold War. I hoped with the fall of the Soviet Union and the introduction of democracy that the Russians as a people would become a great nation again. This time without the need to kill millions of people.

It seems I was wrong. It looks like the Russians are well on their way to repeating the tragedy of their history again. Uncontrolled capitalistic greed and corruption with the fall of communism has lead to a state whereby corporate and criminal cartels were able to take over the country.

Before I continue with the order of events I would quickly like to share some information about on of the main architects and leader of the cartel. President Vladimir Putin. Putin's father was conscripted into the Russian Navy to fight in World War 2 and was a member of the NKVD, and one of Putin's brothers died in the siege of Leningrad. Vladimir Putin's paternal grandfather was also the personal cook to both Stalin and Lenin.

Putin managed to get a qualification called a Candidate of Science (Apparently similar to a Ph.D) from the International Branch of the Law Department of the Leningrad State University with a dissertation (similar to a Ph.D thesis) called "The Strategic Planning of Regional Resources Under the Formation of Market Relations". It was later found out that 16 of the 20 pages that open a key section of Putin's work were copied either word for word or with minute alterations from a management study, Strategic Planning and Policy, written by US professors William King and David Cleland. Deception started early for Putin.

Putin was quickly recruited into the KGB in 1976 where he was able to achieve the rank of Major before the KGB was disbanded in 1991. It was in the KGB where Putin was able to make some very important political contacts and get together with future collaborators such as Sergei Ivanov. Putin resigned from the KGB when it failed to seize control of Russia from Gorbachev in the 1991 Putsch (coup).

Its rather lengthly but continues on here: http://www.pickledbushman.com/index.php/2007/06/04/another_russian_president_suffering_from

Whats your opinion on Russia and Putin?

Hey, This is a blog post I just made about my opinion on Putin and the current Russian situation. Its not a good post, but sums up my opinion neatly I think.

Hey, maybe we should invade Russia and force them to do things our way!!

We don't need other nations doing things that we don't like, dammit, I say we invade any and all nations that don't do exactly as we want them to do.

Baron Max

wtf?

Im complaining about what I perceive as injustice... this is not allowed?, and I am a South African. I dont see us invading Zimbabwe let alone Russia. I dont catch your post. Sorry.

I just cant seem to link the word "complain" very easily with the word "invade" as it may be in a context your way of thinking is more familiar with.

Hey,

This is a blog post I just made about my opinion on Putin and the current Russian situation. Its not a good post, but sums up my opinion neatly I think.



Its rather lengthly but continues on here: http://www.pickledbushman.com/index.php/2007/06/04/another_russian_president_suffering_from

Whats your opinion on Russia and Putin?

Putin saved the country from destruction. If he hadn’t been around after Yeltsins drunken farcical behaviour, Russia would be split into eight separate states.

All this rhetoric is a product of misunderstanding the geo-political struggle in the region, and a general moronic outlook on current events.

wtf?

Im complaining about what I perceive as injustice... this is not allowed?, and I am a South African. I dont see us invading Zimbabwe let alone Russia. I dont catch your post. Sorry.

I just cant seem to link the word "complain" very easily with the word "invade" as it may be in a context your way of thinking is more familiar with.

You may not be invading Zimbabwe, but you did slaughter a number of Zulus, when creating your democratic state.

Good-on-you however. Your interest in my homeland is reassuring, but keep in mind that you have no ties to Russia, and your grandchildren won't suffer if the wrong choice is made...this in my opinion hinders your ability to make the right decision. I made my point above already, I won't repeat myself.

You may not be invading Zimbabwe, but you did slaughter a number of Zulus, when creating your democratic state.

Good-on-you however. Your interest in my homeland is reassuring, but keep in mind that you have no ties to Russia, and your grandchildren won't suffer if the wrong choice is made...this in my opinion hinders your ability to make the right decision. I made my point above already, I won't repeat myself.

I think you have no clue what you are talking about. There was nothing democratic about apartheid and we do not pretend there is. Please learn a bit more about our history and current status before making silly statements like this. It makes you look very ignorant. We have only being a democracy since 1994.

Yes I do have ties with Russia, as explained my best friend is Russian and personally I absolutely love the Russian people. I also love the food and its history. I hope to be able to go there on holiday again soon as well.

And yes, my grandchildren may very well suffer if the wrong choice is made. Firstly we all share the same world... even if you want to make little imaginary lines to fight about called "borders". Russia is a massive player in the world arena so what Russia does is likely to have world wide effects.

Ive even had an Ak-47 held to my head (when I was hijacked). Not that it counts really.

Russia`s history in the last 30 years always effects what happens in Africa. Take for instance when communism fell. Africa got a real lot more firearms from previous republics that built up massive amounts of real instability. During communism Russia trained many of the ANC/APLA militant units, and both Russia and Cuba fought against the South African Apartheid regime in Angola.

Pictures of South African Air Force shooting down some MIGS down over Angola
http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/saaf_kills_rankin_02.jpg

http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/saaf_kills_rankin_01.jpg

http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/saaf_mirage_hud.jpg

Kasparov for president! (http://news.monstersandcritics.com/europe/news/article_1314053.php/Kasparov_asks_world_leaders_to_do_more_to_isolate_ Putin) (as long as he doesnt get a dose of radiation poisoning)

I was being sarcastic about democracy honey.
And I know about angola, I was reffering to russian internal affairs.
If you think enjoying Russian food and having a russian friend makes you a suitable judge of our internal politics, not even god can help you.


Fuck kasparov, he's a sellout and a fool, if he gets in control it will lead to the end of Russian sovreignty.

Kasparov is worth nothing, the guy is a disgrace to my country.

ok... um... back to the real world folks... how can he "sell out russian sovreignty" no offense.. but no one wants to invade you seriously (except mayb the chinese).

Why are you not pursing a course of free democracy? was my playful jest on the love of S&M right?

Kasparov's farcical protests echo the orange revolution in ukraine, I don't want the same to happen in russia.

We have democracy, but the countries future is at stake, deffensive measures are needed. Russia and china signed a 200 year peace pact, which runs out in 2200 I think. We'll see if they stick to it, but chinese people are very devout beleivers in bad karma.

Could you out of intrest give me some examples of why russia is'nt persuing a free democracy? and what exactly is a "free democracy"? I want to know what you think...and maybe explain most of it.

how about reporters being killed? how about Putin jailing opposition leaders and exiling and/or attempting to assasinate others? if Kasparov is such an idiot, let him make an idiot of himself in public. but no - he has to be arrested and be made to look like a nut...

Russians are genuinely afraid of America's moves (im sorry, i should say "worried", not to offend your manhood). just like they were afraid of NATO and so they branded it an "aggressive" organization back in the day. as if anyone was going to attack the mighty USSR in conventional warfare... part of this fear was created from propaganda... to get the citizenry angry at the "aggressive capitalist army that wants to destroy our revolution" so if shit comes down, people would support any conflict against NATO. so part Russia's fears of the US are because of previous propaganda that people still believe, and part of it is genuine paranoia.

Russia thinks that setting systems in surrounding countries to catch incoming rockets is an attack on Russia. that is because they think the US wants to invade and attack Russia, and these systems will render Russia's fighting-back capabilities useless. hence the paranoia... because Russia thinks that US's ultimate goal is to physically and militarily dominate it.

it's all bullshit of course, but that's just the Russian mindset.

another reason i'm thinking that Russia is such a bitch, is that in the upcoming global confrontation with Iran over its nuclear weapons, Russia has picked the side it will be on, and is now trying its hardest to give Iran cover and enable it to shoot at European countries randomly and with impunity.

prove me wrong

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8PK1O782&show_article=1

big surprise. Putin is not as paranoid as i thought.
tho if Russia knew how the systems work then this knowledge would flow through to Iran which in turn would design a rocket to circumvent the shield.

Russia is not a free democracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World

As I said the Russians can do so much better... but things will always stay the same unless there is change.

Russia thinks that setting systems in surrounding countries to catch incoming rockets is an attack on Russia. that is because they think the US wants to invade and attack Russia, and these systems will render Russia's fighting-back capabilities useless. hence the paranoia... because Russia thinks that US's ultimate goal is to physically and militarily dominate it.
it's all bullshit of course, but that's just the Russian mindset.


It's the military mindset - threats are assessed on capability rather than intent.

tho if Russia knew how the systems work then this knowledge would flow through to Iran which in turn would design a rocket to circumvent the
shield.
You think they don't know how ABM systems work? Google for S-300MPU or S-400.

It's the military mindset - threats are assessed on capability rather than intent.
you said it right - the military mindset. who is in charge of Russia? the military, or a civilian democratic government? if it was the latter, then the threats would be assessed on intent. if the intent was hostile, then the order would go to the army to assess capabilities and adjust.
but that's not how things work in Russia nowadays

You think they don't know how ABM systems work? Google for S-300MPU or S-400.
im sure the new systems have some special secret features. why else would Putin request to know how they work?

you said it right - the military mindset. who is in charge of Russia? the military, or a civilian democratic government? if it was the latter, then the threats would be assessed on intent. if the intent was hostile, then the order would go to the army to assess capabilities and adjust.
but that's not how things work in Russia nowadays
Doesn't matter who is actually in charge: civilian-led governments have to listen to military specialists on military topics. If the military come along to the leader of a country and point out a potential threat what should he do? Ignore it? Or start talking big in the oh-so-famous Russian manner to see if he can get concessions?

im sure the new systems have some special secret features. why else would Putin request to know how they work?
To be absolutely certain there's nothing they can't already build themselves, obviously. If the US actually do give him any details then it's a bonus... especially politically.

how about reporters being killed?

Prove to me that a single reporter has been killed by the governemnt, it's all conspired bullshit.


how about Putin jailing opposition leaders and exiling and/or attempting to assasinate others?

He has'nt jailed opposition leaders, he has'nt exiled any either, and he has'nt assassinated any...there is no need to.

if Kasparov is such an idiot, let him make an idiot of himself in public.

He has, prancing around with some black yellow and white flag is just a mirror image of ukraine with their orange ones...Same PR manager for both probably, one who has a fetish with citrus fruit.

but no - he has to be arrested and be made to look like a nut...

He is a nut, chess players usually are.

Russians are genuinely afraid of America's moves (im sorry, i should say "worried", not to offend your manhood).

No I generally am afraid, I don't underestimate America's power or insentive.

just like they were afraid of NATO and so they branded it an "aggressive" organization back in the day.

NATO was made for the SOUL purpose of controlling soviet actions. Yet it has'nt disbanded after the USSR collapsed.

as if anyone was going to attack the mighty USSR in conventional warfare...

It was'nt made to attack it was made to stop the USSR from causing government restructuring in europe, as the US is doing now. It was also made to unite european countries, in the case that the USSR invaded one, all the others would retaliate. It was a defensive and strategical pact.

part of this fear was created from propaganda... to get the citizenry angry at the "aggressive capitalist army that wants to destroy our revolution"

You would have to be a moron to think that communism and capitolism can exist in the same world. One had to go, the US tried to collapse the USSR's dream of a global society, while the USSR tried to collapse capitolist Ideas.


Russia thinks that US's ultimate goal is to physically and militarily dominate it.


Yep, and it's true, the US has set out to shit all over the rest of the world, and suck it dry.

it's all bullshit of course, but that's just the Russian mindset.

Please don't insult eh? Russia is protecting it's intrests as the US is protecting it's own.

another reason i'm thinking that Russia is such a bitch, is that in the upcoming global confrontation with Iran over its nuclear weapons, Russia has picked the side it will be on, and is now trying its hardest to give Iran cover and enable it to shoot at European countries randomly and with impunity.


WOW! now that is amazing, considering the US does this all the bloody time with Isreal. Russia found it's powerbase in the middleeast and is trying to keep it going.
prove me wrong

Too easy.

Russia is not a free democracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World

As I said the Russians can do so much better... but things will always stay the same unless there is change.

Quote me an american encyclopedia edited by the public on the topic of freedom in the world??? What is your delusion?

I told you to explain to me what exactly a "free democracy" is IN YOUR OWN WORDS, to me it's an oxymoron.

Yeah dude. The rest of the world is wrong. You russians are right. yada yada yada. You know what? Stuff that. You deserve whats coming. Enjoy boet.

The rest of the world is also right, but people who denounce the existance of a power struggle are wrong and negligent.

The only reason I support russia is because it's my motherland, and my grandchildrens inheritance, millions have died for it and so will I.

I don't blame anyone else for doing the same for their own home, but I want balance, and to acheive balance we need a bipolar or monopolar world, to have either we need a stop to US expansion.

So you allow someone like putin to achieve these ends? Pathetic. Penis size comparison is so caveman.

I like putin because he is a true patriot, he is smart and he has protected the wellfare of his country. A great improvement from Yeltsin the drunked fool, and a much better choice than the alternatives in the election.

I also liked Hakomada, but electing a foreign rooted president was alot like stalin No 2 waiting to happen.

I don't see why a country has to exist for the soul purpose of pleasing everyone else, if it did, it would cease to exist.

I like putin because he is a true patriot, he is smart and he has protected the wellfare of his country. A great improvement from Yeltsin the drunked fool, and a much better choice than the alternatives in the election.

I also liked Hakomada, but electing a foreign rooted president was alot like stalin No 2 waiting to happen.

I don't see why a country has to exist for the soul purpose of pleasing everyone else, if it did, it would cease to exist.

yeah too bad Hakomada isn't running 4 president...her political party was less than 5%.

We'll see who else comes up.

We'll see who else comes up.

Ivanov :rolleyes: ....and the Mr. wise economy guy

Yeh Ivanov seems promising,

aslong as it's not Mikhail Kasyanov, Viktor Gerashchenko or Vladimir Bukovsky.

I know Bukovsky, the guy is very plesant, but has had a rather traumatic life, and has gonna a bit off his nut in the process. let's say in our first encounter I was'nt impressed.

Bush seems promising too.:)

Old habits, new hypocrisy

May 24th 2007 | MOSCOW
From The Economist print edition
A case study of Moscow's method of dealing with the opposition

THE Soviet Union dealt with its opponents in a harsh, decisive and clear way. Dissidents were prosecuted and imprisoned. Famous artists who spoke against the system were stripped of their citizenship and deported. Public protests were not allowed.

Today few Russians go to prison for their political or religious convictions; and Russia claims to be a democracy. But the thuggish ways in which the Kremlin deals with challengers is an insult to human intelligence and makes a mockery of the legal system, says Yuri Schmidt, a top lawyer. “The Soviet regime was more severe and cruel, but in some ways it was less hypocritical and false,” he declares.

Consider the response to protests at the Russia-European Union summit in Samara on May 18th. The Kremlin satisfied Germany's request to allow a rally by Other Russia, a motley coalition of its leading opponents, including Garry Kasparov and Eduard Limonov. But it then engaged in tricks redolent of the mischievous characters in Bulgakov's “The Master and Margarita”, not a respectable government. Activists were detained because they resembled criminals or were said to be carrying disguised drugs or grenades.

Before the summit, Denis Bilunov, Mr Kasparov's assistant, arrived in Samara by train. Police met him, opened his bags and, finding 95,000 roubles ($3,700), declared the notes counterfeit. After hours watching policemen copying out all the details, Mr Bilunov emerged with neither money nor time to prepare for Mr Kasparov's arrival. It did not matter, for when Mr Kasparov and Mr Limonov arrived at Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport to fly to Samara, they were told their tickets were dodgy and barred from boarding. The police took their passports, returning them only when the last flight had left. Meanwhile members of Nashi, a pro-Putin youth movement, dressed up as psychiatrists and distributed leaflets ridiculing Mr Kasparov's and Mr Limonov's “diagnosis”.

“The Kremlin was not in Sheremetyevo,” said Mr Putin's spokesman. “I don't think the issue of the non-arrival of a Russian citizen, even a famous one...will be on the summit agenda.” He was wrong. Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, said publicly that “if demonstrators throw stones, if they smash windows, then of course they should be curbed. But if someone has done nothing, if they just want to go to a demonstration, then it's different.” Inevitably, on state television Russians heard only the first sentence.

This is the sort of manipulation that Manana Aslamazyan, president of Educated Media Foundation (EMF), a non-governmental organisation that trains regional television journalists, fights. Recently EMF offices have been raided, computer servers and files seized, and Ms Aslamazyan and a colleague threatened with criminal charges. Her supposed “crime” was not to declare €9,500 ($12,300) brought into the country in January. (Only $10,000 can be brought in without a customs declaration.)

In the eyes of the Kremlin, any NGO receiving foreign cash is an agent of foreign intelligence. One EMF-trained television channel in Siberia has written an angry open letter to Mr Putin, signed by more than 2,000 journalists. But the Kremlin is unlikely to be impressed.

Dangerous times

Mar 8th 2007
From The Economist print edition
Bad things often happen to critics of the Russian authorities

BUYING a bag of oranges is an odd thing to do before jumping out of the fifth-floor window of an apartment block. But Ivan Safronov, defence correspondent for Kommersant, a leading newspaper, was not the suicide type, say his colleagues. A burly colonel turned journalist, he was an irritant to the Russian army, because he often exposed their mishaps and secret arms deals. Before he died, Mr Safronov was investigating the sale of Russian arms and military jets via Belarus to Syria and Iran. The Federal Security Service (FSB) apparently warned him not to publish the story.

Russia is the second-deadliest country for journalists after Iraq, according to a new study from the International News Safety Institute, a lobby group. It is different from Iraq and Colombia, a third death-trap for journalists. But what the three have in common is corruption, lawlessness and a culture of impunity for killers, says the report. Few of the 88 journalists' deaths in the past decade in Russia have even been investigated.

Mr Safronov may not have been murdered. The circumstances are hazy: he was off duty and came home early. Two students who heard him fall called an ambulance but were told to call back later—by which time Mr Safronov was dead. Unlike Anna Politkovskaya, a Russian journalist who was killed in October, Mr Safronov was not well known inside or outside Russia. The police are investigating a “forcible suicide”.

There is even less certainty about what happened in America last week to Paul Joyal, a former staffer for the Senate intelligence committee and a friend of Alexander Litvinenko, an ex-KGB agent killed by radiation poisoning in London last year. Mr Joyal, who also spoke out against the Kremlin, was shot outside his home in Maryland by two alleged robbers who did not even bother to take his wallet and briefcase.

What is certain is that nasty things happen to people who irritate the Russian authorities by investigating corruption, human-rights abuses or shady financial deals. Russia may be freer than the Soviet Union, but it is also less predictable. Soviet-era dissidents were arrested and locked up or exiled. Today's dissidents tend simply to be beaten up, shot, poisoned or blown up.

Evgenia Albats, a journalist and author of a book on the KGB, says the atmosphere of intimidation is typical of the FSB, which has gained huge power under Vladimir Putin. The president may be unable to control his former colleagues, who often act off their own bat. Mr Putin may not be responsible for journalists' deaths, but he has created the atmosphere in which they occur.

What is certain is that nasty things happen to people who irritate the Russian authorities

Yeah, unlike the Americans, who turn the other cheek.

That's just what I've come to expect from you, Sam: Mindless illogic. Even if I accept your statement as the truth, and I don't, excusing immoral behavior with other immoral behavior is not reasonable, nor is it an excuse for either case of immorality...

I like putin because he is a true patriot, he is smart and he has protected the wellfare of his country. A great improvement from Yeltsin the drunked fool, and a much better choice than the alternatives in the election.

I also liked Hakomada, but electing a foreign rooted president was alot like stalin No 2 waiting to happen.

I don't see why a country has to exist for the soul purpose of pleasing everyone else, if it did, it would cease to exist.

A country exists to serve its citizens. Not the other way around. However it should tell you a thing or two when your profs defects and dont come back or when your females want to sell themselves off a russian mail order brides to africans and other countries just to get out of Russia.

In my country in africa, I can criticize my president without fear of assassination from radioactive substances.

A country exists to serve its citizens. Not the other way around. However it should tell you a thing or two when your profs defects and dont come back or when your females want to sell themselves off a russian mail order brides to africans and other countries just to get out of Russia.

In my country in africa, I can criticize my president without fear of assassination from radioactive substances.


It is serving it's citizens, but only a strong country can sustain it's population well, the country needs to recover, and thats what it's doing.

You can thank Yeltsin on the other points.

And Putin has'nt assassinated anyone, you've still to prove to me with an factual or logical reasoning.

This thread and its replies remind me of the time I managed to chat to a chinese person through the great firewall of china. After a while we got onto talking about governments and I asked her what she thought of how her government censors the internet and the media? She flat out refused to believe that the chinese government monitored or censored any of her media. Including the internet.

No matter how many news articles I showed her, she refused to believe me.

Go figure. Perhaps this is darwinistic natural selection at work?

Odin'Izm: You are an idiot to believe that he is not behind those deaths. You will hopefully learn in time.

Counte, that was a pritty interesting report, But It does not outline any sources for the circumstances, and fails to identify Putin as the man to blame.

As far as I'm concerned, it's just another persons opinion, a journalist in this case. Journalists in the US are oppressed via funding, Journalists in Russia are oppressed via the mob, and corrupt officials they make look bad. But saying it's directly Putin is ridiculouse and baseless.

This thread and its replies remind me of the time I managed to chat to a chinese person through the great firewall of china. After a while we got onto talking about governments and I asked her what she thought of how her government censors the internet and the media? She flat out refused to believe that the chinese government monitored or censored any of her media. Including the internet.

No matter how many news articles I showed her, she refused to believe me.

Go figure. Perhaps this is darwinistic natural selection at work?

Odin'Izm: You are an idiot to believe that he is not behind those deaths. You will hopefully learn in time.

If I learn in time I'll apologize, but so far you have failed to prove anything to me, and are resulting to insults to prove the point.

I don't live in Russia I live in the UK, and have been resident abroad since 1991. Hardly comparable to someone sitting in china. You on the otherhand, are a media puppet, they say jump and you follow. If we are to argue who is more open minded, I have access to both sides of the story, while you feed on BBC coverage.

So kindly stop antagonizing me, unless you have some proof or valid arguments.

Tell you what, get me a gram of polonium-210 and I will believe you.

If I could I would.

Only 100 grams of polonium are produced every year, alas :(

It's too easy to trace, russian secret service agents would never have used it, it would be a quick death, and one which would'nt allow the guy to bitch and expose them on television for a whole week.

probably just push him over in the shower, hit him with a car. Their far smarter than those who walk around parks kicking signal receivers. I trust only the best would be sent for a job that you say is of such high priority.

MI5 killed Litvinenko, to use him for the extradition of agents they wanted.

The paranoia he had was common for retired secret service men, they feel worthless, and need to occupy their time. So they create a world in which they still matter, even if they are a low security clearance clerk like litvinenko.

The guy had already bitched and moaned. The reason him and Anna were targeted was because of their information regarding Putin's tactics in Chechnya and some suggested attacks in Moscow.

Who would it serve to kill a former Russian spy leaking secret information out about the Kremlin with an incredibly rare substance? Think motive and means.

He was an excellent resource for the west so the motive there for it been them is slim.

I was speaking to my gf now in the car, she is a political science student at Wits. And I was telling her about your opinions when I drove her around earlier. She couldnt believe that the Russians were thinking like you are. Thats not an insult, I am simply reflecting the opinion we have down here (as uneducated as you may think it is... why arnt you in Russia now?)

The guy had already bitched and moaned. The reason him and Anna were targeted was because of their information regarding Putin's tactics in Chechnya and some suggested attacks in Moscow.

With no proof aswell, a couple of zeros whinning happens in every country, there was no reason to even pay attention, nevermind killing them. Anna also did alot of work on the mob, and shooting people infront of their home is something they do all the time.

Who would it serve to kill a former Russian spy leaking secret information out about the Kremlin with an incredibly rare substance? Think motive and means.
It gives them a good basis for blame, and if the investigation was blamed on a person it would give them the ability to get an agent they wanted to tap for whatever reason. I can't know for sure what the motive was but it's more realistic in my mind than a russian cock-up on a "high priority target" ;)

He was an excellent resource for the west so the motive there for it been them is slim.

He was a terrible resource, he knew very little about anything going on within the FSB, they had a choice of plenty more dissident agents who live in the UK, who had more clearance. The man had a psychological condition similar to post traumatic stress disorder, ask anyone from the clandestant areas of work, they all suffer from it after they quit. Life is'nt worth living unless you're on the run :p

I was speaking to my gf now in the car, she is a political science student at Wits. And I was telling her about your opinions when I drove her around earlier. She couldnt believe that the Russians were thinking like you are. Thats not an insult, I am simply reflecting the opinion we have down here (as uneducated as you may think it is... why arnt you in Russia now?)

I travel between the two countries, I work for a defence firm here in the UK, but most of my family lives in Moscow. Between 1991-1998 things in russia were so shit, that fearing for the welfare of my family we left abroad. Once you leave and get based, it's hard to go back. Russia is very capitolist now, as funny as it is, the UK is more easy going.

I don't think your opinion is uneducated, I just don't think you have the necessary information availiable to you. The only thing I thought was a bad decission was the support for kasparov, everything else is plausible, depending on reasoning.

This time if you get into a cold war. make sure you finish it, and actually have the balls to take each other on, instead of fking up the future of countless 3rd world countries with your bull.

Im with the dude who said lets aim for Mars rather. This planet doesnt learn from its lameness.

My country learnt, and I actually want to and DO live in it. Perhaps when your country learns you will live in it again :)

Exactly.

You do know that when a president allows a bill that gives gazprom monopoly in russia to export gas also reeks of corruption? Since when is a monopoly a good idea?

Now they want the energy companies to have their own military style forces. OWNED.

I recon Sergei Ivanov might be the next president if Putin does not change the constitution. Putin and Sergei are tight and go way back to the good ol days in the KGB.

You do know that when a president allows a bill that gives gazprom monopoly in russia to export gas also reeks of corruption? Since when is a monopoly a good idea?

Now they want the energy companies to have their own military style forces. OWNED.

Gazprom was a genius move, it boosted The russian economy, and gave revenue to the government instead of private owners such as abramov. Gazprom is one move im rather happy about.

I recon Sergei Ivanov might be the next president if Putin does not change the constitution. Putin and Sergei are tight and go way back to the good ol days in the KGB.

Medvedyev would be better for cooperation with europe. But Ivanov has counter intelligence experience, which is usefull. I just have a feeling that Ivanov will go overboard.

The Economist is a highly-respected British magazine, with a largely European staff, but as such, it does not cite its sources in the text the way a newspaper does. However, it vets all of its stories and its sources are available if you truly doubt them. I do not.

There is quite a bit of opinion in the second story, but the first one there is almost entirely based on first-hand accounts and facts: There are names, dates and quotes.

As for failing to name "Putin as the man to blame," the second story actually posits the possibility that he might not be to blame. But it also states he has allowed such a culture to exist and has done nothing to reign his subordinates in and keep them in line. In other words, he's complicit without being directly invovled.

Oh, and as a journalist in the US, I find the statement that we are oppressed "via funding" more than just a little ridiculous (it's also suspect because you're trying to excuse "oppression" in your country by citing other examples of it, a relativistic and illogical argument). If nothing else, the internet (with blogs, etc.) has given more people the ability to mouth off than ever before.

As for failing to name "Putin as the man to blame," the second story actually posits the possibility that he might not be to blame. But it also states he has allowed such a culture to exist and has done nothing to reign his subordinates in and keep them in line. In other words, he's complicit without being directly invovled.

You can't fix everything in such a short time. The problem will be dealt with soon enough.
Trying to find out who has a personal vendeta for a journalist who exposed them in some sort of corruption is difficult


Oh, and as a journalist in the US, I find the statement that we are oppressed "via funding" more than just a little ridiculous (it's also suspect because you're trying to excuse "oppression" in your country by citing other examples of it, a relativistic and illogical argument). If nothing else, the internet (with blogs, etc.) has given more people the ability to mouth off than ever before.


You actually deny the presence of profit and the strugle for contracts and funding? The media in the US if not physically supressed, is controlled by who invests more money. I don't know any news agency in the US which is'nt bought over by an intrest.

The fact someone owns a newspaper or a television station in no way, shape or form "proves" suppression in the American media. You'll need to cite specific examples where private ownership of media has suppressed someone or something in order to convince me, and I doubt you can.

Also journalists most of the journalists here don't "struggle for contracts and funding." They're salaried professionals who work for an organization and pretty much do what they want (or at least I do and all of my immediate colleagues do). Remember too, freedom of the press is enshrined in the American Constitution...

On the other side of the coin, state-owned media, historically speaking, is much more subject to suppression.

And this thread is about Putin and Russia, not America...

Suit yourself, must be a touchy subject. I'll find examples for you.

Knock yourself out, but it's not a "touchy subject," for me: I just think people have presented you with several arguments about going's-on in Putin's Russia, all of which you've ignored or undermined by attacking the messanger...

I disregard them as propoganda. I'm still looking for the documentary I want you to watch. I have'nt attacked any messengers either.

The Economist is propaganda? Define propaganda?

I don't know who is the main share holder in the economist?

I don't know, but whoever he is, I'm sure he hates Mother Russia, which makes all the names, dates, numbers and quotes in the story the magazine ran a pack of insipid lies. What about the NYT? They've reported on many of the same things the Economist has touched on, so is it propaganda, too? What about the New Yorker, a liberal magazine? David Remnick has written exstensively about Russia and Putin's various foibles, but I'm certain he's a capitalist pig. Seriously, it really is everyone else...

Never mind I found it myself, the Rothschild banking family. You learn something new every day.
I don't need to say anything else, the Rothschild's were neighbours and co-owners of a gold smith company in Switzerland with the Grenschilds(green shield, red shield), subsequently they sent their children to every corner of the world to open a bank.

They profited greatly from the Napoleonic wars by loaning governments money and profiting on the looser.

I associate them on the same level as I do; GW bushes grandfather, only he was less important.

I'm out discussing the economist I know enough. They are one of the families responsible for fractional reserve banking, and the resulting debt all over the world, the US national debt included.

Some say either they or the Grenschilds assassinated Lincoln, after he introduced the greenback, and stopped the bank of England from having control over the US economy.

Some sources say they funded the Bolshevik revolution.

To my surprise this is a subject I was interested in, I fear bankers, and it is absolutely undeniable that bankers control the world. "he who prints the money makes the rules". They have the power to cause inflation and depression, through changing the amount of money circulating. This makes sense, they control the fluctuations of the stock market, which is why their property: The Economist group is able to make such good predictions of the drop and fall. I.e. a money generating cycle.


Edit: Backed up to an extent by wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayer_Amschel_Rothschild_family

A documentary on the subject:
http://www.themoneymasters.com/synopsis.htm

"The basis for the Rothschild fortune was laid during the latter stages of the Napoleonic Wars. From 1813 to 1815, the Rothschild family was instrumental in the financing of the British war effort, handling the shipment of bullion to the Duke of Wellington's army in Portugal and Spain, as well as arranging the payment of British financial subsidies to their Continental allies. Through the commissions earned on these transactions, the Rothschild fortune grew enormously.

In the early 19th century Rothschild set up a Europe-wide network of messengers and carrier pigeon stations, gathering information that could affect his investments. He soon garnered a reputation for being first with the news.

According to popular account, when the Battle of Waterloo was being fought in June 1815, other speculators watched Rothschild's stocks in an attempt to guess who would win. Shortly after the battle ended, and long before anyone else knew who was the victor, he began selling stocks. Everyone assumed this meant Napoleon had won and Europe was lost. Panic selling ensued. When prices crashed, Rothschild bought everything in sight and made a huge profit after the British won."

Now let's apply it out of intrest to the modern world, who profits out of an arms race?

I fail to see how rambling on about the Rothschild family and posting links about them undermines the integrity of the magazine or the story I published.

Or are you asserting the names, numbers, quotes and dates are made up propaganda?

Do you realize the whole "Western media is all propaganda thing" is exactly what the Soviet propagandists preached at the peak of their despicable empire?

Putin managed to get a qualification called a Candidate of Science (Apparently similar to a Ph.D) from the International Branch of the Law Department of the Leningrad State University with a dissertation (similar to a Ph.D thesis) called "The Strategic Planning of Regional Resources Under the Formation of Market Relations". It was later found out that 16 of the 20 pages that open a key section of Putin's work were copied either word for word or with minute alterations from a management study, Strategic Planning and Policy, written by US professors William King and David Cleland. Deception started early for Putin. That's naive to think that Putin has written a single page of that thesis. Most likely, he hasn't read a single page of it either.

You need a degree before applying to the university of international relations in moscow. Especially if you go into the KGB.

Edit: If he had the chance to give himself a degree why stop at candidate of the sciences, he could give himself a doctor of scinces degree to the same effect. The man is intelligent, and had to strugle just like anyone else before he got sucked into politics.

The word for word part is interesting, but I know first hand that dozens of western scientists translated work written in the USSR and published it as their own, but I would like if someone could provide a link to both, and a date of publication. If it is indeed true I'll change my stance.

Is the AP biased, too?

Media freedom watchdog protests trial of Russian journalist accused of insulting Putin
September 22, 2006
Associated Press (AP)

MOSCOW: A media rights watchdog sharply criticized Russian authorities for prosecuting a journalist who wrote an article allegedly mocking President Vladimir Putin.

The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists said in a statement released late Thursday that it was “deeply concerned” about the trial of Vladimir Rakhmankov, the editor of the online publication Kursiv in the city of Ivanovo northeast of Moscow. “We call on the authorities to halt the prosecution of Vladimir Rakhmankov immediately,” CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon said in the statement.

Rakhmankov went on trial in Ivanovo on Thursday on charges of insulting the president in his article headlined “Putin as Russia’s phallic symbol.”

The piece released in May poked fun at Putin’s state-of-the-nation address, in which the president called for measures to boost the country’s birth rate, which is dwindling. The publication suggested that animals at a local zoo eagerly heeded Putin’s call, Russian media reported.

Local prosecutors launched an investigation in May on their own initiative without the Kremlin making any public statements or moves on the case.

If convicted of “insulting a public official” Rakhmankov faces up to 12 months of corrective labor or a fine.

“It is outrageous that local prosecutors should bring the full force of the criminal law to bear on a journalist for writing a commentary on the public policy of an elected politician,” Simon said. “Prosecutors should never resort to the criminal law to shield public figures from the press. Satire is an essential and vital element of democratic discourse.”

Since taking the helm more than six years ago, Putin has presided over what critics said was a steady rollback in press freedoms won since the Soviet collapse.

Top independent television stations have been shut down and print media also have experienced growing official pressure.

The CIA operates by flooding a countries media with propoganda and causing the people to topple the leader. By locking certain media outlets Putin prevented
a coup from happening in russia after his rise to power. Look it up.

We also have a show in russia called kukli which makes fun of government officials all the time. I find it Ironic that the show was'nt forced off the air.

I also fail to see why some asshole amid a demographic crisis, makes fun of measures to fix the problem.

So the AP isn't up to snuff, either, because it's run by the CIA and is propaganda? You're just making yourself look silly now...

AP is a credible agency, but it just repeats opinion. While I dont doubt the reporter was arrested, and I to an extent disagree with the action, I still think he was in the wrong by any standards, no other country would allow the same, in such an open reference.

I should have mentioned that I don't value the opinion of journalists.

I still don't have anything that would convince me of anything besides my opinion.

Let’s just consider for a second, that I am wrong, and the papers all repeating each other are credible, and not part of a media war aimed at destabilizing Russia.

What’s left to do? Join the bandwagon, go to protests and turn my home into Ukraine? All these nay-sayers and sensationalists like yourself really don't seem to know the basis for the Russian thinking, as they ignore the fact that Russia has never gotten along with Europe.

Ivan the thunderous (terrible as labelled by Europe) stopped European involvement in Russian internal affairs and stopped the selling off of Russian land. Now Putin who is doing the same, is receiving the exact same criticism which rolled across Europe in Ivan's time.

Yet you expect me to TRUST the media? What reason do I have to do that? I don't trust the media in the slightest in the current state of things; it's a farce not free reporting.

I don't expect you to trust anything, nor do I care if you do.

But if you want to be taken seriously by people, you need to provide concrete proof as to why something published in a respectable news source is bogus, and that something needs to be a little more than a prose argument that amounts to a written equivalent of the hair standing up on the back of your neck. In other words, running around crying "propaganda" and "media war" smacks of ridiculousness and makes you appear fanatical and close-minded, because from where I'm sitting, I don't think you'll ever have anything that will convince you "of anything besides (your) opinion."

The opinion of journalists isn't relevant, either. Two out of the three pieces I published are news reports, not editorials or news analysis. In other words, they are fact based and need be challenged with contrary facts, not contrary opinions...

"But if you want to be taken seriously by people, you need to provide concrete proof as to why something published in a respectable news source is bogus,"

Honey if you want to be taken seriously get an original opinion, and provide real proof instead of quoting glorified opinion from news outlets.

"because from where I'm sitting, I don't think you'll ever have anything that will convince you "of anything besides (your) opinion."

If you were able to provide decent proof that Putin kills reporters and that Russia is going downhill by any means, that wouldn’t be the case.

"Two out of the three pieces I published are news reports, not editorials or news analysis. In other words, they are fact based and need be challenged with contrary facts, not contrary opinions..."

History is a fact unlike opinion, you haven’t provided any historical or physical proof, just conjecture.

You are no different; you have a compulsion to jump on the band wagon, as I these threads seem to be generated as soon as a news report comes out, no attention is paid to history or what happens in a place other than what the media sources put out

But enjoy your imaginary throne... you deserve it.;)

Apparently, you need to brush up on your reading comprehension, as I never argued or posted stories that argued "Putin kills reporters," which is a gross over simplification of the suppression the stories and I have discussed. Men in Putin's position don't kill people, they have others do it for them.

Still, even the Economist piece states that it isn't attacking the man, only the system of thuggery he has either fostered or allowed to function unchecked. Morally speaking, complicity is not the same thing as responsibility, but the two have something in common, which is the only point the piece was trying to make, I think.

The others were cold hard news stories. If you doubt them, that's your business. I feel as though I have provided "proof" in the form of two factual news reports to illustrate I am not speaking in a vacuum, whereas you've done nothing other than deny their legitimacy and call them propaganda.

Yet I am the one who lacks originality?

You're inability to accept any news source as something other than a "media war" against your beloved homeland parrots the inane hands-over-the-ears-so-I-can't-hear-you behavior of a Soviet Apparatchik...

Are you so blind? So unwilling to criticize your country and your leader? If you are, then you've learned nothing of democracy during your brief exposure to it...

Part of a report from the Freedom House, an international organization made up largely of liberals:

Russia

Media freedom was further curtailed in 2006 as President Vladimir Putin’s government passed legislation restricting news reporting and journalists were subjected to physical violence and intimidation.

Although the Russian constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press, authorities are able to use the legislative and judicial systems to harass and prosecute independent journalists. In January, Putin signed into law new regulations that required stricter registration and reporting for nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), thus asserting greater government control over civil society and potentially hindering journalists from obtaining news from NGOs. Despite public objections, Russia’s parliament also passed amendments to the Law on Fighting Extremist Activity, which Putin then signed in July. The measure expanded the definition of extremism to include media criticism of public officials, and authorized up to three years’ imprisonment for journalists as well as the suspension or closure of their publications if they were convicted.

During 2006, journalists continued to face criminal libel charges for printing and broadcasting statements that were unfavorable to public officials. Criminal courts also sentenced several journalists on charges of “inciting racial hatred” for publicizing controversial events in Chechnya. Stanislav Dmitriyevsky, head of the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society, was convicted of the offense in February after publishing statements by leading Chechen separatists like the late Aslan Maskhadov. He received a suspended prison sentence and probation, but his conviction allowed the government to shutter his organization in October under a provision of the new NGO law. It remained open, with appeals pending, at year’s end. Boris Stomakhin of the monthly Radikalnaya Politika, who has written various critical articles on Russia’s actions in Chechnya, was sentenced in November to five years in prison.

The international media community expressed its shock at the October murder of Novaya Gazeta journalist Anna Politkovskaya, who was renowned for her independent reporting about abuses committed in the war in Chechnya. Other journalists who were killed in 2006—likely for reasons tied to their work, according to media watchdogs—included Ilya Zimin, a correspondent for the national television station NTV; Vagif Kochetkov, a correspondent for the Moscow daily Trud and columnist for the Tula paper
Tulskii Molodoi Kommunar; Yevgeny Gerasimenko, a correspondent for the Saratov independent weekly Saratovksy Rasklad; and Anatoly Voronin, deputy director of the Russian news agency Itar-Tass. The freelance journalist Elina Ersenoyeva and her mother Margarita were both abducted in Chechnya amid rumors that Elina had been married to the infamous Chechen separatist fighter Shamil Basayev. She had recently reported on prison conditions in the republic. In the case of the 2004 murder of Forbes editor Paul Klebnikov, two ethnic Chechen suspects, Kazbek Dukuzov and Musa Vakhayev, were acquitted in May after a trial that was closed to the public to protect classified evidence.

However, the Klebnikov family appealed and Russia’s Supreme Court overturned the acquittal in November, ordering a retrial. Journalists remained unable to cover the news freely, particularly with regard to contentious topics like Chechnya or the environment, and were subject to physical attacks, arrests, detentions, random searches, threats, and self-censorship.

While Russia assumed the presidency of the Group of Eight in 2006 and hosted the international club’s summit in St. Petersburg in July, the authorities used police violence and detentions to bar foreign journalists from covering civic protests that took place. Authorities continued to exert influence on media outlets and determine news content in 2006. The state owns or controls significant stakes in the country’s three main national television networks: Channel One, Rossiya, and NTV. Some diversity of perspective exists in print media at the national level, which are privately owned. Ownership of regional print media is less diverse and often concentrated in the hands of local authorities. Private owners of media outlets are generally billionaire business magnates or large companies like the state-controlled energy conglomerate Gazprom, which holds majority stakes in the newspaper Izvestia and radio station Ekho Moskvy. However, the law requires little transparency in media ownership, and media watchdogs expressed concern in 2006 that companies like Gazprom would purchase additional newspapers, such as Komsomolskaya Pravda, and tighten the establishment’s grip on the media ahead of the 2008 presidential election.

The government continued to disadvantage private media by allocating subsidies to state-controlled outlets and controlling the means of production and distribution. With online media developing and 16 percent of the population now online, the government also harassed some of Russia’s leading news websites. For example, officials accused Pravda.ru, Bankfax.ru, and Gazeta.ru of spreading extremist ideas, and fined the editor of the internet publication Kursiv for publishing an “offensive” article about Putin.

Oh god yes freedom house, the very name is comical. Peter Ackerman is a moron, the documentary "Bringing Down A Dictator" supports the trial of Milosevic, who died in prison without having been proven guilty, his foresight is amazing. It's that kind of people that help the spread of american foreign policy to every corner of the world.
http://www.freedomhouse.org/images/template_graphics/header_photos/header_photo-2.jpg

Oh look the companies header has images from the "orange revolution" that fucked Ukraine up, sure i'll trust them. *wink*

Watch this, I could'nt find the documentary I wanted you to watch; "An American Blackout" as it's been deleted by the host but this one has some similar information:

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6737097743434902428




Are you so blind? So unwilling to criticize your country and your leader? If you are, then you've learned nothing of democracy during your brief exposure to it...

You have failed to criticize your own, you have also failed to show linear thinking motive, action reaction.


I'm not willing to criticize my country, I will criticize the policy with Chechnya and corruption on lower levels, but that is a different debate. Also, as far as I can tell anything that causes such outbursts from the west is good for Russia. I can hence assume not only by this, but by Russia’s growing demographic, economy, and power; that Putin has done good, and I will happily send several reporters to prison, if it means that the rest of the country can be free from foreign oppression and flourishing.

As far as media goes, it is selective, many atrocities world wide go unmentioned, and many good deeds that Putin has done also go unmentioned.
The media is a farce, I've said it before and I'll say it again.

You have also failed to show me the connection between Putin and the arrests ONLY SPECULATION for the n'th time. You have also failed to give me historical proof that all that Europe could possibly want is a free Russia. I would suggest that instead of quoting sensationalist headlines, and living in the warm and fuzzy optimistic bubble which you're in, you wake up and take the world for what it really is: an evil place. When you manage to do this you will stop ignoring the fact that the east and west have wanted each others destruction for a long time. You will also realise that Journalism is a profession which pays people to shout their opinion, nothing else, and due to this, has been exploited on the basis of Joseph Goebbels' model. Ever since world war 2, media warfare has become the front for the toppling of governments. And a newly formed country with ambition cannot afford to open it's borders to every piece of criticism flowing in.


Actually that’s a good point, read about Joseph Goebbels, and you will see the similarity between his ideas and the current phrasing and psychology in the media. FOX and CNN are perfect examples.

If you think I haven't criticized my own country, then you need to learn how to read and comprehend what you read. When you do, check out the immigration thread or the Bush was a great president thread, where I attack both my country, and its leaders and lawmakers.

You also need to learn something about journalism if you're going to continue to run off at the mouth about it. Writing, for example, that "journalism is a profession which pays people to shout their opinion, nothing else," is just ignorant. I am a journalist. I have never, not once, been paid for my opinion, because I'm not an editorialist or a news analyst. I'm a reporter. You need to figure out what these three types of journalist do in order to speak intelligently about them and the profession, but I doubt you'll take the time to do that as you've already cast us all in the "Joseph Goebbels' model," another absurd assertion of ignorance.

You also obviously have no idea about the Freedom of the Press in the West or democracy or how both operate. If you did, you would realize a statement such as "a newly formed country with ambition cannot afford to open it's borders to every piece of criticism flowing in," is nothing more than a ridiculous foundation for the censorship, suppression and propaganda you accuse the West of practicing (without documentation, I might add). And if you're truly "not willing to criticize (your) country," then this discussion is over, so far as I am concerned.

I am a journalist. I have never, not once, been paid for my opinion

IF you were an important and well known journalist you would have been, but your obviously not. Possibly weatherman?

You need to learn something about journalism, maybe then you will stop spreading popular ideological opinion. Maybe then you will have more than three publications.

Or try to consider the bigger picture which goes beyond what the press wants to do, if a press wants to be free it first has to prove that it is honest and is actually reporting truth, instead of what gloabal politics tells it to.

Part of a report from the Freedom House, an international organization made up largely of liberals:

Russia

Media freedom was further curtailed in 2006 as President Vladimir Putin’s government passed legislation restricting news reporting and journalists were subjected to physical violence and intimidation.

Although the Russian constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press, authorities are able to use the legislative and judicial systems to harass and prosecute independent journalists. In January, Putin signed into law new regulations that required stricter registration and reporting for nongovernmental organizations (NGOs),<-Germany and Japan have the same, why no mention? thus asserting greater government control over civil society and potentially hindering journalists from obtaining news from NGOs. Despite public objections, Russia’s parliament also passed amendments to the Law on Fighting Extremist Activity, which Putin then signed in July. The measure expanded the definition of extremism to include media criticism of public officials, and authorized up to three years’ imprisonment for journalists as well as the suspension or closure of their publications if they were convicted.

During 2006, journalists continued to face criminal libel charges for printing and broadcasting statements that were unfavorable to public officials. Criminal courts also sentenced several journalists on charges of “inciting racial hatred” for publicizing controversial events in Chechnya. Stanislav Dmitriyevsky, head of the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society, was convicted of the offense in February after publishing statements by leading Chechen separatists like the late Aslan Maskhadov.<--Maskhadov is a vile monster, why his glorified statements should be published I don't know He received a suspended prison sentence and probation, but his conviction allowed the government to shutter his organization in October under a provision of the new NGO law. It remained open, with appeals pending, at year’s end. Boris Stomakhin of the monthly Radikalnaya Politika, who has written various critical articles on Russia’s actions in Chechnya, was sentenced in November to five years in prison.

The international media community expressed its shock at the October murder of Novaya Gazeta journalist Anna Politkovskaya, who was renowned for her independent reporting about abuses committed in the war in Chechnya.<--Who also did reports on orgonized crime Other journalists who were killed in 2006—likely for reasons tied to their work, according to media watchdogs—included Ilya Zimin, a correspondent for the national television station NTV; Vagif Kochetkov, a correspondent for the Moscow daily Trud and columnist for the Tula paper
Tulskii Molodoi Kommunar; Yevgeny Gerasimenko, a correspondent for the Saratov independent weekly Saratovksy Rasklad; and Anatoly Voronin, deputy director of the Russian news agency Itar-Tass. The freelance journalist Elina Ersenoyeva and her mother Margarita were both abducted in Chechnya amid rumors that Elina had been married to the infamous Chechen separatist fighter Shamil Basayev<--Dead. She had recently reported on prison conditions in the republic. In the case of the 2004 murder of Forbes editor Paul Klebnikov, two ethnic Chechen suspects, Kazbek Dukuzov and Musa Vakhayev, were acquitted in May after a trial that was closed to the public to protect classified evidence.

However, the Klebnikov family appealed and Russia’s Supreme Court overturned the acquittal in November, ordering a retrial. Journalists remained unable to cover the news freely, particularly with regard to contentious topics like Chechnya or the environment, and were subject to physical attacks, arrests, detentions, random searches, threats, and self-censorship.
<- Source please
While Russia assumed the presidency of the Group of Eight in 2006 and hosted the international club’s summit in St. Petersburg in July, the authorities used police violence and detentions to bar foreign journalists from covering civic protests that took place. Authorities continued to exert influence on media outlets and determine news content in 2006. The state owns or controls significant stakes in the country’s three main national television networks:<- Same in the US via Lobbyists and Investment Channel One, Rossiya, and NTV. Some diversity of perspective exists in print media at the national level, which are privately owned. Ownership of regional print media is less diverse and often concentrated in the hands of local authorities.<- Same in the US Private owners of media outlets are generally billionaire business magnates or large companies like the state-controlled energy conglomerate Gazprom, which holds majority stakes in the newspaper Izvestia and radio station Ekho Moskvy. However, the law requires little transparency in media ownership, and media watchdogs expressed concern in 2006 that companies like Gazprom would purchase additional newspapers,<-- Happens in the US such as Komsomolskaya Pravda, and tighten the establishment’s grip on the media ahead of the 2008 presidential election. <-- To avoid an orange revolution similar to Ukraine.

Merry christamas, and to compile my previouse statements still apply:

Oh god yes freedom house, the very name is comical. Peter Ackerman is a moron, the documentary "Bringing Down A Dictator" supports the trial of Milosevic, who died in prison without having been proven guilty, his foresight is amazing. It's that kind of people that help the spread of american foreign policy to every corner of the world.


Oh look the companies header has images from the "orange revolution" that fucked Ukraine up, sure i'll trust them. *wink*

Watch this, I could'nt find the documentary I wanted you to watch; "An American Blackout" as it's been deleted by the host but this one has some similar information:

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...97743434902428



“
Originally Posted by countezero
Are you so blind? So unwilling to criticize your country and your leader? If you are, then you've learned nothing of democracy during your brief exposure to it...
”
You have failed to criticize your own, you have also failed to show linear thinking motive, action reaction.


I'm not willing to criticize my country, I will criticize the policy with Chechnya and corruption on lower levels, but that is a different debate. Also, as far as I can tell anything that causes such outbursts from the west is good for Russia. I can hence assume not only by this, but by Russia’s growing demographic, economy, and power; that Putin has done good, and I will happily send several reporters to prison, if it means that the rest of the country can be free from foreign oppression and flourishing.

As far as media goes, it is selective, many atrocities world wide go unmentioned, and many good deeds that Putin has done also go unmentioned.
The media is a farce, I've said it before and I'll say it again.

You have also failed to show me the connection between Putin and the arrests ONLY SPECULATION for the n'th time. You have also failed to give me historical proof that all that Europe could possibly want is a free Russia. I would suggest that instead of quoting sensationalist headlines, and living in the warm and fuzzy optimistic bubble which you're in, you wake up and take the world for what it really is: an evil place. When you manage to do this you will stop ignoring the fact that the east and west have wanted each others destruction for a long time. You will also realise that Journalism is a profession which pays people to shout their opinion, nothing else, and due to this, has been exploited on the basis of Joseph Goebbels' model. Ever since world war 2, media warfare has become the front for the toppling of governments. And a newly formed country with ambition cannot afford to open it's borders to every piece of criticism flowing in.


Actually that’s a good point, read about Joseph Goebbels, and you will see the similarity between his ideas and the current phrasing and psychology in the media. FOX and CNN are perfect examples.


I remember when Beslan happened, immediately after it was drowned out by the global media with the accusation "they tried to poison poletkovskoya on the plane, so she could'nt report" Because god forbid, if anyone felt sympathy to those children, remember they live in a non democratic country.

Makes my sick.

and watch the documentary will you?