Thread: How dangerous is Vladimir Putin?

What percentage of the EU's gas comes from Russia then hoohoo?

A lot.

In 2017, 39% of the European Union's natural gas total imports originated in Russia.

Russia in the European energy sector - Wikipedia


And it would appear the percentage has gone up from there- in spite of repeated US attempts to sabotage it, basically from the get go. Nordstream 2 is just the latest. Grow some Balls Europe. You don't need 'friends' like that.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

What percentage of the EU's gas comes from ameristan then hoohoo?

Less than it would like.

.

^ So, no answer then

Originally Posted by sabang

A lot.

Russia in the European energy sector - Wikipedia


And it would appear the percentage has gone up from there- in spite of repeated US attempts to sabotage it, basically from the get go. Nordstream 2 is just the latest. Grow some Balls Europe. You don't need 'friends' like that.

And last year?

Sorry, dunno yet. Can't see it going down though, looking forward, with Nordstream 2 coming on line.

Vladimir Putin On Petty Tabaquis And International Issues

April 21, 2021

"Today Russia's President Vladimir Putin made his annual Address to the Federal Assembly (English transcript). Most of his talk was about domestic and economic issues. At the end he made some remarks towards international developments and other governments.

The warnings he is giving seems stronger than usual. Here are some snippets with emphasis added by me:

Setting the general tone:

Russia certainly has its own interests we defend and will continue to defend within the framework of international law, as all other states do. And if someone refuses to understand this obvious thing or does not want to conduct a dialogue and chooses a selfish and arrogant tone with us, Russia will always find a way to defend its stance.

On the coup attempt in Belarus which seems to have been planned with outside actors:

[L]isten, you can think whatever you like of, say, Ukrainian President [Viktor] Yanukovych or [Nicolas] Maduro in Venezuela. I repeat, you can like or dislike them, including Yanukovych who almost got killed, too, and removed from power via an armed coup. You can have your own opinion of President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko’s policy. But the practice of staging coups d’état and planning political assassinations, including those of high-ranking officials – well, this goes too far. This is beyond any limits. Suffice it to mention the admission made by the detained participants in the conspiracy about a planned siege of Minsk, including plans to block the city infrastructure and communications, and a complete shutdown of the entire power system in the capital of Belarus! This actually means they were preparing a massive cyberattack. What else could it be? You know, you cannot just do it all with one switch.
...

What if there had been a real attempt at a coup d’état in Belarus? After all, this was the ultimate goal. How many people would have been hurt? What would have become of Belarus? Nobody is thinking about this.

Just as no one was thinking about the future of Ukraine during the coup in that country.

A remark on the ankle-biters in the international scene who serve as U.S. proxies:
All the while, unfriendly moves towards Russia have also continued unabated. Some countries have taken up an unseemly routine where they pick on Russia for any reason, most often, for no reason at all. It is some kind of new sport of who shouts the loudest.

In this regard, we behave in an extremely restrained manner, I would even say,
modestly, and I am saying this without irony. Often, we prefer not to respond at all, not just to unfriendly moves, but even to outright rudeness. We want to maintain good relations with everyone who participates in the international dialogue. But we see what is happening in real life. As I said, every now and then they are picking on Russia, for no reason. And of course, all sorts of petty Tabaquis are running around them like Tabaqui ran around Shere Khan – everything is like in Kipling's book – howling along in order to make their sovereign happy. Kipling was a great writer.

A clear warning. Likely aimed at U.S. plans to cut Russia off from the international bank messaging system SWIFT:

We really want to maintain good relations with all those engaged in international communication, including, by the way, those with whom we have not been getting along lately, to put it mildly. We really do not want to burn bridges. But if someone mistakes our good intentions for indifference or weakness and intends to burn or even blow up these bridges, they must know that Russia's response will be asymmetrical, swift and tough. Those behind provocations that threaten the core interests of our security will regret what they have done in a way they have not regretted anything for a long time.

Sowing doubt in those who think they can predict Russia's reactions to their nefarious plans:

At the same time, I just have to make it clear, we have enough patience, responsibility, professionalism, self-confidence and certainty in our cause, as well as common sense, when making a decision of any kind. But I hope that no one will think about crossing the “red line” with regard to Russia. We ourselves will determine in each specific case where it will be drawn.

Putin (again) offers far reaching strategic weapon (nuclear and nonnuclear(!)) talks with the U.S. and other permanent members of the UN Security Council:

As the leader in the creation of new-generation combat systems and in the development of modern nuclear forces, Russia is urging its partners once again to discuss the issues related to strategic armaments and to ensuring global stability. The subject matter and the goal of these talks could be the creation of an environment for a conflict-free coexistence based on the security equation, which would include not only the traditional strategic armaments, such as intercontinental ballistic missiles, heavy bombers and submarines, but – I would like to emphasise this – all offensive and defensive systems capable of attaining strategic goals regardless of the armament.

That is an offer Biden should and probably will take up.

Putin also repeated his offer for a cyberweapon agreement. He again proposed a meeting of the five permanent UNSC members.

Unfortunately the U.S. is likely to ignore both of these."

MoA - Vladimir Putin On Petty Tabaquis And International Issues

More Bad Journalism on Russia

April 21, 2021


"Having said in my last post that you shouldn’t disbelieve everything that the press tells you about Russia, I find myself returning once again to examples of bad reporting, as these seem to be rather more prevalent than the good variety. Bad journalism, though, is not all the same. It takes different forms, and some examples from this week and last prove the point. First off is report by the BBC’s Russian correspondent Steve Rosenberg that came out yesterday, which you can watch on the BBC website. Rosenberg travelled to the Siberian city of Krasnoyarsk supposedly to find answers to the question ‘In what direction is Russia heading?’, Krasnoyarsk being chosen because it’s geographically more or less slap bang in the middle of Russia.

As I note in an analysis of the report published today by RT (which you can read here), it’s not very good. Having travelled 4,000 kilometres to Krasnoyarsk, Rosenberg tells us absolutely nothing about the city itself, but limits himself to interviewing three people who tell him a bunch of things he could just as easily have heard if he’d stayed in Moscow. The whole piece is then framed, start and finish, by a statement that “Russia is heading towards a big catastrophe.” Ah yes, Russia is doomed! How many times have we heard that one?

Frankly, I can’t imagine why Rosenberg bothered going to Krasnoyarsk to do this. Having travelled that far, he could have made an effort to explore the city and tell us how things are there. But none of it. It was just another excuse to tell us that Russia is going down the plughole.

This then is one type of bad reporting: it consists of focusing on selling a given narrative rather than trying to understand and explain the object under study.

This type isn’t untrue, it’s just not very interested in anything that doesn’t fit the chosen story. The second type, by contrast, bends the truth to fit the narrative.

I deal with an example of this in another article for RT, published a few days ago, that you can find here. The case in question is an accusation published by the New York Times that Russian intelligence paid the Taliban in Afghanistan to kill American soldiers. As I note in my article, the US government has been back-peddling from this claim, as well it might, given the weakness of the supporting evidence. However, as I also point out, the evidence was always weak, which makes you wonder why the New York Times chose to publish the story in the first place. The answer, I suggest, is that it suited the Times’ political objective at the time, which was to undermine then US president Donald Trump.

The third type of bad journalism is somewhat similar, in that it has a similar disregard for factual accuracy, but is slightly different in that it’s not pursuing its own political objectives but is acting as spokesman for somebody else’s political campaign, repeating the campaign’s claims as if gospel truth while not bothering to verify them.

An example is recent coverage of Russian oppositionist Alexei Navalny. Last week the Western press contained numerous stories to the effect that Navalny was on the verge of death. Navalny was ‘close to death’, said CNN. He was ‘dying in prison’ and ‘would die in a matter of days’, said ABC News. And so on.

The source for this claim was Navalny’s press secretary and others close to him. The Western media repeated the assertion without questioning its veracity. But was it true? Apparently not. It seems that even Navalny himself has expressed some amusement at the idea that he’s on the verge of death. And let’s face it, how could his team have known his condition when they don’t have access to him?

That doesn’t mean that he’s a well man. He’s been taken to a prison hospital, which suggests that he’s not in perfect health. But dying? Discussing the subject, Navalny ally Anastasiia Vasilieva rather shot herself in the foot with a couple of tweets, the first of which proclaimed ‘They wouldn’t allow us doctors to visit the dying Alexei Navalny’, and the second of which protested against ‘Taking a healthy person to a hospital … where all the patients have tuberculous.’ ‘Dying’ one minute, a ‘healthy person’ the next. Whatever.

The Western press, however, continues to promote whatever version of the Navalny story that Navalny’s headquarters sees fit to tell them. Today (21 April) protests are taking place across Russia in Navalny’s support. The jailed oppositionist’s team claimed in advance that 400,000 had signed up to take part, which would make these the largest protests ever in post-Soviet Russia. Journalists lined up to repeat this claim. ‘Tomorrow, Navalny supporters will stage possibly Russia’s biggest ever protests’, tweeted Financial Times correspondent, Max Seddon.

So did they? Seems not. As poor old Max had to admit today, ‘turnout is way down’ compared with the last Navalny protests in January. Reports indicate that even in the best performing locations, only about 1/4 of those who said they would come to the protests did, and in other locations the number was as little as 1/10. If we say that that averages out at about 1/7, then we can estimate a national turnout of a maximum of 50-60,000 people, maybe a lot fewer (I’ll wait for others to confirm the true amount – Seddon reckons about 10,000 in Moscow). That’s not a tiny number, for sure, but hardly the largest protest in Russian history (that record belongs to protests in February 2005 against social reform, when about 250,000 Russians came out onto the streets).

So why was Seddon telling us just yesterday that this protest might be the ‘biggest ever’? Wouldn’t a well-informed observer have known that that was extremely unlikely? Well, it seems to me that the problem, as with the ‘Navalny is dying’ story, is that too many journalists are, perhaps inadvertently, acting not as independent observers but as de facto PR personnel for the Russian opposition, rebroadcasting all its PR statements without properly confirming them. This isn’t as it should be.

Of course, not all journalism is bad, and the alternatives to the mainstream media are often even worse. One shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. The best advice I can give is to read as widely as possible and treat all sources with an open mind.

Still, the examples above make something very clear – reporting on Russia leaves a lot to be desired."

https://irrussianality.wordpress.com...ism-on-russia/

I see Vlad is playing the "foreign interference" card already as he prepares to attack protestors after he's killed Navalny.

BBC visits Krasnoyarsk, tells us nothing about Siberia & instead focuses on Putin, Lenin & a bear – is this the best it can do?
21 Apr, 2021

By Paul Robinson, a professor at the University of Ottawa. He writes about Russian and Soviet history, military history, and military ethics, and is the author of the Irrussianality blog

Russia’s distant provinces are little known, and any effort to tell us more is welcome. Unfortunately, a BBC report from Siberia fails to illuminate, opting for tired clichés and discredited prophecies of impending catastrophe.

“Russia is finished,” the Atlantic declared back in 2001. Twenty years on, Russia is still here, but the predictions of doom continue unabated, as seen in the titles of books such as Richard Lourie’s ‘Putin: His Downfall and Russia’s Coming Crash’. “Russia is finished,” indeed! How many times have we heard that?

So many that back in August 2014, the former Moscow bureau chief of Business Week, Paul Starobin, felt obliged to pen an article entitled ‘The Eternal Collapse of Russia’, which mocked the “Russia is doomed syndrome” infecting his fellow correspondents. Like an eccentric prophet with a banner announcing ‘The End is Nigh’, when the inevitable collapse fails to materialize, Western journalists shrug it off and bring out the banner again. This time the end really is nigh – really! Except it never is.

Joining the ranks of the doomsayers this week was the BBC’s Russia correspondent, Steve Rosenberg with a report from the Siberian city of Krasnoyarsk. To make sure that nobody would miss his point, Rosenberg leapt straight in with the following opening words:

“It’s the eternal Russian question – where is Russia going? Russia is heading for a big catastrophe. I think that people are afraid. Wherever we go, we’re being watched. With Putin’s most vocal critic in jail, with a Russian troop-build up near Ukraine, in what direction is Russia heading?”

To be fair to Rosenberg, it’s not him who says, “Russia is heading for a big catastrophe.” Those are the words of Krasnoyarsk artist Vasily Slonov, whom Rosenberg interviews. It’s easy to see why Slonov was picked – with a long, ragged grey beard, he’s very much the image of an Old Testament prophet. Throw in his strange artistic renditions of Russian President Vladimir Putin (including a bust of Putin with lighting tubes sticking out of his head), add his predictions of impending disaster, and he’s the ideal interviewee – colorful and on message.

So too is interviewee number two, a woman named Kseniya Andreyeva, who complains of rising food prices (a fair enough point), and in perfect English (probably not typical of the average Krasnoyarsk resident) tells Rosenberg that people are afraid to protest, as they might lose their jobs if they do. People aren’t speaking out against the government, Rosenberg notes, “but that doesn’t mean people are content.”

Perhaps self-aware enough to know that he will be accused of anti-government bias, Rosenberg finishes off with a chat with the director of the Krasnoyarsk zoo, who tells him that “We don’t need any revolutionary changes.” For Rosenberg, this is an opportunity for another dig at the Russian state. “Communism promised Russians the bright future. Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin pledges only stability,” he says.

The zoo also provides a chance to include a bit of ‘klyukva’ – that’s to say, cliché-ridden, stereotypical images of Russian life. Typical of klyukva are matryoshka dolls, bears, Lenin, balalaikas, vodka, fur hats, and the like. Rosenberg gives us more than a few – images of Lenin at the beginning and end of the report, for instance, and then – pure klyukva – pictures of a bear at the Krasnoyarsk zoo being fed pancakes. Challenging popular conceptions of Russia isn’t top of the agenda.

Finally, to wrap everything up, Rosenberg returns to his artist friend Vasily, who repeats the phrase “Russia is heading for a big catastrophe,” adding that, “I’m certain, it’s inevitable. It’s like the Titanic heading for that iceberg. It can’t be [avoided], just like the sun rising is unavoidable.” Placing this prediction at both the start and finish of his piece, Rosenberg gives it extra force. He doesn’t say that he agrees, but if he doesn’t, why do it that way?

All this is typical journalistic methodology – talk to a few people, and then draw some sweeping conclusions. The problem is that the people interviewed aren’t always very representative. The independent polling company Levada reports that 48% of Russians think the country is heading in the right direction, as opposed to 42% who think the opposite. That’s not a huge win for the optimists, but it indicates that belief in inevitable catastrophe is far from the norm.

In any case, Rosenberg didn’t need to travel to Krasnoyarsk to hear the things he shows in his report. He could just as easily have done it if he’d stayed in Moscow. It’s 4,000 kilometers from Moscow to Krasnoyarsk. But all we get for the effort are three people, none of whom say anything startlingly new. It hardly seems worth it.

In fact, it’s a lost opportunity. There is very little reporting about life in Russia’s provinces. Rosenberg had the chance to tell us something about what’s it really like in Krasnoyarsk. Instead, at the end of his report, we know absolutely nothing about the place. It could be absolutely anywhere.

The Lonely Planet guide to Krasnoyarsk tells readers that the city has numerous museums, including the old Lenin museum that has “reinvented itself as a beautifully eclectic art venue that fuses elements of the original communist-era exhibitions with top-quality contemporary art and photography. An installation dedicated to Afghan and Chechen wars, mixing naïve art with photographic and personal belongings, is especially poignant.” Now that sounds interesting. It might also reveal something unexpected about how Russians approach painful episodes in their recent past. But, alas, we hear not a word about it, nor about anything else in Krasnoyarsk for that matter.

Anyone who’s been to Moscow in recent years will have seen enormous improvements in the local infrastructure. But what’s it like elsewhere? What’s the state of the roads in Krasnoyarsk? How’s the local economy doing? Is it like my hometown in Canada where the malls are full of shuttered shops, driven out of business by the Covid pandemic? Or is everything open and doing business? All that would be useful stuff to know. Alas, Rosenberg fails to provide it.

There’s so much information that journalists in Russia could be telling us about conditions in the country. Instead, they seem to be fixated on selling a story of impending doom, even though the story has been proven wrong time and time again. Come on, BBC. Surely you can do better than this.

BBC visits Krasnoyarsk, tells us nothing about Siberia & instead focuses on Putin, Lenin & a bear – is this the best it can do? — RT Russia & Former Soviet Union

^BTW, the BBC Moscow reporter Steve Rosenberg tried to give a unpleasant question to dangerous Mr. P. at the last year Q&A. However, he did not get a satisfactory (for him) answer - similarly like years before him the old John Simpson who was advised to asked about the "annexation" of Crimea.

These people should have known that the answers will not be that what their bosses in London wanted to hear. Anyway, they are free to ask, unlike there where only the questions issued in advance are accepted and the answers are read from teleprompter.

The Rosenberg's question last year was here recently shown, also the transcript...
https://teakdoor.com/world-news/1988...ml#post4201042 (Russias Navalny in coma in ICU after alleged poisoning)

EU Parliament mulls block on Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline & banning Russia from SWIFT system, despite leaders’ calls for dialogue

28 Apr, 2021 18:20

"A group of EU lawmakers have drafted a resolution that would impose new sanctions on Russia and scupper a Moscow-backed Baltic Sea pipeline, ignoring recent calls from the bloc’s top politicians for more constructive relations. The motion, put forward by representatives of some of the assembly’s largest political groupings, says that recent rows with Moscow over the buildup of troops on the border with Ukraine and the jailing of Russian opposition figure Alexey Navalny shows the need for tough action against the country. However, due to the nature of the EU system, even if adopted it is unlikely to come into effect.

The MEPs “insist that the EU should reduce its dependence on Russian energy,” while urging all member states, “therefore, to stop the completion of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.” The project, which is expected to be completed in the coming months, has been supported by the German government despite the US imposing sanctions on firms involved in its construction.

At the same time, the draft resolution condemns Moscow’s decision to deploy troops on the border with Ukraine, which Russian officials say was in response to increased activity of Kiev’s own army, as well as NATO forces. If such a buildup were to become what they term as an “invasion,” the lawmakers say that “the EU must make clear that the price for such a violation of international law and norms would be severe.”

Among the measures they put forward in response to the scenario is that “imports of oil and gas from Russia to the EU be immediately stopped.” At the same time, “Russia should be excluded from the SWIFT payment system, and all assets in the EU of oligarchs close to the Russian authorities and their families in the EU need to be frozen and their visas cancelled.”

Last week, Ukraine requested that Moscow lose the right to make use of the SWIFT international payment system, the most common mechanism supporting overseas transactions. Russia has previously claimed such a move would be an “act of war.” The country has said for a number of years that it is developing an alternative, and hinted China could join its domestic-made system.

However, two of Europe’s leading politicians have cautioned against further conflict with Russia in the past week. Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz told reporters that, while “the sanctions already imposed by the EU were the right thing to do,” it is now “important to focus on dialogue.” “Peace on our continent can only be achieved with Russia, not against it,” he said.

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas also bemoaned over the weekend the “very bad” state of relations between the EU and Russia. He added that dealing with countries one has differences with is the “essence of diplomacy.”

Although the proposals are due to be voted on by a plenary session of the parliament on Thursday, even if adopted in full, the motion would not be binding. Such a move would have to be signed off by the Council of the EU, made up of representatives from national governments. Given growing concern over the impact of hostile ties with Russia, it appears that the prospects of them adopting such a decision is not yet on the cards"

EU Parliament mulls block on Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline & banning Russia from SWIFT system, despite leaders’ calls for dialogue — RT Russia & Former Soviet UnionShould The LORD be "bovvered"?

Look into his eyes, look into his eyes ....

Originally Posted by OhOh

"A group of EU lawmakers have drafted a resolution that would impose new sanctions on Russia and scupper a Moscow-backed Baltic Sea pipeline, ignoring recent calls from the bloc’s top politicians for more constructive relations. The motion, put forward by representatives of some of the assembly’s largest political groupings, says that recent rows with Moscow over the buildup of troops on the border with Ukraine and the jailing of Russian opposition figure Alexey Navalny shows the need for tough action against the country.

RT accusation without pointing out who they are (no names here Klondyke) , that makes the text above a nothing-burger.

Originally Posted by OhOh

However, due to the nature of the EU system, even if adopted it is unlikely to come into effect.

Well then we won't see any more written about it..

Originally Posted by OhOh

two of Europe’s leading politicians have cautioned against further conflict with Russia

Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas

Names, RT publishes names! Different reporting.

Originally Posted by OhOh

to be voted on by a plenary session of the parliament on Thursday

The text, lengthy with many demands and calls all with conditions to be fulfilled, is available here:

Russia, the case of Alexei Navalny, the military build-up on Ukraine’s border and Russian attacks in the Czech Republic

Agenda - Thursday, 29 April 2021

Originally Posted by lom

Well then we won't see any more written about it..

I suggest the outcome will be touted by the winner. As either way it will be news on a topical subject.

It appears a vote on one, all or a combination of .... is due today.

after he's killed Navalny.

Isn't he dead yet? How dangerous is Vlad.

Originally Posted by lom

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas

Germany's Heiko Maas opposes tougher Russia sanctions

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas has said new sanctions would not help imprisoned Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny, and emphasized dialogue is necessary to improve strained ties between Berlin and Moscow.

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas on Sunday rejected calls for harsher sanctions against Russia over the Kremlin's treatment of opposition leader Alexei Navalny and the recent Russian military buildup on the Ukrainian border.

Maas characterized the current German-Russian relationship as "very bad" during an interview with public broadcaster ARD, but added it "doesn't have to stay that way."

He said the German government should engage in more dialogue with Moscow, and added it is the "essence of diplomacy" to talk with countries that have opposing viewpoints.

"This is especially true for Russia right now," Maas said.

At the same time, Maas said German sanctions against Russia over its 2014 annexation of Crimea will continue until there is a political solution.

Originally Posted by lom

Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz

Austria is cautious about the Belarus conflict
Opposition leader Swetlana Tichanowskaja promoted Austria's mediation role during her visit to Vienna.

Foreign Minister Alexander Schallenberg (ÖVP) spoke cautiously about Austria's mediating role after a meeting with the Belarusian opposition leader Svetlana Tichanowskaja. Austria talks to all sides. However, a dialogue presupposes “that both are ready to talk. At the moment you don't have the feeling that Lukashenko is ready, ”said Schallenberg on Wednesday in Vienna. The organization that is “perfect” for this is the OSCE.
Osterreich zeigt sich zuruckhaltend im Weissrussland-Konflikt | kurier.at

Originally Posted by Klondyke

Maas said German sanctions against Russia over its 2014 annexation of Crimea will continue until there is a political solution.

Which of course there isn't and won't be any time in the foreseeable future.

^He cannot show his side 100%...
That's the same as I mentioned few days ago: when Israel exceptionally criticized, it always has to be also mentioned that the other side is also no good...

The Germany and all Europe is punished by the (non-EU) sanctions as well...

Considering the level of tension between the nuclear powers, the topic deserves far more attention that it receives. In the US it is a difficult topic to address. The President of Russia can call for better relations with the US without being demonized by the Russian media as an American agent, but when President Trump called for better relations with Russia, the US presstitutes denounced Trump as a Russian agent and launched the Russiagate hoax. Knowledgeable American commentators who supported Trump’s call for better relations were labeled “Russian agents/dupes.”

My concern is that Washington’s hegemonic attitude prevents US acceptance of Russian sovereignty and that Putin’s low-key responses to insults and provocations result in his warnings not being taken sufficiently seriously and encourages more insults and provocations. Washington could go too far and provoke a major confrontation that Putin cannot overlook. The dangerous ingredient that could produce a conflict is Washington’s hegemonic arrogance. Conflict seems certain if Washington cannot escape from its unilateral attitude. The uni-polar era is over. Washington must accept this fact if war is to be avoided.
Can War With Russia Be Avoided?, by Paul Craig Roberts - The Unz Review


Indeed.

Originally Posted by sabang

Isn't he dead yet? How dangerous is Vlad.

No, I think Vlad was scared by the level of anger that was apparent, as most good dictators are.

Originally Posted by sabang

Considering the level of tension between the nuclear powers, the topic deserves far more attention that it receives. In the US it is a difficult topic to address. The President of Russia can call for better relations with the US without being demonized by the Russian media as an American agent, but when President Trump called for better relations with Russia, the US presstitutes denounced Trump as a Russian agent and launched the Russiagate hoax. Knowledgeable American commentators who supported Trump’s call for better relations were labeled “Russian agents/dupes.”

My concern is that Washington’s hegemonic attitude prevents US acceptance of Russian sovereignty and that Putin’s low-key responses to insults and provocations result in his warnings not being taken sufficiently seriously and encourages more insults and provocations. Washington could go too far and provoke a major confrontation that Putin cannot overlook. The dangerous ingredient that could produce a conflict is Washington’s hegemonic arrogance. Conflict seems certain if Washington cannot escape from its unilateral attitude. The uni-polar era is over. Washington must accept this fact if war is to be avoided.
Can War With Russia Be Avoided?, by Paul Craig Roberts - The Unz Review


Indeed.

Baldy orange cunto wasn't "improving relatioms with Russia" you utter dolt. He was bending over and taking it up the arse.

Let's get something straight. SWIFT is a clunky old analog piece of shit. There is nothing proprietary about it. It is just a network all countries agree to use if they are not at war with each other.

Banning Russia from SWIFT is like declaring unrestricted submarine warfare on Russia.