What is Russia Today All About?

[Montag]

I believe it is funded by the Russia government to be a voice for what? I certainly don't know... Certainly not what the U.S. State Department wants people to think, that's to be expected. They seem to talk about some deep political subjects, though? Why any government of the world would want people thinking this way I don't know.

Perhaps they are just interested in promoting anything "anti-American", "anti-West" they don't care if the views are too "tinfoil hatty" or what.

[semper occultus]

possibly an intellectual hang-over from Marxist ideology.

there is a striking congruence between orthodox eastern bloc marxist historians' view of say Nazism vs a "deep-political" western perspective

[Searcher08]

possibly an intellectual hang-over from Marxist ideology.

there is a striking congruence between orthodox eastern bloc marxist historians' view of say Nazism vs a "deep-political" western perspective

Could you say a bit more about that?

I remember being really shocked when I came across the WASP / Bankster funding of the Nazi machine as I was when finding out that there was similar funding for the Russian revolution, both documented in depth by Antony Sutton.

[semper occultus]

Ooh.. I wasn’t expecting to have to back that up with like evidence or anything !

No great profound or informed insight but broadly speaking I suppose I am talking about a compare & contrast in the post-war era between Western vs Eastern bloc “orthodox” history – that is to say the particular “official” narrative that is taken-up by the establishment as most supportive of their own paradigm or reality matrix

This basically worked as follows :

Western orthodoxy
theory : Totalitarianism
idea : Western liberal free-market capitalism vs [ Nazism + Communism ]

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

The political scientists Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski ( say no more ) were primarily responsible for expanding the usage of the term in university social science and professional research, reformulating it as a paradigm for the communist Soviet Union as well as fascist regimes.

Eastern bloc
Theory : Marxist theories of capital
Idea : [ Monopoly capitalist Industrial / Banking cartels + Nazism ] vs Progressive socialism !

You can get a flavour of it here :

German history in Marxist perspective: the East German approach By Andreas Dorpalen

basically when authors like Charles Higham started publishing stuff about the corporations as political actors in bed with the Nazis I don’t think most east German historians raised with their prevailing political weltanschauung would have found it much of a revelation.

[norton ash]

What is Russia Today All About?

Sorry, but the title reminds me way too much of the "Today is Moscow" news program on the SCTV "3CP1: Russian Television" episode.

Some other CCCP1 shows-- enjoy some late-Cold War comedy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btnIRlBidQc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Zm6HzN5 ... re=related

[Montag]

Perhaps it is that the KGB was so feared and powerful Russians are simply not are naive as Americans and many in the West (thus even though the Russian Gov. has set up Russia Today they don't necessarily fear deep political discussion). Anyone mentioning the CIA clearly must be mentally ill in America. I think the KGB is universally recognized as a manipulative entity that had it's hand in a great many things.

p.s. Also as long as no Russian intelligence operations are scrutinized and/or condemned maybe they really don't have anything to worry about. Maybe part of the "anti-West" thing that Russia Today is promoting is, to condemn the CIA, MI5, etc...

[bardobailey]

It's all about the ratings.

[8bitagent]

What is RT all about? It's the Alex Jones conspiratainment channel. I kind of get a kick out of it, in a The Onion sort of way. Because all the anchors are either fresh out of college American kids or British anchors; and most the segments have the anchors playing the "straight" man which is then the lead for whatever fringe/para-politic/conspiracy writer comes on. I'm not bagging on the channel at all, it's amusing that there is this mainstream cable provider news station which is essentially a counter news show that often has a lot of angles we discuss here on RI. It's amusing too, because its a Russian propaganda channel, but they do all they can to make it seem like its purely an American/British channel. But yeah, essentially Alex Jones and company have their own channel.

[Sweejak]

The Alex Jones Channel? Please, and Al Jazeera is Bin Laden's channel.

RT gets kudos for putting people on it's network that would never get on US MSM, it's a much needed corrective and it makes no secret that it exists for the US market in order to further Russia's viewpoint, which is also a much needed corrective for over 50 years of anti-Soviet propaganda that shifts into anti Russian propaganda seamlessly.

There are 2 RT's, RT and RT America. You'll find Jones, Madsen and Tarpley, Thom Hartmann, McGovern and many others frequently on RTA, but let's see who else is on the racier RTA, today my inbox has Dr. Jae-Jung Suh discussing the Kkorean torpedo false flag and Richard Dieter talking about the death penalty. Not exactly household names, and a story about a US Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen who wants to kick the Palestinian diplomats out of the US and interviews Adam Shapiro of the Free Gaza Movement about it. You US TV watchers, is there anything about that?

RT hosts some interesting stories that I don't think make it on the air, some are critical of things that happen in Russia, including analysis of the duopoly of Medvedev and Putin, Russia's failure to modernize, the efforts of trying to create civil society, meaning one where law is taken seriously, police corruption etc, but, IMO, they steer clear of direct attacks on the elites. Evgeny Khruschev has video log that is pretty interesting, given that it is from a a former Colonel who fought in Afghanistan. http://rt.com/About_Us/Blogs/friendly-f ... 07-26.html

Lavelle, whom many people can't stand, I like, he says:

There is a growing wave of commentary about the rise of new and competitive players in the global English-language media sphere. Traditional outlets in the US, UK and Canada are scrambling for market share like never before; they are scared, and with good reason.

The Russians, Chinese, French, the Emir of Qatar and even the Iranians are giving the native English speakers in the news industry a run for their money. Great - competition is good and healthy! Yet many in the US and the UK are calling the new kids on the block upstarts for challenging the status quo, being anti-American and being anti-Western in general.

Russia has been singled out more than others and RT television, my employer, has been harshly criticised for reporting that has been less than kind about America's domestic realities and foreign policy. This is unwarranted: RT and other new English-language outlets are merely providing the Anglosphere with new and different voices.

Since the end of World War II and particularly after the Cold War, the US has seen itself as the beacon of good in the world. This is the narrative Americans are taught early on, and it is reinforced incessantly.

Sadly, the vast majority of Americans get their news from US media only, especially domestic television. These outlets limit and control public debate and devote precious little time to foreign news. In fact, it is exceptional when an American media outlet does not mirror an editorial line established from above.
The charge that Russian media is anti-American is quite overblown. Russian English-language media, including RT, do indeed report stories rarely found in the US mainstream - and often from a viewpoint rarely found there as well. No one should be surprised by this. Why should the definition of free speech be determined by a Western capital?

The US badmouths the entire world when it suits its own purposes. In the American mainstream Israel has long been protected, Iraq was once the world's enemy, and now Iran is. Russia refuses to kowtow to western geopolitical and economic interests, so it is covered in the worst possible light. Meanwhile, American-sponsored autocrats and dictators are given a free pass.

For decades Washington and America's media establishment have dumbed down political debate at home - and expected the rest of the world to follow. When this does not happen, it is called anti-Americanism.

This is the standard hypocrisy of a country that habitually lectures others about media freedoms. While this isn't new, the fact that it is now drawing multi-viewpoint commentary in English is.

It is a pity when critique is only understood as criticism. America and the West generally must learn that their sense of humanity-saving exceptionalism is only a myth, and a very dangerous one. No peoples or countries have a monopoly on the truth.

This article was first published at http://www.mn.ru
http://rt.com/About_Us/Blogs/Untimely_T ... ?fullstory

So, is it propaganda? Sure, I guess, if you mean in the sense that it has an agenda, but I don't think so if you count lies and omissions as an integral part of propaganda and especially if one puts it in the context of what we see in the US and British media.

Radio Free Europe too was propaganda, but they were also an important stream of alternative and much needed news from over the wall as was the BBC during WWII.

For people who like to see Russia as the enemy, remember:
"The best thing about an enemy is that he tells the truth about you." -- Leo Franks

[Montag]

8bit, Sweejak,
I'm sorry Webster Tarpley, Wayne Madsen, present the Russian view? The Russian view is online btw, read the Moscow Times or Ria Novosti, their presentation is different than RT, and doesn't get into the deep political stuff.

When I asked this question, for some reason it brought to my mind when Chomsky was not allowed into Israel... His response to the guard who didn't let him, was that, "No government likes what I have to say." I've never really thought that Chomsky might be a disinfo person before that...

Yes Chomsky says he is an anarchist, and he wants the abolition of all governments, but I think the deep political perspective is even more threatening than the anarchist one to the governments of the world. I really don't see any government trying to promote people getting more savvy about the "behind the curtain" manipulations of this world. I'd think any government would wants it citizens (and even citizens of other countries) as in the dark on this as possible. It's to not let sleeping dogs lie, essentially.

[Sweejak]

8bit, Sweejak,
I'm sorry Webster Tarpley, Wayne Madsen, present the Russian view? The Russian view is online btw, read the Moscow Times or Ria Novosti, their presentation is different than RT, and doesn't get into the deep political stuff.

When I asked this question, for some reason it brought to my mind when Chomsky was not allowed into Israel... His response to the guard who didn't let him, was that, "No government likes what I have to say." I've never really thought that Chomsky might be a disinfo person before that...

Yes Chomsky says he is an anarchist, and he wants the abolition of all governments, but I think the deep political perspective is even more threatening than the anarchist one to the governments of the world. I really don't see any government trying to promote people getting more savvy about the "behind the curtain" manipulations of this world. I'd think any government would wants it citizens (and even citizens of other countries) as in the dark on this as possible. It's to not let sleeping dogs lie, essentially.

Hmmm, probably, Tarpley, Madsen et al, yes indeed, probably they do, and if nothing else they certainly don't buy the Cold War tripe that was fed to us. They were damn good on the Russia/Gerogia war too, as was RT. But the Russophobic Moscow Times? That's like reading Jamestown Foundation or something, but both are useful and the last time I read Moscow Times it seemed to have gotten better. Try Johnson's Russia List for a very good round up of stuff that one would usually have to pay a lot of money for, like Interfax, they have good translations too, sometimes even of radio broadcasts, and they have a very wide range of Russian press. Highly recommended. Johnson asks for a donation once a year and makes a strong effort to be unbiased in his selections, it's a must for Russia watchers IMO.

Chomsky says he's a socialist libertarian and wants government to justify itself before they do anything. HA! Might as well be an Anarchist!

I've got mixed feelings about what Russia's interests are or might be, I share your suspicion, but even if all governments are really just criminal enterprises I'd still want to have more gangs than only one New One World Gang. I think Russia's leadership is essentially nationalist and patriotic which would make it an enemy of the NWO.

I've said this before, but I want it known, I have Russian family ties and I have a soft spot in my heart for the Russian people and nation, it's going to make me more forgiving, hopefully not blind. But I'll never be a Russian, I'm too taken with another kind of gone America, it looks I'll never be an American either for that matter.

I've got a list of blogs and stuff about Russia that I follow. It's an .opml type file which you should be able to import into an RSS aggregator, PM me if you want it.

[8bitagent]

8bit, Sweejak,
I'm sorry Webster Tarpley, Wayne Madsen, present the Russian view? The Russian view is online btw, read the Moscow Times or Ria Novosti, their presentation is different than RT, and doesn't get into the deep political stuff.

When I asked this question, for some reason it brought to my mind when Chomsky was not allowed into Israel... His response to the guard who didn't let him, was that, "No government likes what I have to say." I've never really thought that Chomsky might be a disinfo person before that...

Yes Chomsky says he is an anarchist, and he wants the abolition of all governments, but I think the deep political perspective is even more threatening than the anarchist one to the governments of the world. I really don't see any government trying to promote people getting more savvy about the "behind the curtain" manipulations of this world. I'd think any government would wants it citizens (and even citizens of other countries) as in the dark on this as possible. It's to not let sleeping dogs lie, essentially.

I have a hard time supporting the Russian government, simply for the insane amount of evil they committed in Chechnya from 1999-2007, and the staged events that got them in there.
But I see RT as more of just an alternative media channel than anything promoting Russian politics.

The Alex Jones Channel? Please, and Al Jazeera is Bin Laden's channel.

RT gets kudos for putting people on it's network that would never get on US MSM, it's a much needed corrective and it makes no secret that it exists for the US market in order to further Russia's viewpoint, which is also a much needed corrective for over 50 years of anti-Soviet propaganda that shifts into anti Russian propaganda seamlessly.

There are 2 RT's, RT and RT America. You'll find Jones, Madsen and Tarpley, Thom Hartmann, McGovern and many others frequently on RTA, but let's see who else is on the racier RTA, today my inbox has Dr. Jae-Jung Suh discussing the Kkorean torpedo false flag and Richard Dieter talking about the death penalty. Not exactly household names, and a story about a US Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen who wants to kick the Palestinian diplomats out of the US and interviews Adam Shapiro of the Free Gaza Movement about it. You US TV watchers, is there anything about that?

RT hosts some interesting stories that I don't think make it on the air, some are critical of things that happen in Russia, including analysis of the duopoly of Medvedev and Putin, Russia's failure to modernize, the efforts of trying to create civil society, meaning one where law is taken seriously, police corruption etc, but, IMO, they steer clear of direct attacks on the elites. Evgeny Khruschev has video log that is pretty interesting, given that it is from a a former Colonel who fought in Afghanistan. http://rt.com/About_Us/Blogs/friendly-f ... 07-26.html

My overall point is that it's a welcomed breath of fresh air amongst Fox, CNN, MSNBC and other mediatainment juggernauts. RT certainly is not boring, and they certainly as I mentioned provide coverage and angles on current events which we discuss here(or have mulling about in our minds) When I call it the Alex Jones channel, it's more of the somewhat funny surprise of seeing the people usually known more in conspiracy/para-politic corners(Tarpley, Madsen, We Are Change, etc) as regular guests.

[Sweejak]

Alex Jones has become a reality distortion field and the focus, somewhat correctly, of what is wrong with alt media. He deserves a good slagging but really, it's become knee-jerk and obsessive.
Yeah RTA as alt media, I can see that, and RT as a little more in depth. No question they are both for American audiences. So is Press TV. I like them all Press TV, Al Jazeera, probably the best, and RT.

I have a hard time supporting the Russian government, simply for the insane amount of evil they committed in Chechnya from 1999-2007, and the staged events that got them in there.

Let us recall that the apartment bombings took place under Yeltsin, and the invasion of Dagestan by Chechnya too. PD Scott has some interesting work on that which naturally points to drug gangs, and that naturally points to Intelligence orgs too. I think the apt bombings were a psi-op, but I'm not sure it was Putin or even normal FSB. Is Putin capable of killing? LOL of course, I think so. I think the ferry "Estonia" was sunk by Russian security forces to stop the theft of Russian tech. (I also think the Kursk was sunk by Western forces, probably on purpose). In other words, I think Chris Bollyn is essentially correct about the "Estonia". Russia and Chechnya go way back, but to be honest I've forgotten a lot of the historical details, but don't you wonder why after Chechnya won it's first war with Russia that in the second war Russia's former Chechen enemies fought WITH Russia?

But my main problem with your statement is that it would be like saying "I can never, ever support the US government because of what it did in Hawaii", or for what it did to Texas. I mean that statements like that have some real weight, they do, but maybe they have a kind of statute of limitations too, not so much in obtaining justice, most especially it it is ongoing, but in giving following governments a fair shot, or more pragmatically, by looking at what other position they play in matters of global war and peace.

As an aside, here is what some analysts, Russian, American, and others are saying about Medvedev and Iran. Look ya'll, I'm Sweejakassange! Ahahaha.
Thread starts at bottom, names have been changed.

From: Andy
Subject: RE: Re: Russian Policies in Iran

Gorby did not have a VVP as a straight jacket….

Best regards,

****************************************

Begin forwarded message:
From:
Subject: Re: Re: Russian Policies in Iran

Medvedev is a lethal dummy. Words have meanings as we all know. A pompous air head who runs his mouth spewing like a parrot whatever Obama tells him to repeat spells possible unintended consequences, like an attack on Iran! Its in RF neighborhood the dumb fool -- "Intentional" U.S. spillover forty five miles across and onto RF territory or via U.S.sphere of influence RF ex Soviet border states?. -- Recall U.S, "W" Your are either with us or against us.".got a number of so-called allies to sign up to assist the U.S. "invasion" of Iraq that "W" knew had 'no' WMD, Navy, Air Force, subs,carriers, tanks, etc. you get the picture. U.S."Shock and Awe" was like shooting fish in a barrel. U.S got the chance to "live test" all their new lethal war toys along with the old. -- Sandra

****************************************

Begin forwarded message:

From: Tony
Subject: Re: Russian Policies in Iran

The S-300 isn't a silver bullet by itself but it would significantly
improve the already existing Iranian AD network, which BTW is fairly
good. They've got a number of Russian & Chinese origin SAM systems on top of their Western systems (inherited from the Shah). All of them have gone through various domestic upgrades. A recent assesment of Iranian Air-Defense below:

Reassessing Iran's Air Defences

Ongoing disagreements between the Western alliance and Iran over that nation's illicit nuclear materials program have fuelled considerable speculation in recent weeks over the possibility of Israeli or US led air strikes against Iran's nuclear industrial base. Should this outcome arise, attacking aircraft will have to overcome a disparate but rapidly modernising Integrated Air Defence System (IADS)....

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-170710-1.html

In regards to Israel going in alone, I go with the view that it
doesn't have the capability for a sustained air campaign (which is
what would be needed) over such distances. It would take virtually the entire Israeli Airforce to mount a large scale operation (not just
bombers but tankers, support aircraft, fighter cover and so on). I
don't think they could keep up that sort of tempo for more than a
couple of days. Everybody forgets that the Iranians have around
150-200 fighter aircraft....not as technologically advanced as the
Israeli ones but they still have to be dealt with on top of the ground
based SAMs.

****************************************

Begin forwarded message:

From: Alex
Subject: Re: Russian Policies in Iran

Tony

I agree. Looking at the notorious S-300 deal, one would think it is
the only factor deterring Israel. Eg. this (or many other sources)
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=48786 says that the sale is not forbidden (2) S-300 can be replaced with something else. While we owe many problems to Gorbachov, he was, probably, a good man (i.e. not only a businessman in the government position - he just was not exactly the one for the job he tried to do. But Medevedev - I don't know. But I remember time when nobody believed Putin was worth anything....

The Iranians will need tests to develop meaningful nuclear
capabilities & that alone may trigger bad reaction. I read somewhere
they participated in N Korean tests, though.

Cheers

Igor,

****************************************
Begin forwarded message:

From: "Tony
Subject: Re: Russian Policies in Iran

One more thing....

IMO, Medvedev is another Gorbachev....in other words a DUMMY. So his comments re: Iran (and a host of other topics) should be taken in that context.

****************************************
Begin forwarded message:

From: "Tony
Subject: Re: Russian Policies in Iran

Igor,

China also voted for the sanctions. I think Russia and China decided
that all that could be done with a difficult situation was to support
a set of watered down sanctions. But Russia has gone further by
refusing to honour the S-300 deal which is a mistake and for which it will pay a significant price down the line (financial and political).
If you've noticed, Iran is criticising Russia loudly but hasn't said
anything against China.

An attack on Iran won't be a walk in the park which is why nothing has happened so far. Israel probably can't do it by itself for practical
reasons (distance, not enough aircraft for a sustainable attack and
Iranian reprisals). And the US wouldn't want to start another war with the Iraq and Afghanistan operations ongoing.

Personally I think Iran will develop the capability to quickly produce
nuclear weapons but won't actually produce any. That way they will
achieve most of their political goals but won't cross any red lines.
There are credible reports that Iran was involved in the North Korean tests and already has the necessary data without itself conducting a test.

****************************************
Begin forwarded message:

From: Alex
Subject: Re: Russian Policies in Iran

..there was an interesting detail in the Falgenhauer's text:

"The cancelling of the S-300 sale <..> **has financially hurt** influential officials and caused anger.

Friedmanists' wildest dream - a (in this case - the Russian)
Government as a nuclear-armed **private** business enterprise...
(the state police and courts it seems are already running in this
mode)

Some time ago I posted easy-going general speculations on other (than private business interests) ways the Russian government could be manipulated to do what US wants:

http://unpublished-notes.blogspot.com/2 ... -sits.html

Cheers

Igor,
****************************************

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Sergei,
Subject: Re: Russian Policies in Iran

Cassandra, it's tough for Russia to maintain any resemblance of
independent foreign policy since Russian elites keep their kids and
money in Western banks.

Sergei

****************************************

From: Cassandra
Subject: Re: Russian Policies in Iran

@SJ

Unfortunately your url does not directly contradict stuff i know:

(1) The russians have plans to sell petroleum products to iran. There
is no obligation or hard intention to do so. On the contrary consider
the behaviour of

Lukoil: They pulled out.


(2) Medvedev continues to waffle.: His latest statetement on Iran was
completely uncalled for and gratuitous. Meantime RT tried to dispell
the effects by haveing other spokesmen make statements in the opposite
direction.


@Andy

(i) Some days ago i read that the american and israeli military were
in Azerbaijan.: Cosidering various airfields as to suitability of
stationing of planes for the campaign.

(ii) The PR dissimulation campaign is in full swing. Consider:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LG03Ak01.html or

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LG01Ak01.html

If you google both of these fellows you will find that they are
probably paid rumor mongers --- dissimulators.

It looks as if the most likely path of attack will come through the
Caucasus. Can russia countenance an attakck from Azerbaijan?


****************************************

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Andy
Subject: RE: Russian Policies in Iran

There is NO CHANCE IN THE WORLD that Russia would attack Iran in the present
domestic situation.

Best regards,


****************************************

Begin forwarded message:


Subject: Re: Russian Policies in Iran

Nothing new in this article except except a defense analyst impression from connecting "dots of events." The BBC and ilk are known for "floating" untruths and half-truths on behalf of the US. Does anyone remember UK PM blatantly false Iraqi intelligence given to former US President George W. Bush?. The new PM has shown [first US-Obama visit] he won't be bullied by Obama, US Congressional BP/Libya investigation "invitation" US press, etc. The new PM made clear during the US press conference sanding next to Obama they needed to ask Libya and Scotland regarding the questions they were asking him and not to confuse BP and the two events. He literally set the tone! No US-lapdog [hopefully]. Sandra

This totally dispelles the BBC article
Read the entire article at: http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russia. ... ns.999.htm.

had trouble attaching the "active" link may or may not work.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russia_ ... s_999.html

****************************************

Begin forwarded message:

From: Cassandra
Subject: Russian Policies in Iran


Came across this piece by Falgehauer On Iran:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10684110


Usually i don't pay much attention to what this fellow says.

But given Medvedev's latest comments i am beginning to ask myself to what extend the present admin would countenance an attack on Iran. Who are the people in the israeli lobby in Moscow? The Iranian? This is not simply a weapons story. Is Hahn's latest post on a coup from above meanungful? Ideas/

[Joe Hillshoist]

Cheers sweejak.

Does anyone seriously think the US is actually up to attacking Iran? At least without nuking them?

(or Israel for that matter?)

Cos honestly, I don't.

[Montag]

I have a hard time supporting the Russian government, simply for the insane amount of evil they committed in Chechnya from 1999-2007, and the staged events that got them in there.
But I see RT as more of just an alternative media channel than anything promoting Russian politics.

But 8bit, Russia Today is funded by the Russian government... From Wikipedia: RT is financed by the Russian state budget and according to a variety of western sources such as Der Spiegel and “Reporters without borders,” the channel presents pro-Kremlin "propaganda".[5][6] Russia Today staff have nonetheless claimed that their coverage is fair and balanced.

I'm not a believer that things aren't funded for results (like U.S. politicians, lol). Well, unless someone can explain it to me, I will not understand the deep political coverage on RT... And I'm not sure the relationship of Ria Novosti to Russia Today, Russia Today seems to be owned by Novosti TV (anyway they are both funded by the Russian government, but Ria Novosti is more what I'd expect Russia Today to be like, I think most would agree with me they are different).

p.s. Sweejak, was right about the Moscow Times, it is more critical of Russia than I thought. I thought Pravda.ru, Russia Today, Ria Novosti, and the Moscow Times were basically all the same (probably foolish of me since I didn't know if they had the same ownership or not).