Do you smell that?

They also claim they didn't interfere in America's election. Trump's pretty much the only person here dumb enough to believe them.

@HomelyAmerican

And he uses the same argument whether it's regarding Putin meddling in your elections or Roy Moore meddling with children - "He says he didn't do it!".

As if people denying wrongdoings where automatically supposed to be believed, regardless of any other evidence against them.
He speaks and thinks like a small child.

@Nisse_Hult I thought he was a small child

@tigercub123

Well he is - mentally.
But physically he's grown of course.

So I'd say "man-child" is the correct term if you want to be precise:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/man-child

@Nisse_Hult yeah I think that fits

@Nisse_Hult the language and speech patterns Trump uses are at a lower grade/education level than other politicians. What has occured with Trumps speech patterns over the years is similar to what happened with Ronald Reagan's in the late 1980s and early 90s. Perhaps is it a link to early Alzheimers or dementia. If you liaten to Trump talk from 20 or 30 years ago, he is much more eloquent (granted, not really saying much) than he is nowadays.

@txag70

I knew his speech is on a lower grade level then any other modern president, beating out GW Bush who held the old record for least advanced speech. But I didn't know it had been deteriorating over time - but that's not surprising really.

Because Trump is also the oldest person elected president ever.
The previous record was held by Reagan - and as you allude to Reagan began developing Alzheimer's in office.

So it's perfectly possible Trump's mind is actually deteriorating not only morally but also physically.

As everything else about him no one really knows, because like he has refused to release his tax return, he has neither released any serious medical report.

The one he released during the campaign read like it was written by himself - which it very well might have been, and then just signed by his personal doctor.
It, among other insane things, said all his test results were positive (which is actually very bad, if you know how medical tests work) and other things no serious physician would ever put in a medical report.

And his doctor then was that guy that looks like a stoner - not really reassuring.

@Nisse_Hult "Trump's mind is deteriorating morally"

Truth be told, he was a scumbag in the 80s too. He has always been completely without morals save for looking out for himself only. The dude is a caricature of asshole billionaires everywhere.

I am no conspiracy theorist or a medical expert, but dementia or Alzheimer's is plausible... that's for sure.

@txag70

Yes he was, but at least he wasn't publicly racist back then.

Maybe he's been a racist all his life even though some people of at least some credibility have denied that.

But whether he actually is a racist or not isn't actually the point. The point is that as a politician he's deliberately been stoking racist sentiment to attract voters.
And that's a moral deterioration from before.
And it's actually even worse if he's not a racist himself, as then he's also lying to his racist supports only to get their support.

"The dude is a caricature of asshole billionaires everywhere."

Yep - you couldn't explain him better in a single sentence to anyone who's never seen or heard from him then that.

@Nisse_Hult I am afraid he most likely got the racism from his father Fred, and it has been there since the 1970s. You are right in that it really isn't the point though.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/17/central-park-five-donald-trump-jogger-rape-case-new-york
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/27/hillary-clinton/true-hillary-clinton-says-federal-government-sued-/

@txag70

I knew about the "Central Park Five"-story and the housing discrimination - but I'm not willing to claim that's proof positive he's a racist.

Because Trump is so messed up in other ways, he's not simple to diagnose.

Racists have a world view where one group of people are superior to others because of their ethnic origins, while in Trump's mind he's superior to EVERYONE else, simply because he is.

He knows more the any general about ISIS, he's the greatest businessman ever, he's even invented several common English words and expression - all in his own mind.

He's simply superior to any other person - completely regardless of ethnicity or education or anything else.

So is a person like him that sometimes spout racist views actually a racist - or is he operating on such an altered mental plane to most other people, that it actually becomes misleading to define him as a racist?

But he's certainly willing to use racism as a tool to get what he wants - which is the real question here.

People have already died because of the racial hatred he's ginned up - and he's sure as hell responsible for that, no matter if he's actually a racist himself or not.

@Nisse_Hult That's true. Above all else, he is a narcissist first.

'@txag70' https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/the-idiolect-of-donald-trump/
http://www.psypost.org/2017/08/psychological-analysis-donald-trumps-speech-patterns-shows-triumphed-gop-rivals-49511
https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2016/01/putting-donald-trump-s-speaking-style-under-microscope

Now with that in mind take a look at this: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Trump_Nieto_transcript

Dementia would have affected memory, motor and speech functions, not vocabulary alone.

@comrade_Comrade I mean I see his public speaking technique. The man doesn't complete his sentences. He rambles. Honestly, he reminds me of the way Sarah Palin talks.

I think dementia covers a broad enough range of diseases that it is plausible that there are forms in which it does not have affect on motor functions. His speaking from decades past is much clearer. He also contradicts himself on a regular basis. Granted, many politicians do that, but he never admits he does. That might indicate a lack of memory on something previously said.

I do not know if it is the case that there is dementia or Alzheimers at work here, but the speech patterns of Trump mirror the speech Patterns of Ronald Reagan in the later years.

'@txag70' rambling and incomplete sentences are as much of technique as gestures and positioning for the cameras. Most of public speeches are 95% chaff anyway, it's just that most politicians prefer to snappy delivery of banalities and vague words. Trump breaks away with that image and instead opts for frequent digressions and referrals to supposedly common knowledge. That's actually something that Khrushchev remembered for, by the way.
Check out that text of phone call. He holds to the point, more conservative with words and doesn't derail as often as in public. Even if he had a set of cue cards ready, some of his best rambling in public is done in front of teleprompters.

Dementia is a result of organic brain damage, one way or another. Unless it was some sort of highly localized physical trauma, I don't think it could only affect vocabulary and even memory. Trump contradicting himself is not surprising, since he doesn't have that many positions that are firmly set.
He can afford to flip-flop on almost anything and not give a damn.

Actually, I've looked through a couple of Reagan's speeches in 92 and 93. Once you know of his later diagnosis, symptoms are easy to spot - frequent stops, obviously searching for words in the middle of sentence and much weaker voice. Meanwhile, Trump doesn't seem to have such issue, plus he seems to be good with names, coming up with random facts and one-liners. Actually, I bet that most of the Trump's comebacks are prewritten and memorized, otherwise he'd have to be a comedic genius.

If this is some kind of brain damage, at least one of my former bosses would pay to have some of it.

@HomelyAmerican Even if we interfered in the elections, where the evidence is by the way, what is wrong with it? You Americans often do this by different methods, and we, Russians, also want to try it.
Eto veselo!

@IditeNaH Messing with eachothers elections is something the big guys have done forever and it's not considered wrong unless you get caught doing it.

@Rogers

Well actually no, not really.
The "big guys" have messed with smaller countries elections yes, and even done worse.

But actually trying to interfere in the election of a major member of NATO or the old Warsaw pact?
No - that was considered way to risky during the Cold War and since there have been no need too.

But Putin is an old KGB officer and this is the kind of thing that some in the KGB would have wished they could have done back then - because this kind of covert action is KGB's wet dream.
But it's also extremely risky as it can very easily backfire if you get caught doing it - and that's why these kind of actions have always been blocked against major nations before.
Because no country is run entirely by it's intelligence agency, but there are other voices too - cautioning against doing stuff like this precisely because of the high risk.

But now, with Putin in total control, it's practically like the old KGB is running Russia - that's why this happened now.

@IditeNaH

The detailed evidence is classified, as showing exactly how western intelligence agencies can trace this back to Russia would tell the Russian intelligence agencies how to cover their tracks better the next time - so obviously you can't release those details.

But it's the joint conclusion of all US intelligence agencies that the Russians did interfere in the election - and that they did so in an attempt to get Trump elected.

They have briefed the political leadership in Congress (that have the security clearance to see the actual evidence) and they all accept this conclusion - Democrats and Republicans alike.
They've also released a public assessment with the general information they feel can be publicly disclosed - I've added a link to that at the bottom of this post.

Other western intelligence agencies have also corroborated these rapports with their own studies of both the US election in 2016 and other elections in Europe since.

So yes - the Russian state undoubtedly was behind this.

And the problem is that it's incredibly reckless behavior by Putin.
When Trumps presidency goes down in flames and all the contacts the people around him had with Russians are put into full context - how do you think that will influence US-Russian relations in the future?
Do you think there is ever any chance the West will lift it's economic sanctions on Russia when the Russian state wages a constant dirty war on Western democracies?

Congress - controlled by Republicans as it still is - has actually already passed a law banning Trump from being able to universally order the sanctions on Russia lifted, so even his own party doesn't trust him on Russia.

It may play into Putin's hands to have an external enemy to point to, to shore up his support at home - but this policy is certainly not good for the Russian people who see the economy of their nation suffer because of it.

The Republicans have historically been the most hawkish against Russia in the US.
Now Putin, by his actions, have managed to make the Democrats really suspicious of all things Russian as well, and as soon as Trump falls the Republicans will quickly revert back to their traditional hawkishness towards Russia - probably even more so, just to prove that they are no longer following Trump's cowing to Russia.

So how can any of this be in the best interest of the Russian people? The answer is it can't and it won't.

We can joke about it sure - but as always it's ordinary people who will be forced to pay the price when their leaders fuck up, and unfortunately now the Russian people will be paying for this as long as Putin is still in charge.

Article on the declassified joint assessment of the US intelligence agencies:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/06/vladimir-putin-us-election-interference-report-donald-trump

The declassified assessment itself:
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

@HomelyAmerican
And you claim you haven't interfered in elections of 1996. Touche?

@Ninian

That comparison is actually very unfair. The US or the west did nothing in 1996 like what Putin did in the US in 2016 and have since later tried to do in several European nations.

Russia in 1996 had only held one democratic Presidential election ever in it's history - which Yeltsin had won with a huge margin in June of 1991.
After that Yeltsin became world famously for standing up to a military coup of old Communist hardliners against Gorbachev in August of 1991 (that's when he climbed a tank and spoke to the people, urging them to resist the military).

Gorbachev's authority as Soviet leader was destroyed and popular Russian support instead flocked to Yeltsin.
In November 1991 Yeltsin banned Communist party activity in Russia and in December he met with representatives from Ukraine and Belarus and they jointly announced the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States in it's place - thus robbing Gorbachev of his remaining power base.

Now none of this was in accordance with Soviet law of course - but revolutions never are conducted according to the law, and what happened that year was a political revolution - and one supported by the vast majority of Russians who where fed up with the Communist one-party state.

Then followed the economic crash course in privatization that made life very hard for many ordinary Russians - and made the oligarchs around Yeltsin immensely rich by them being allowed to buy state property for next to nothing.

Now that was of course not fair to the Russian people at all - but unfortunately Russia had little to no democratic institutions that could defend the nation from being robbed like that.

So in 1996, when the next election rolled around many Russians where understandably disappointed in the promises of life after the Communists and wanted change.
The problem was that as a fledgling democracy the only real opposition that had the network and the resources to organize politically where the old Communists - and the thought of them retaking power rightly scared the west.

These where the same people that had supported dictatorship for 70 years and who had at least silently accepted the coup of hardliners trying to stop Gorbachev's policies of Glasnost and Perestroika - there was a fear that if they won that second democratic election ever in Russia, that could be the last and everything would go back to the dark old days of the Politburo and the Communist one-party state again.

So in that situation US president Bill Clinton offered Yeltsin some of his own political advisers help in crafting a modern political campaign to improve his chances in the election.
Russia had basically no experience organizing political elections as there hadn't been democratic elections before the one in 1991 so what the Americans could offer was expertise in how to craft a message that attracted voters, how to make effective TV adds and that kind of thing.
The US and the west also helped the Russian government with loans so wages could be paid to state workers for the first time in months - all to help improve Yeltsin's chances by lowering public discontent about the standard of living.

You could argue this was "interference" in the Russian election - but it's also a fact it helped the Russian people who hadn't been paid in months, and it was done to help stabilize Russia as a democracy so it didn't slide back into a Communist dictatorship.
And the help that was given Yeltsin and his campaign specifically was basic political campaign consulting that is common and legal in any democracy. And I don't think it was against Russian law at the time either, as Russia had little to no laws regarding political campaigning then - as democratic elections was all new to the Russian society.

Then, on top of that, and not related to what the west did to help Yeltsin and the Russian economy under him, he or the oligarchs around him may have engaged in much more shady things to help Yeltsin get elected - there are rumors about such things, but no proof.

And finally no one really knows if any of this made a decisive difference in the outcome of the election - and we certainly don't know what would have happened if the Communist had come back into power in 1996. Would Russia have reverted back to a one-party dictatorship again or would the Communists have kept democracy alive? No one can know for sure now.

But either way - and this is the interesting point:

Putin directly benefited from all this, as he was Yeltsin's right-hand man and later became his chosen successor.
Had Yeltsin lost the 1996 election, Putin might never have come to power at all.
So for him and his supporters to now push this talk about the Americans meddling in the Russian election in 1996 as something terrible is extremely hypocritical.

It might serve his interests now to paint the west as an enemy to Russia - but in reality the west's aim was to support the democratic principle and there is actually no greater beneficiary in Russia today then Putin, from the help the west gave Yeltsin.

Also, Putin and his handyman Medvedev has used these claims before to basically make the case that since Yeltsin (in their claims) stole the election in 1996, that makes it perfectly OK for them to steal elections now.
Which is obviously not what the west actually did at all. The west wanted Russia to develop into a stable democracy and Yeltsin who had stood up to the military coup in 1991 seemed like the best guarantee of that development, compared to the Communists who had stood silently by and hoped it succeed.

And comparing then and now, Putin can certainly not argue his meddling in western democracies today in any way, shape or form is to help democracy or to lower discontent.
Quite opposite, it's all about trying to sow discontent, create internal conflicts and weaken democracy.
Because Putin is of course no democrat at heart - he's an authoritarian criminal who's robbed the Russian people of billions, and he'll do anything to retain his power and his stolen wealth.

A source of interest on this:
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2107565,00.html

EDIT: The link above is correct, but apparantly this site can't deal with the commas in the URL, so anyone wanting to following the link has to copy-paste it to another window manually and open it there.
That works in Firefox 57.0 for me anyway.

@Nisse_Hult
So, I see you know the history. Respectful trait.

Then, there is no denial Clinton supported Eltzin. Known, proven, clear and open.

But claims of US intelligence agencies about "russian meddling", I point to you, can be fabricated. Majority of information is classified, rest looks practically weak, if we take out the confidence and trust people have towards organisations of one single country saying same thing. Organisations made for espionage, investigation, and defending interests of state that owns them, not always in a just and honest ways. So, why am I supposed to trust CIA, or FBI? Organisations labelling my country and people as "enemy" and provoking rest of their country to take hostile actions against mine?


If we speak in serious manner - scandal around "russian meddling" is getting constantly inflated, and used as leverage to put pressure on specific politicians and replace them, to instigate additional economic and political sanctions against individuals AND enterprises of my country, including corporations, banks, and infrastructure services - all things important for healthy economy. It allows to make accusations towards few of our enterpises active on international market, thus cutting our economic ties with rest of the world and possibilities of our economy recovering from crisis we are in since early 2014.

That scandal gave USA opportunity to revive image of external enemy, and to excuse constant political agression and supression of my country. You claim that this goes along with interest of Putin... One man. One politician, even if influential. He is not all-powerful, and he has his restrictions. Behind him is a giant "United Russia" political party, full of people with their own interests. People of all ages, people who certainly do not plan retiring any time soon, people who hardly fond of idea of open and direct confrontation with any other influential country. And you assume that all that giant system of bureaucrats has nothing to do but to "sow discontent" and "weaken democracy".

This is a treatment of a "boogieman", no sane politician would be deliberately trying to undermine image of democracy. And "authoritarian criminal" who, trust you me, stole his portion of statebudget, is still depending on democracy. Depending on good international relationships, and on satisfaction of political party backing him up. This is not 2004, Putin is not a some sort of rising political superstar. From how things going so far it seems he will not be even participating in elections next year...

So I highly doubt this discontent comes from Putin and his administration. I highly doubt that people's distrust towards how democracy works comes from "an evil plot of evil authoritarians". Every country has corrupted politicians, every country has those who are actually ready to go for a crime to save their priviliged places in state administration. In every country there can be always found overlooked or opressed minority, being it ethnic or social. In every country happen unfair, unjust things. Issued unfair laws, or made inefficient decidions.

This is how democracy works - people grow discontent with things, and they express this discontent. They *tell* when they do not like something, for one or other reason, and they have to be heard. When they are ignored or repressed - they usually start taking various actions - changing their votes, gathering rallies, even rioting. It happens in healthy democracy, it is normal. It is a sign of politicians being not good enough, putting not enough effort in their work, not fulfilling their electoral promises and comitting acts of corruption. And it is a sign of people not being passive towards that.

And when that happens - competing politicians use such issues to gain popularity and get into office, if they can. So trust me - all the problems of so called "western" countries are coming from them selves. Inefficient policies, wrong decidions, disappointing outcomes - all do happen, and you do not need a "big evil empire" for people to be angry about that. Otherwise Eltzin would've stood on that tank alone, making a speech to an empty street.

@Ninian

"But claims of US intelligence agencies about "russian meddling", I point to you, can be fabricated. Majority of information is classified, rest looks practically weak, if we take out the confidence and trust people have towards organisations of one single country saying same thing."

No, not "one single country". As I said, other western intelligence agencies have reported the same pattern of Russian attempts at interfering in their elections as well.

"Organisations made for espionage, investigation, and defending interests of state that owns them, not always in a just and honest ways. So, why am I supposed to trust CIA, or FBI? Organisations labelling my country and people as "enemy" and provoking rest of their country to take hostile actions against mine?"

Because they have no reason what so ever to lie.
The west won the Cold War - the Soviet Union lost.
I know that might hurt some Russians to admit, but that's the simple fact. The Soviet Union collapsed and lost all serious ability to threaten the west.
IF western intelligence agencies and military had felt the need to keep Russia around as a "bogey man", as a dangerous enemy, they would have done so a decade ago - but they didn't.
And the west has never labeled the Russian people as our enemy - we've had problems with your leaders and their actions, and we still have.

Instead terrorism has taken over as the major threat to the west - in large part helped by Bush's war in Afghanistan and Iraq of course.
Russia haven't been viewed as a threatening enemy for a decade in the west - believe me - and no one have needed you as an enemy either, as there have been other threats to deal with.

"If we speak in serious manner - scandal around "russian meddling" is getting constantly inflated, and used as leverage to put pressure on specific politicians and replace them, to instigate additional economic and political sanctions against individuals AND enterprises of my country, including corporations, banks, and infrastructure services - all things important for healthy economy. It allows to make accusations towards few of our enterpises active on international market, thus cutting our economic ties with rest of the world and possibilities of our economy recovering from crisis we are in since early 2014."

When Russia invades it's neighboring nations, that's not "inflating" anything.

The simple truth is Putin fucked up when he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine.
He thought the west would just accept that like we did with Georgia. But he didn't understand the difference in attacking west. Most Europeans might not care much about Georgia and hardly knows where it is - but we do know where Crimea and the Ukraine is, and we know it neighbors countries in the EU.

So that was a bridge too far.

Especially when Putin first claims no knowledge of the army of "little green men" that invaded - and then months later is having his photo taken awarding medals to Russian soldiers for the successful invasion of the Crimea.
He's publicly flipping the whole world of because he want to look like a big man at home - not a smart move if you want to keep diplomatic relations good.

And talking about having to invade Crimea to "protect ethnic Russians" is EXACTLY what Hitler did when he invaded Czechoslovakia and then Poland to "protect ethnic Germans" in 1939 - and Europe can't let that stand.

There are "ethnic Russians" in all the Baltic states and Poland as well, so accepting that kind of rational is inviting WWIII.

So Russia was hit with general economic sanctions - because of Putins invasions. Cause and effect - very simple.

But what really bothers Putin is the specific economic sanctions targeted against him personally and a small group of people around him - the so called Magnitsky Act.
This is named after a Russian lawyer that was murdered in Russian jail after he uncovered evidence of massive corruption and tax fraud among friends of Putin.
The act punishes those individuals thought to be responsible for and benefiting from his murder - and is a list of people close to Putin.

It freezes their personal wealth in foreign countries which is a terrible blow to Putin and the group around him as they've stolen billions from the Russian people and stashed it abroad for the future - and now all that wealth is untouchable to them.

Putins main objective is to get THAT sanction repealed. He's far less worried about what happens to the Russian people then what happens to his and his friends wealth abroad.

I don't know if you have any free media left in Russia by now, but if you've heard about all the meetings Trumps people had with different Russians before and since the election ALL the Russians ever wanted to talk about was rescinding the Magnitsky Act - or "adoptions" as it's know in their speech.
That's because Putins response to the Magnitsky Act was to ban the adoption of Russian children to the US. Adoptions really has no connection what so ever to any of this of course - it was just one of the few ways Putin could hit back at the US.
So anyway, whenever you hear Trump or his people talked about "adoptions" with Russians - it's always actually about Putins burning wish to see the Magnitsky Act lifted.

"That scandal gave USA opportunity to revive image of external enemy, and to excuse constant political agression and supression of my country. You claim that this goes along with interest of Putin... One man. One politician, even if influential. He is not all-powerful, and he has his restrictions. Behind him is a giant "United Russia" political party, full of people with their own interests. People of all ages, people who certainly do not plan retiring any time soon, people who hardly fond of idea of open and direct confrontation with any other influential country. And you assume that all that giant system of bureaucrats has nothing to do but to "sow discontent" and "weaken democracy"."

Putin is the de facto dictator of Russia. I guess your state run media don't tell you that - but that's the fact.
You could easily see that in the strange dance when he a Mevedev traded places for a few years only for Putin to come back as president. That was all done for Putin to abide by the letter of the formal law as he then couldn't officially be reelected as president. But regardless if he had the title of president or prime minister, it was always he who was actually in charge.

You can forget about every one in "United Russia" and even Medvedev - none of these other people hold any real power compared to Putin.

"This is a treatment of a "boogieman", no sane politician would be deliberately trying to undermine image of democracy. And "authoritarian criminal" who, trust you me, stole his portion of statebudget, is still depending on democracy. Depending on good international relationships, and on satisfaction of political party backing him up. This is not 2004, Putin is not a some sort of rising political superstar. From how things going so far it seems he will not be even participating in elections next year..."

It was the entire mission of the KGB to undermine the very concept of democracy, as that was seen as both a threat to the Soviet Union and a strength to the west. And Putin is of course an old KGB officer.
The KGB employed the exact same overarching tactic for decades against the west - the entire point was to try to paint democracy not as strong, but as filled with conflict and internal tensions in contrast to the image the Soviet Union wanted to portray of itself as monolithic and in total control with everyone happily marching in the same direction towards the promised happy utopian future.
Of course none of that was true. The Soviet Union was rife with internal division but it was dealt with not by open debate but firing squad or the Gulags.

"So I highly doubt this discontent comes from Putin and his administration. I highly doubt that people's distrust towards how democracy works comes from "an evil plot of evil authoritarians". Every country has corrupted politicians, every country has those who are actually ready to go for a crime to save their priviliged places in state administration. In every country there can be always found overlooked or opressed minority, being it ethnic or social. In every country happen unfair, unjust things. Issued unfair laws, or made inefficient decidions. "

You're perfectly expressing the worldview the KGB promoted here - there is absolutely now difference between nations, they all have problems so don't believe it's better in the west but just be happy under your leader and do your work without complaining.
But it's not true of course. It wasn't during the Cold War and it isn't now.
We in the west have democratic freedoms you in Russia don't have, our societies are less corrupt and our press is free.
I'm not saying that to be mean to you - it's just the truth. I wish it wasn't - the Russian people have done noting to deserve being lead by autocrats, but you unfortunately have throughout history and now is no different.

That's not to say that everything is perfect in every other country - of course not. But society is a whole lot more democratic in every single western nation then it is in Russia and that's just a fact.
But Russian staterun propaganda will - as during the Cold War - use any excuse to try and paint the west as just as corrupt and undemocratic as Russia itself, pushing the image that there is no real difference.
And then they par that with all this "the west is decadent" social stuff, because we don't mistreat homosexuals.

"This is how democracy works - people grow discontent with things, and they express this discontent. They *tell* when they do not like something, for one or other reason, and they have to be heard. When they are ignored or repressed - they usually start taking various actions - changing their votes, gathering rallies, even rioting. It happens in healthy democracy, it is normal. It is a sign of politicians being not good enough, putting not enough effort in their work, not fulfilling their electoral promises and committing acts of corruption. And it is a sign of people not being passive towards that."

You can tell me how democracy works the day Putin is removed from power in a democratic election.
And I'm not talking about another of those dances where he takes another seat for some years, while in actual fact still running the country from that seat.
When he's voted out of office like our leaders are and actually retires and looses all power - then you can talk to me about democracy in Russia.
And I'm afraid we'll probably have to wait a long time for that to happen.

"And when that happens - competing politicians use such issues to gain popularity and get into office, if they can. So trust me - all the problems of so called "western" countries are coming from them selves. Inefficient policies, wrong decidions, disappointing outcomes - all do happen, and you do not need a "big evil empire" for people to be angry about that. Otherwise Eltzin would've stood on that tank alone, making a speech to an empty street. "

Well obviously Russian propaganda and psy-ops are based on real conflicts that exist in western nations - they can't invent those. But they can certainly deepen them by spreading false information and sowing decent in any number of ways - and they are still doing it.
There are thousands of Russian intelligence controlled bots spewing out stuff on FB and Twitter and everywhere else online as we speak. I guess you don't get to hear that in Russian state media, but it's obvious to us in the west.
There aren't really that many people in the west that think Putin is a GREAT GUY you know, so it becomes fairly obvious at times that the "person" posting praise for Putin is probably not sitting down the road from you.
And no - we're definitely not talking about any "Evil empire" - no one in the west is. This is about Putin and the group of cronies around him who run Russia as a mafia state for their own personal enrichment.

All this "Russian Empire" stuff Russian state media sells you is just for internal consumption. It's intended to sell nationalism to the Russian people and paint the picture that Putin is the strong leader the new, strong Russia needs. It's just for show.
In reality Russia is no where near the power the Soviet Union was - and it doesn't have to be either!
There doesn't have to be any conflict between Russia or the west - just stop invading your neighbors and messing with our elections and no one in the west cares what you do.
But Putin wants the conflict and he want to fan the flames of Russian imperialism - because that's what he thinks will see him stay in power for as long as he wants too.
And sadly he'll probably be, because Russia sadly isn't the democracy you seem to think.

@Nisse_Hult

All right, let's try being nice. And trust me - it takes a lot of patience. Lots of it.

First of all you made mistake when made assumption of what media-sphere I am in. You know zero about me - my tastes, likes, preferences, personality, opinions, choises, morals or life. Yet you went on with giving me a big lecture. Try avoiding that in the future.

And *listen to people*. Your adored "dictator" is retiring next year. Do not believe me? Look at news at 16 of January. Each and every candidate will be on the shelf, present and known. With no alterations.

We already woke up from lethargy long ago, all the way back in 2012. I am terribly sorry, if you missed that, just as you missed, say, coutnry-wide rally of 26 March that year that been performed from Vladivostok to Sankt-Peterburg, as well as all the following rallies. Missed anti-corruption campaigns, missed rise of opposition parties on last parlamental and regional elections. Missed various little events such as petition that drove obmudsman Astakhov from his post. By the way, *man who actually bringed in initiative to bad US citizens from adopting orphants from RF*. Missed LGBT march in Peterburg, missed lots, and lots of events in my country.

Majority of your text above - is a one big chauvinistic stereotype. And worst part of it - is when you say I will only have *RIGHT* to tell you how democracy works when Putin is removed. Fix your crown on your head, it seems to be slipping down from shame. What I can or can not tell and to whom is not defined by what man serves as head representative of my country. Your problems - apparently problems of Sweden, judging by your profile - come from your country. So problems of Germany come from Germany, and problems of Spain come from Spain. No governmet is ideal. All make mistakes.

*Yours does too*. Do not trust me? Tell me, which you would've preferred - year of learning how to murder people, or taking alternative service? Because since 2018 it will be reality of your country. Congratulations on returning to the bane of youth. Do you think many of young people year of whose life now will be taken from them will be grateful to government for such a gift..?

UPD:
And so you understand - I am hardly gloating. But it's the most recent serious mishap of your government I know of, that is just goes on, and on, and seems to be launched in full force in 2018. Conscription army, in XXI century. Do not tell me it's in any way "advanced" thing to do.

@Ninian and @Nisse_Hult
Wow, you both sure like writing !

@Ynk
Guilty. ^^'

These conversations always grow extemely long. Sorry. ^^'

@Ninian

Well actually I don't assume anything about you - I wrote very generally about Russian media because I simply don't know how much free media you have access to.
I know there is no true freedom of the press in Russia today, but I don't know if your internet access is also restricted or monitored, so I don't know how much free press ordinary Russians can actually access.

Reporter Without Borders ranks Russia as 148th out of 180 countries, in freedom of the media:
https://rsf.org/en/ranking

But some of the things you wrote seems very informed by Russian state propaganda, and I felt I had to correct those things.
Also, while I don't want to get you or any other Russian in trouble, it's still the case that I have yet to speak to any Russian online who have ever expressed any criticism towards Putin what so ever.
Maybe you don't dare too online if you're afraid you're being monitored - of maybe you just all really like Putin - I don't know and as I said I don't want to get anyone in trouble, so you don't have to tell me how you feel - but I nonetheless felt I needed to express certain basic facts.
Not only to you, but also to anyone else that might read this.

Regarding Putin retiring I'll believe that when it happens. As I mention he's already trade places with Medvedev once and still retained all actual power in his own hands regardless of his actual title, so what's to say he doesn't do the same even if he's replaced by some other figure head?

I don't think a man like Putin will ever voluntarily relinquish power. Especially not now, when the Magnitsky Act means that the money he and his cronies has hidden abroad are no longer accessible to them.
I'm sure he still has some billions tucked away somewhere, or can steal some new ones from the Russian treasury - but he's also not really welcome in many countries any longer.

Russian oligarchs have bought up real estate all over the west in the most luxurious addresses in major cities. New York, Paris, London - but they won't be able to live there as long as the Magnitsky Act is in effect. Sure - they could probably bribe their way into Saudi Arabia or some country like that - but that's not how they expected to spend their retirement.
And as I said - a man like Putin, with the love of power he has - I don't think he ever plans to really retire.

It's true I of course don't have the close, first hand knowledge, of everything that happens in Russia that you do.
But Russia is a big and important country, and all western media have reporters covering Russia. And your Russian opposition and dissidents aren't afraid to speak to western media, so I do think we get rather a good picture of the over all situation.
And according to the Russian dissidents I've read interviews with recently, they don't express as much optimism about the situation as you do.
They are hopeful and they still work for a more democratic Russia in the long term of course, but they've also been through a lot of setbacks and seen things take a turn for the worse, so it's not like they're confident everything will be better soon.
Regarding the LGBT march in St Petersburg it's positive that people are able to express their opinions at all of course - but "more then a hundred people" being the largest Pride parade ever isn't exactly a great sign for Russian democracy, considering there is obviously millions of homosexuals in a country as large as Russia.

I don't wish to be condescending or mean at all - I really don't - but the fact is that Russia obviously still isn't a very democratic country. It's better then during the Cold War of course, but in many ways it's also actually worse then some years ago according to the dissident's I've read interviews with.
There where some years after the Soviet Union collapsed when anything seemed possible, but now Putin has been tightening the states control over the media and ordinary citizens freedoms, unfortunately.

I don't wish to minimize the contribution of any of the tremendously brave Russians who stand up to all of this - be they LGBT-activists or journalists or political dissidents. I'm in awe of all of them for their courage in the face of tyranny and oppression.
But I also don't want to paint a rosy picture of how democratic Russia is - because it really, really isn't - no matter what the state propaganda tells the people.

You're quite right I misspoke when I wrote "You can tell me how democracy works the day Putin is removed from power in a democratic election." - that was a bad way of expressing my point, sorry for that.
What I should have written was that "Russia will be a true democracy the day Putin - and men like him - can be removed from power in democratic elections".
And by that I mean - as I've said before - actually removed from all power and influence, not just voluntary changing places for a time, while still retaining all actual power. Because that's not democracy of course - that's just theatre.

And as I said before - of course all countries have their own problems, and I've never claimed Russian intelligence can invent those.
But what they can and are doing is inflaming those problems, divisions and tensions that are always there in any society. And since the west are open, democratic societies, it's very easy to do. Especially now with the internet that lets Russian intelligence spam propaganda straight to western citizens while pretending to be other ewestern citizens, and without ever having to pass through western media.

Regarding the reinstated Swedish military service - which I think you're referring too - you've not really understood how that's seen or works in Sweden.

We had universal military service for all young men in this country from 1901-2010.
In the first part of the 20th century it wasn't a very democratic institution, with the upper classes making up the vast majority of the officer corps - just like in the rest of Europe.
We also had an incident in 1931 where troops fired of protesting workers, killing 5, which didn't improve the military's standing in the eyes of most citizens.

But we've also had socialists, or Social Democrats as they're called here, in power for very much of the time since we became a democracy in 1921.
And the Social Democrats wanted to retain the universal military service - both because that was needed for the defence of the nation, but also as a democratic institution.
The principle that every young man in the nation was treated equally and all called for military service was seen as important for the building of a strong, democratic society.

Officers where no longer selected because of family ties or wealth, but based on competence and as a consequence the officer corps gradually became a better representation of the nation as a whole.
In the lower ranks young men from all background was also mixed, so the rich spoilt kids who had grown up with servants had to serve with the kids from poor working class families, doing the same things.
I didn't matter if your family was rich or poor - you where treated equally.
Also the rules regarding officers treatment of solders where tightened considerably and soldiers given representation in councils in the same way as you have in trade unions in the regular job market.

The Social Democrats deliberately did this with all of society, trying to build a more democratic and fair society for all citizens. In fact, the word "ombudsman" you mentioned in your previous post is Swedish that position is such an invention. Since then the word has now been adopted into English - because there where no such positions before other countries started to adopt the Swedish method of representing peoples interest like this.

Any way - all of this meant that doing your military service in Sweden hasn't been seen as an especially burdensome thing to do in decades.
Those that don't want to learn killing could chose other ways to serve (like firemen or ambulance staff), the food was excellent, the treatment fair, living accommodations usually good except some weeks in the field living in tents. You were paid a small sum each day - enough for cigarettes and such, and you usually had time off most weekends.
Since the 70's it's basically been seen as the boy scouts with guns. You get to play soldier for some months in your youth - it's not that bad at all, actually.
Also, conscripts could never be forced to serve abroad in the peace-keeping missions Sweden have done for the FN - so there was never any real danger of war, as we've been lucky enough to avoid that for 200 years.

Then the Soviet Union collapsed and there wasn't really any need for a large army, so less and less young men where called to serve.
In 2008 less then 7000 where even called up - and those where basically all volunteers as the military had so many to chose from that they didn't need to force anyone to serve. Just say you didn't want to do it and you didn't have to.

So in 2010 our government at the time (who happened to be a right-wing government) decides to let the military conscription "rest" as it was called.
Basically, the laws where left in place to be able to call up young people to serve (by then it was upgrades so both sexes could be called up) if ever needed, but no one was called up - because they weren't needed.

This was party because we reduced our military as the threat from Russia no longer was as big, and party because our right-wing parties idolizes the US. And since they have a professional army our right-wing parties all thought that was much cooler and we should have that too.
Many on the left weren't so happy about that, as we felt it important from a democratic perspective that the Swedish military didn't become some right-wing club of gun lovers - which is often the case in provisional armies.
But either way, they did it.

But, being right-wing, they are also very cheap people as they only want to lower taxes and don't want to pay what anything actually costs.
So the salaries they where offering for these new jobs as professional soldiers where so ridiculously low that the military could never find enough applicants to fill all the positions they needed to fill.
A contributing factor was also that as professional soldiers, these men (and women) no longer could refuse to be sent abroad to serve in Swedish peace-keeping missions.
Meaning they for very bad pay could be shipped to Afghanistan or some other hell-hole - so completely unsurprisingly people didn't flock to those jobs.

So the Swedish military hasn't been able to fill all the positions they have for the last couple of years now and the politicians have been arguing over what to do about it.
Then Trump was elected and started talking about how maybe the US shouldn't come to the defence of their NATO allies if they didn't spend more on defence.
And that, combined with his ties to Putin, and the Russian invasions of Crimea and the Ukraine, made Swedish politicians decide it was time to fill those positions in the military again.

So they decided to activate the universal military service again - after having "rested" it for only 7 years.
But it won't actually be universal at all - I looked it up online now.

Apparently now every 18 year old in Sweden get's to fill out an online form (including the question if you want to serve at all), and then the military selects some of them to be called to muster, and only a few of those will eventually then be called up.

So it's even more relaxed then in the late 90's when I mustered. Back then every young man was called to muster, but they where already calling so few up to serve back then you could basically just say you didn't want to serve and they let you go.

I was however excluded at the muster for a slight hearing loss I've had since birth probably on one ear. It's never ever effected me in any way accept for that muster - they just found a notation about it from some school physician way back and said "Well that's that - you can't serve".
Seemed like they were looking for reasons to cull people as many as possibly, basically.

Also, the time of service nis now apparently nine or eleven moths, depending on position.

And probably all of those that will eventually be called up will probably want to do it. There is no reason forcing people that's not really keen when they have so few positions to fill and so many to chose from. Better to just let the one's that want to play soldier go do that for some months and let the rest go - like it worked before.

So I've seen no public opposition against this reintroduction of the "universal" military service at all actually - people seem totally OK with it.

@Nisse_Hult
"I know there is no true freedom of the press in Russia today, but I don't know if your internet access is also restricted or monitored, so I don't know how much free press ordinary Russians can actually access."

Well, let's begin your transfer in XXI century. There are such things a proxies, various addons for browsers, and other peculiar tricks that generally negate restrictions - majority of which, probably to your great disappointment, come from Internet provider companies, instead of state. And from before that and into present day exist newspapers of CPRF, LDPR, opposition parties, tJR, bloggers, even media outlets operated by migrants outside of Russian Federation - to all which, along with every single bloody foreign media outlet that is not operated by ISIS or North Korea we have access. We're not China, we do not have a Great Firewall. Again, sorry if that is a disappointing bit of news.

I am charmed that there exists such thing as "Reporter Without Border", and one of ratings websites claims Putin is supported by 78% of population. This is why usually you do not depend on media alone, when looking for something on the Internet.

"But some of the things you wrote seems very informed by Russian state propaganda, and I felt I had to correct those things.
Also, while I don't want to get you or any other Russian in trouble, it's still the case that I have yet to speak to any Russian online who have ever expressed any criticism towards Putin what so ever."

Well, maybe if you were not treating any opinion that goes along with what our media or president says as propaganda you woould've not had to be dealing less with people defending their position and more with why they have that position? For example both I am Putin are disapproving death penalty. I consider it being a legalised murder and he made few adjustments in our laws to cement the ban of that procedure.

That does not means that claiming death penalties being bad is russian propaganda, right? People can disagree over things, and they can AGREE over them, without sharing mutual interests or opinions.

And I hardly see any kind of "trouble" that you talking to people can create. Want to talk? Be my guest - Ninian#6892 in Discord. Would be way easier and productive than writing each other letters in comment section.

And you know, I really want to continue talk in there. As I said, better than flooding up comment section.

Like seriously - let's give talk a try.

@Ninian

"Well, let's begin your transfer in XXI century. There are such things a proxies, various addons for browsers, and other peculiar tricks that generally negate restrictions - majority of which, probably to your great disappointment, come from Internet provider companies, instead of state. And from before that and into present day exist newspapers of CPRF, LDPR, opposition parties, tJR, bloggers, even media outlets operated by migrants outside of Russian Federation - to all which, along with every single bloody foreign media outlet that is not operated by ISIS or North Korea we have access. We're not China, we do not have a Great Firewall. Again, sorry if that is a disappointing bit of news."

I know all of those things exist - but not all people know how to use them, and in a society as Russia I'm not sure people dare to use them even if they do?
The Chinese firewall blocks information completely, but if people are scared enough not to search for information that will do the same trick.
But I'm only happy the more diverse news the Russian public can get of course.

"I am charmed that there exists such thing as "Reporter Without Border", and one of ratings websites claims Putin is supported by 78% of population. This is why usually you do not depend on media alone, when looking for something on the Internet."

"Reporters without Borders" is another one of those NGO's like "Doctors without Borders". They don't have a political agenda - they just fight for freedom of the press, like "Doctors without Borders" fights for every humans right to proper medical treatment.
So they're not a media organization - they're a human rights organization.
I don't know where you got that 78% number from, maybe you could provide a link?

"Well, maybe if you were not treating any opinion that goes along with what our media or president says as propaganda you woould've not had to be dealing less with people defending their position and more with why they have that position? For example both I am Putin are disapproving death penalty. I consider it being a legalised murder and he made few adjustments in our laws to cement the ban of that procedure."

I don't remember all you've written and I've replied to know, but:

"If we speak in serious manner - scandal around "russian meddling" is getting constantly inflated" is simply not the whole truth.
The Russian invasion of Crimea and the Ukraine isn't inflated - the Russian meddling in the US election and attempt at meddling in several other elections in Europe isn't inflated.
These things happened and of course they have consequences.

Obviously Putin doesn't want to take responsibility for the election meddling, but he first denied invading Crimea and then wanted credit for it at home - so we might see him come clean about the election meddling as well, if he feels he has more to gain from that somewhere down the line.
Either way - Putin regime is doing a lot of crap to mess with the rest of the world and obviously that has consequences.

Also - by doing these things and lying about it, Putin's regime now also has the credibility of a proven liar - so it's hard trusting anything that comes out of them.
Again a consequence of the actions they themselves have chosen to take.

I understand this is regularly dismissed in Russia as "Russofobia" but as I said before - no one had any reason to either fear or dislike Russia after the Cold War ended.
Some old people probably did anyway, out of old habit, but young people in the west don't.
Until Putin gave them a reason too, that is.

It's hard to see any of this making any sense - except if Putin did all of this deliberately to create a conflict with the west, to strengthen his own power at home.
Using the threat of an external enemy is after all a proven way to rally your own people behind you.

I don't claim to know what goes on in Putin's mind, but in difference to the Cold War I do think the currant Russian regime at least must have a better understanding of how the west works?

And doing the things Putin have done these last years is basically guaranteed to sour relations with the west, so it's like he's deliberately trying to achieve this.

Or he's bought into his own propaganda and actually believe Russia is such a Superpower that it can just ignore everyone else and do what ever it pleases without consequences?

@Nisse_Hult
...or you can get suddenly oddly silent. .-.

And that after I got really eager for a chat. In either case - Ninian#6892 on Discord, offer stands. Feel free to contact me and we could talk. Will be more than glad to expand your view of my country beyond "I am yet to talk..." mindset.

@Ninian

Sorry about that. I was having company over the weekend and didn't have time to reply until now.

While I don't have "Discord" or any other messenger or chat program (don't need them, don't trust them) you could mail me at kermit_mupp@hotmail.com if you like?

@Nisse_Hult
Well, sure... Though Discord pretty much can be used right in browser. It's still way faster than writing letters. https://discordapp.com - sure you do not want give it a try?

@Ninian

Yes I'm sure - I don't want that program in my computer. Sorry. :-(

@Nisse_Hult
...all right, or we can then write e-mail.

Sent you one.

And sorry for my original tone, e-mails are really just... Inconvenient with all the messengers existing around.

@HomelyAmerican
Muh russian hackers, Putin himself stole Hillary's emails

Ain't the first time something like this has happened.
*commence harp music*
*screen rippling*

1986.
FINLAND: What the...? What's up with the radiation levels...? My reactors are fine, and I sure don't have any warheads... Russia, is everything all right?
SOVIET RUSSIA: Yeah, I'm cool.
FINLAND: You sure?
SOVIET RUSSIA: Yeah, I said I'm alright!
FINLAND: Fine, fine...

*later*

SWEDEN: Uh, Finland?
FINLAND: Yeah?
SWEDEN: There's a shitload of radiation coming from across your borders... Are you alright?
FINLAND: But Russia said... Goddammit! Russia!
SOVIET RUSSIA: Yeah, what is it now?
FINLAND: Sweden told me there's a radioactive cloud coming my way from your direction!
SOVIET RUSSIA: Oh, that! One of my nuclear plants blew up in Ukraine. No biggie.
FINLAND: Says you, man.

'@DarkMage7280'
TV BROADCAST: Comrades, I bring you great news! Yesterday, to commemorate the Labor Day, fourth reactor of Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant has completed it's five year plan for thermal energy generation in less than five minutes!

@comrade_Comrade

That's the kind of great humor the Soviet Union was known for among those in the west who knew how it actually was behind that "Iron curtain".
It's a very healthy sign to be able to joke about your own country and it's leaders when they're useless tools. :-)

I had a Russian classmate about my age at university in the late -90's, after the Sovet Union was dissolved.
But some way or another his father had managed to bring his family to the west during the Soviet era so he had grown up in Sweden and he told a lot of jokes like that from the Soviet Union.

@comrade_Comrade In soviet russian nuclear plant uranium radiates you.

'@Rogers' better way to put is "In Soviet Russia uranium enriches YOU!".

@comrade_Comrade

XD

@DarkMage7280 damn, that should be a comic
"Back off Finland, Russia is cool"

Russian policy: If there's no mushroom cloud, there's no radioactive mishap.

@Louhikaarme Even if there were one, they still might claim that wasn't one.

@Louhikaarme "Mishap" implies that they made a mistake. Russia no make mistakes! Russia mean to put radioactive mutant-creating cloud over own country! Gives children strong bones, da?

@TuxedoCartman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States

"Immediately after World War II, researchers at Vanderbilt University gave 829 pregnant mothers in Tennessee what they were told were "vitamin drinks" that would improve the health of their babies. The mixtures contained radioactive iron and the researchers were determining how fast the radioisotope crossed into the placenta. At least three children are known to have died from the experiments, from cancers and leukemia.[72][73] Four of the women's babies died from cancers as a result of the experiments, and the women experienced rashes, bruises, anemia, hair/tooth loss, and cancer.[57]"

Pots and kettles.

@Kuusi Pththhhh... don't ever think because I'm making fun of Russia I'm somehow defending America! We have and are still doing some seriously fucked up shit. (Seriously, though, some of the nationalism I see on here at times makes me sad).

@TuxedoCartman
Sorry. I just felt that I had to post that as so few people are aware what kind of stupid things governments are doing.

It isn't a fart good ser, it is a gas release caused by the propulsion energy from a malfunction in the core of iron. How dare you misjudge what is going on, I shall challenge you to an open duel good ser.

'@BETAOPTICS' nah, Kremlin will wait for a statement from IAEA, then spin that swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

... assuming minimum competency.

@comrade_Comrade
XD
Like this? http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GasLeakCoverup

'@NeframeTheCosmonaut' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqlFiTOi6QQ

@comrade_Comrade
XD
yeah, they are great at plausable explonations.
But we all know the radiatory detection is because canadian polar bears opened their own nuclear energy operation.

*Sniff sniff* you smell that? *Sniff sniff* smells like *sniff sniff* bullshit.

@Wuzzle2 this comment reminded me of kubz scouts. have i finally met another kubz scouts fan? :o

@potatoe4life Nope, never heard of them before in my life.

@Wuzzle2 oh :'3

*giant tumor starts growing out of the side of Russia's head*

"Blyat. I still do not know what you are talking about!"

@Mr_Plinkett IT'S NOT A TOOMAH!

so.... Russia farts clouds of nuclear fallout?

@ryttyr oh of f.... really? what part of this do you not find barely basic....

well i guess rubles and krone are easy to mixup

@snow2nose uh... what? Rubles and krone? That has nothing to do with my comment. Are you sure you replied to the right person?

I know for a fact Swedish authorities have detected the release of radiation too, so probably other nations have as well.

It reminds me of Chernobyl in 1986.
It was covered up by Soviet authorities even to their own people, but the radiation leak was discovered within 48 hours outside of the Soviet Union when radiation alarms went off at the Swedish nuclear plant Forsmark, 1000 kilometers from Chernobyl.
The prevailing winds the first days after the accident spread the radiation north to us - that's why it was first detected here.

After ruling out a leak at the plant and then other Swedish nuclear plants, the leak was tracked according to the wind patterns and it was concluded that the leak came from the Soviet Union and the Swedish government notified the Soviet government of their findings.
The Soviets denied being the source of the radiation, until the Swedish government advised the Soviet government that a report was being made to the International Atomic Energy Authority.

Later that evening a 20 second announcement about an accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant was broadcast on Soviet TV.
That was the first official admission by the Soviet Union that something had in fact happened, and the first information Soviet citizens outside of the absolute vicinity of the plant ever got of the accident 2 days before.

So Soviet authorities don't have a great track record on openness in question like these.
And before people point out that the Soviet Union is gone by now - Putin with his KGB background has taken up this old tradition of secrecy.
Just look at how the Russians tried to first hide and then downplay the Kursk nuclear submarine disaster in 2000 - and Putin was president then too.

Swedish papers are reporting that the leak may come from either southern Russia or northern Kazakstan - it's somewhere in the area of the southern Urals.
So it may come from Kazakstan as well - but knowing the Russian states unwillingness to admit any mistakes it's highly likely it comes from Russia.

But either way it's probably not an explosion, and certainly not a nuclear explosion, behind the leak as only one type of radiation has been released.
When nuclear plants explode they spew out all kind of different radiation - so this is not another Chernobyl, at least.

We're still suffering the effects of that accident, so we'd rather not see another one of those:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/radioactive-boar-sweden-found-chernobyl-nuclear-radiation-levels-high-safe-limit-a7986231.html

@Nisse_Hult
You know, I went on an excursion to Chernobyl and Pripyat, this is a real nature reserve.

@KostaRPK

Sure - most of it looks nice on the surface as nature is resilient.
Plants and animals survive some radiation poisoning in the short term - as do humans.
But that doesn't mean it's good for them.

Check out the link in my previous post.
If we're still finding animals in Sweden with high levels of radiation, you can bet nature isn't actually as healthy as it might look on the surface in Chernobyl and Pripyat.

@Nisse_Hult
Do you know what is most amusing?
In 2015, in the same country where the Chernobyl nuclear power plant is located, which by the way still works, there was a radiation leakage at the analogue power station, but nobody noticed it, probably the wind blew in the opposite direction.

Emissions of radioactive elements in Southern Urals are regularly recorded approximately since 1955.

@KostaRPK

I'm not sure I'd ever call a radiation leak "amusing" - but I understand what you mean.

Apart from the unwillingness to admit any mistakes, the old Soviet system also had a very lax attitude to safety issues - which is also apparent in Russian society today.

As this quote from a Russian official when Russian agencies had finally admitted they too had detected high radiation levels - but showed no interest what so ever in finding out where the radiation came from:

"The civil servant then told the Interfax news agency he had "no idea" where the radiation came from: "Why would you look for the source when there isn't any danger?"

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-radiation-nuclear-radioactive-mayak-urals-southern-greenpeace-chernobyl-a8067386.html

That kind of attitude would NEVER be accepted in Sweden - or any western nation, I don't think for that matter.
Here safety levels are not something to be ignored until they are crossed - any release of anything with a safety level is treated seriously as none of that stuff should ideally be released at all.

And a slow release of radiation or toxins well below safety levels might well become more harmful over time compared to one big spill.

So I don't think we can be sure if no one actually noticed that other leak you mention, or if Russian agencies covered it up to minimizes embarrassment to the state, or if they did notice but just ignored it as they didn't think it was bad enough to do anything about?

But either the wind blew in the wrong direction, or the release wasn't big enough to register in Western Europe - because if it had been detectable over her, it had been reported on - we can all be sure of that.

@Nisse_Hult
Mmm, this tone, "We're smart, we do not this not to".

If something was not announced, it does not mean that nothing has been taken.
Especially if it concerns objects of the military industrial complex.

@KostaRPK

I don't wish to be condescending or mean in any way - I really don't!
But it's an unfortunate historical fact that human life has been treated very cheaply in Russia throughout history.
Russian still had serfdom - which was slavery in all but name - until 1866, and during both the Tsar's and the Communists millions of Russians where murdered for the slightest reason - or in fact no reason at all.

A culture like that isn't replaced over night, I'm afraid. :-(
And as I showed you with the article and the quote from the current day Russian official - an attitude of low safety concerns still exists today.
No Swedish official would ever dream of making a statement like that - it's just a fact.
And I honestly don't think that kind of sentiment would be accepted in any other western nation either.

That's not to say that westerners are generally smarter then Russians - of course not!
But our current day societies - and thus what kind of attitudes are acceptable - are the product of different historical events and different cultures created by that history.
If we go back to the 1850's, environmental concerns where as non-existent in the west as they where in Russia - nobody on the planet thought about what kind of chemicals or toxins they spread in the air, water or ground back then.
And a lot of poor industrialized workers in the west didn't have it much better then the serf's of Russia.

But since then our history have developed differently in these areas - that's just a fact.
Obviously understanding of environmental and worker safety issues is a lot better in Russia today then it was years ago, and I'm sure things are getting better all the time - but there is still a difference between how these things are viewed in the west and in Russia, I'm afraid.

And again - this is not because westerners in any way are smarter then Russians - of course not!
There are environmental activists, worker safety professionals and extremely competent scientists in Russia that fully sees all the same problems and challenges as we see in the west and are fighting to change the culture in Russia on these matters.
Just as there are people in the west who don't think all of these safety regulations are really all that necessary and would have no problem scaling them back.

But the cultures of our societies are different. In the west a lot of ordinary citizens care very much about these things, and there is huge public outcry whenever environmental or worker safety is compromised in any way.
I'm sure the Russians immediately effected by these things are just as concerned as well - but they also have a lot more problem on their list of things to care about, so some toxic spill far below safety levels don't seem so important.
They also frankly grew up in a country where a lot worse has happened - and people adopt to their surroundings.

It's like Americans and their insane tolerance for mass shootings. No other country in the world would accept that innocent people are repeatedly murdered in mass shootings and do noting about it.
But Americans have grown accustomed to that as a "fact of life" and even if there is uproar every time it happens, that soon quiets down - until the next mass shooting a few weeks later.

To us in the rest of the world that's just insane - but that's how their culture is. They have developed a tolerance for things no other nations on earth tolerates, unfortunately. :-(

@Nisse_Hult

It's so funny when people talk about ecology in Europe.

Russia is one of the largest exporters of wood in the world, millions of trees every year, thousands and thousands of hectares are turning into a wasteland, the share of Finland and Sweden in the export of Russian wood is 40-50%.

Ecology. Society. Yes.

@KostaRPK

I'm not sure what you point is?

That Russia is a larger exporter of soft wood then Finland and Sweden combined?
That's not really surprising, since Russia is many, many times larger then Sweden and Finland combined.

And cutting down tree doesn't have to be unecological - it all comes down to what you use the threes for and if you replace them.

So I'm not sure what your point is?

@Nisse_Hult
Finland and Sweden, produce 20-25 million tons of paper per year.

To a question of ecology.
Deforestation in Russia led to the formation of several small deserts with a completely destroyed biosphere. But is such a problem a concern for the "European community"?

Or, for example, wind generators and solar panels, in Europe: - Clean air! Alternative sources of energy !, the area where all this was produced: the production waste covers several tens of kilometers, the air and water are similar in composition to the periodic table, in poisoned soil nothing will grow the next couple of thousand years.

ECOLOGICALLY PURE WOODEN FURNITURE OF IKEA!

When in Europe or the US "society" tells about the problems of ecology in the hope of "opening up eyes of ignorant", this only causes a grin.

@KostaRPK

Again - I'm not sure what you point is?

OK, so Sweden and Finland produce a lot of paper. So?

Deforestation is obviously bad, but as I said before forestry doesn't have to be unecological - it all depends on what you use the wood for and if you replace the forest with new plants.

So yes - wooden furniture's can be quite eco-friendly, if the resources for them are gathered in a ecologically sound way.

But they can also be very bad for the environment if the wood comes from areas that have been deforested and if they're treated with environmentally unsound chemicals and paints.

So it all depends on how they've been made.

@KostaRPK Chernobyl was good for at least one thing: Ukrainian wildlife. You got to apreciate the silver lining.

@Rogers Studies do show that animals are being hurt by the radioactive contamination. Just not as much as they're being helped by the lack of people around them ;)

@KostaRPK There's also a nature reserve along the former line of the Iron Curtain. Pulling people out of an area goes a long way to allowing nature to take back over. Which is what happened in Chernobyl - when it was unsafe for humans to be there, animals and plants (which didn't know better) moved in.

The radiation probably isn't good for them either, but it's probably better for them than the area being filled with humans and their agriculture and industry.

Man, we need more comics with Germany and France interacting. We have such a rich history together but there is not one comic with them interacting.

@Nabnormal
"interacting" like denmark and sweden in the old days eh...?

@Nabnormal I just realized that there have been atleast four conflicts between France and Germany. Good job you two!

@Nabnormal
Don't forget this comic is mainly about Scandinavia, despite America butting his head in all the time.

Don't be like America.

@Dan Scandinavia and the?

Seeing how Germany once blew up a barn with cow farts, he is being a hypocrite right now.

@Geldermalsen But those farts are made of Deutsche Gründlichkeit! That's different anyway...

@Geldermalsen Those cow farts were organic.

@Geldermalsen Good thing those weren't radioactive cows...

@VeryCreativeName Nuclear explosion in Germany. Let’s hope it blows to the North, NOT the West. Sorry Denmark.