# News & Current Events > World News & Affairs >  Who owns Russia Today and why are they covering all of our issues in a daily basis..?

## Reason

*I wonder what their angle is.

I doubt it is a genuine love for freedom and liberty...

First thing that comes to mind would be that Russia would be free to grab worldwide resources more easily if Ron Paul was in power instead of oil hungry neocons that are willing to start wars to feed the MIC.*

*Thoughts?

PS: If you haven't been following RT on their YT channel and have no idea wtf I am talking about, check out their YT channel here 

http://www.youtube.com/user/RussiaToday

Note the running theme of their videos
*

----------


## PBrady

> *I wonder what their angle is.
> 
> I doubt it is a genuine love for freedom and liberty...
> 
> First thing that comes to mind would be that Russia would be free to grab worldwide resources more easily if Ron Paul was in power instead of oil hungry neocons that are willing to start wars to feed the MIC.*
> 
> *Thoughts?*


Russia Today is state-owned.

...I think.

EDIT: Or was this a rhetorical question?

----------


## Reason

*not a rhetorical question, it does look like it is state funded, but I still wonder what their angle is in promoting all our talking points...*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_%28T...k%29#Criticism

----------


## sevin

I've been wondering this myself. Also, if it's _Russia_ Today, why is it all in English?

----------


## Reason

> I've been wondering this myself. Also, if it's _Russia_ Today, why is it all in English?


*Good question...*

----------


## PatriotOne

Wierd.  I was just wondering the same thing (who owned RT) yesterday but didn't get a chance to see if I could find out.

----------


## dannno

I tend to agree with the OP, I've thought about this before. RT often has on people like Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan and I think even Alex Jones. They seem to be against the NWO. That doesn't mean they ARE against the NWO, but it doesn't mean they are not against it either.

If the US ceded global power, Russia would probably be able to grab more resources and gain temporary power over disputed territories, though they would still be fighting against the NWO in Europe... but to keep and grow that power they will have to overextend themselves and their currency, so ultimately we would gain more wealth and be better off.

----------


## sofia

russia has no interest in imperialism.  the russians are very concerned with the brzenski doctrine of taking over central asia, encircling russia, funding puppet CIA/Soros backed "disidents" groups within Russia.

they like ron paul because they are genuinely concerned about being subverted and swallowed up into a new world order

----------


## purplechoe

> ...and I think even Alex Jones. They seem to be against the NWO. That doesn't mean they ARE against the NWO, but it doesn't mean they are not against it either.


YouTube - Alex Jones: US a powerslave serving aims of New World Order

----------


## Reason

> russia has no interest in imperialism.  the russians are very concerned with the brzenski doctrine of taking over central asia, encircling russia, funding puppet CIA/Soros backed "disidents" groups within Russia.
> 
> they like ron paul because they are genuinely concerned about being subverted and swallowed up into a new world order


*I have a hard time believing that Russia is scared.*

----------


## dannno

> russia has no interest in imperialism.  the russians are very concerned with the brzenski doctrine of taking over central asia, encircling russia, funding puppet CIA/Soros backed "disidents" groups within Russia.
> 
> they like ron paul because they are genuinely concerned about being subverted and swallowed up into a new world order


Yep, they could be "good guys"

There are a lot of people on this board who could never imagine this in their wildest dreams..they should be here shortly.

----------


## catdd

They have always treated RP with respect and dignity whoever they are.

----------


## Reason

*/cringe at their putting AJ on their airwaves 

that's all we need, RT facilitating the idea that AJ and RP paddling the same boat.
*

----------


## denison

> I've been wondering this myself. Also, if it's _Russia_ Today, why is it all in English?


uh. Alot of countries have news networks in various languages, they do it so they can reach out to another demographic, a wider audience. Fox has news networks in other countries in various languages. It's not uncommon at all. They're are spanish language news networks in America, along with a plethora of others. 

Does it matter what angle they're coming from? As long as what they're reporting is factual. They couldn't be any worse than the crap we're force fed through the MSM. 

So far they've covered a lot of stuff CNN and Fox blatantly ignore.

----------


## dannno

> russia has no interest in imperialism.  the russians are very concerned with the brzenski doctrine of taking over central asia, encircling russia, funding puppet CIA/Soros backed "disidents" groups within Russia.
> 
> they like ron paul because they are genuinely concerned about being subverted and swallowed up into a new world order


Wait, isn't Russia involved in South America via Chavez and other leftist leaders? Do you have evidence against this?

----------


## denison

> russia has no interest in imperialism.  the russians are very concerned with the brzenski doctrine of taking over central asia, encircling russia, funding puppet CIA/Soros backed "disidents" groups within Russia.
> 
> they like ron paul because they are genuinely concerned about being subverted and swallowed up into a new world order


^ this.

----------


## dannno

> */cringe at their putting AJ on their airwaves 
> 
> that's all we need, RT facilitating the idea that AJ and RP paddling the same boat.
> *


Did you listen to the interview? His views are spot on with regards to the topic, and it has since been proven 100% correct. Nobody else was really talking about this stuff except Alex Jones. If you can find somebody else who was talking about this before Alex Jones (besides Mike Ruppert) I'd be interested in seeing it. The majority of what he says is far more accurate than the vast majority of media sources.

----------


## sofia

> Yep, they could be "good guys"
> 
> There are a lot of people on this board who could never imagine this in their wildest dreams..they should be here shortly.


ironic isnt it.

we are in a reverse cold war now. USA is the communist imperialist,,,and Russia is at least taking some baby steps towards free enterprise, and isnt invading anybody (except Georgia after Georgian troops started the war last summer by killing 2000 Russian citizens)

----------


## Reason

> Does it matte what angle they're coming from?


*Things that sound too good to be true usually are.

Yes, it seems like a good idea to try and figure out why they are spewing our talking points on a daily basis.

Knowledge is power*

----------


## Reason

> Did you listen to the interview? His views are spot on with regards to the topic, and it has since been proven 100% correct. Nobody else was really talking about this stuff except Alex Jones. If you can find somebody else who was talking about this before Alex Jones (besides Mike Ruppert) I'd be interested in seeing it. The majority of what he says is far more accurate than the vast majority of media sources.


*My beef with AJ will never be incident specific because I hate how he mixes legit with illegit hence discrediting himself.*

----------


## denison

> Wait, isn't Russia involved in South America via Chavez and other leftist leaders? Do you have evidence against this?


Isn't the US/CIA involved in drug trafficking and assassinating sovereign leaders and public figures in South America? No one really has their hands clean, especially the US. 

If Russia and various S. American countries are involved with each other, so what? They can choose to be allies if they want.

----------


## denison

> *Things that sound too good to be true usually are.
> 
> Yes, it seems like a good idea to try and figure out why they are spewing our talking points on a daily basis.
> 
> Knowledge is power*


Could you quote the rest of my post where I say "As long as what they're reporting is factual." That would help.

For the record, I agree with you.

----------


## denison

YouTube - Italian courts sentence CIA agents in extraordinary renditions program

Luckily the CIA can be convicted of kidnapping/murder/extortion charges in other countries that actually pursue justice. They can't hide forever. It's too bad our own country doesn't have enough balls to call CIA and prosecute them for their various illegal activities.

----------


## morran

Idk, I don't know enough about Russia. If I had to guess, I think that they'd like having a less imperialistic and more friendly U.S. Plus, RP might shred WTO and similar agreements/alliances.

----------


## dannno

> Isn't the US/CIA involved in drug trafficking and assassinating sovereign leaders and public figures in South America? No one really has their hands clean, especially the US. 
> 
> If Russia and various S. American countries are involved with each other, so what? They can choose to be allies if they want.


LoL, dude, I totally am in the know about what the US does in South America.. but my question was, if we stopped engaging down there, would Hugo Chavez and other leftist leaders backed by Russia essentially be able to take over the region and direct the oil to their markets? Or would we have more of a free global market for oil because Russia respects other nations sovereignty?

I mean, Russia can go take over South America if they want, ultimately I think it will hurt them in the long-run just like it is now hurting us, I'm just trying to help the OP determine motive.

----------


## denison

> Idk, I don't know enough about Russia. If I had to guess, I think that they'd like having a less imperialistic and more friendly U.S. Plus, RP might shred WTO and similar agreements/alliances.


YouTube - Ron Paul in 2012?

----------


## denison

> LoL, dude, I totally am in the know about what the US does in South America.. but my question was, if we stopped engaging down there, would Hugo Chavez and other leftist leaders backed by Russia essentially be able to take over the region and direct the oil to their markets? 
> 
> I mean, they have every right to do so, ultimately I think it will hurt them in the long-run just like it is now hurting us.


It probably will. But do we have the time effort and money to stop them? I think the answer is no. I think it's a good question to ask, but the answer doesn't really matter unless we're in a position to interfere .

----------


## dannno

> *My beef with AJ will never be incident specific because I hate how he mixes legit with illegit hence discrediting himself.*


He has a lot more credit than others.. can you cite other individuals or organizations that have more credit and similar or greater influence?

I mean, you could say the CFL, but I don't know that they quite have the influence yet, and they are also not as encompassing with regards to official positions on specific world events.. I'm talking about someone who goes into the media topics day in and day out who is as encompassing as AJ and as accurate as AJ, and has somewhere near the same amount of influence or audience or has the potential to gain such influence. So far I have found NOBODY. Nothing. Nada. Therefore AJ, however imperfect he may be, is the best I've found.

----------


## Romulus

someone has to be able to find out who owns RT.

I am suspicious too how they basically hit all our talking points but maybe they are just on the same page?

Are they an internet only outfit?

----------


## ctiger2

They might be trying to help us expose the central banking cartel that's causing them the fits as well?

----------


## Joe3113

> *I wonder what their angle is.
> 
> I doubt it is a genuine love for freedom and liberty...
> 
> First thing that comes to mind would be that Russia would be free to grab worldwide resources more easily if Ron Paul was in power instead of oil hungry neocons that are willing to start wars to feed the MIC.*
> 
> [B]Thoughts?


Thoughts; it is this - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=177088

But on a global scale. 

That is how the globalists work. Same methods, used over and over again, the ratchet effect. 

Russia and Pravda, the Cold war - they were the propaganda powerhouse, *now* - the US is the propaganda powerhouse and they are telling it like it is.

----------


## reagle

An English-language satellite channel, Russia Today, was launched in late 2005. The news-based station is funded by the Kremlin and aims to present "global news from a Russian perspective". 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/co...2275.stm#media

----------


## Kilrain

I've always just assumed that Russia would love for the US to dismantle its empire so that Russia can fill at least part of the void. It's therefore in Russia's best interest to promote non-interventionists like Ron Paul. You might say they're doing the right thing for the wrong reason, but I still love the favorable coverage.

----------


## sofia

> Wait, isn't Russia involved in South America via Chavez and other leftist leaders? Do you have evidence against this?


Russia has friendly relations with Venezuela....but i am not aware of any evidence..or even any accusation,,,,that they interfere with venezuelan politics

----------


## WClint

> *I wonder what their angle is.
> 
> I doubt it is a genuine love for freedom and liberty...
> 
> First thing that comes to mind would be that Russia would be free to grab worldwide resources more easily if Ron Paul was in power instead of oil hungry neocons that are willing to start wars to feed the MIC.*
> 
> [/B]


Sounds reasonable to me. 
Who is Russia today targeted towards.
It seems to me its targeted to the West if it was for Russians it would have been in Russian rather than English.

Most of there coverage is anti-western. Obviously if the US shrunk its influence Russia could expand hers. I dont particularly care if Russia wants to go a globe trotting as long as they leave us alone. We would need a strong military to keep Russia and the other powers out, kind of Switzerland we would have a neutral policy neither helping nor hurting but having a military to keep them out. Turtle.


Here is a good thread on the topic (if you can handle some WN).
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=643800

----------


## BenIsForRon

Russia sees that it and China are getting the shaft in the developing New World Order.  They would rather kill the momentum from the EU and US, and take the lead in developing the NWO with China.

If Ron Paul's ideas were implemented, Russia and China could take their time to catch up to the west without having to worry about economic warfare from the IMF/WTO/World Bank.

----------


## coyote_sprit

> YouTube - Ron Paul in 2012?


Ron Paul is a republic and that news reporter is HAWT.

----------


## sofia

> Ron Paul is a republic and that news reporter is HAWT.


all the rt babes are hot,,,

my question is, when is tgis show on?  who watches it?..is it tv or internet?

----------


## Matt Collins

YouTube - Could release of Federal Reserve documents cause panic?

----------


## Andrew-Austin

> *I wonder what their angle is.
> 
> I doubt it is a genuine love for freedom and liberty...
> 
> First thing that comes to mind would be that Russia would be free to grab worldwide resources more easily if Ron Paul was in power instead of oil hungry neocons that are willing to start wars to feed the MIC.*
> 
> *Thoughts?
> 
> PS: If you haven't been following RT on their YT channel and have no idea wtf I am talking about, check out their YT channel here 
> ...


Simple. If you focus on how crappy things are in another country, it shifts attention from how crappy things are at home. Demonizing a foreign government makes the Russian government look much better in comparison.

Edit: lol well I don't know, sounds like a good theory to me.

----------


## ChooseLiberty

Aren't all their correspondents cute females?

I think I know who their target audience is.

----------


## sofia

> Simple. If you focus on how crappy things are in another country, it shifts attention from how crappy things are at home. Demonizing a foreign government makes the Russian government look much better in comparison.


these broadcasts are in english....not for internal consumption.

----------


## Andrew-Austin

> these broadcasts are in english....not for internal consumption.


Oh. Well I'm pretty sure Chinese media does that anyways. 




> Aren't all their correspondents cute females?
> 
> I think I know who their target audience is.


You and me?

----------


## SwordOfShannarah

I think they are just looking to grow their audience now that the internet has made it more possible to do so.  Setting their sites on the U.S. they probably look at us as a highly active internet user group that is disaffected with the main stream media in our country.  We're receptive, active and we promote media that tells the truth.  If you look at them as a business that simply wants to grow it's easy to see that we're the perfect audience for them to cater too.

----------


## Andrew-Austin

> I think they are just looking to grow their audience now that the internet has made it more possible to do so.  Setting their sites on the U.S. they probably look at us as a highly active internet user group that is disaffected with the main stream media in our country.  We're receptive, active and we promote media that tells the truth.  If you look at them as a business that simply wants to grow it's easy to see that we're the perfect audience for them to cater too.


What? Thats ridiculous. 

That explanation doesn't include any kind of conspiracy.

----------


## Baptist

> I think they are just looking to grow their audience now that the internet has made it more possible to do so.  Setting their sites on the U.S. they probably look at us as a highly active internet user group that is disaffected with the main stream media in our country.  We're receptive, active and we promote media that tells the truth.  If you look at them as a business that simply wants to grow it's easy to see that we're the perfect audience for them to cater too.



This was what I was thinking.  Russia Today knows that every time they have Schiff, Celente or Ron Paul on, that their YouTube videos get 100x the views as their normal videos.

And even though they are not an Internet-only operation, they seem to rely heavily on the Internet.  And anybody who relies on the Internet for anything, instead of the corporate U.S. news, is bound to find out about liberty/NWO/9/11 truth and everything else because people who believe in these are VERY active online.  I swear, I stumble across liberty/NWO/911 stuff on a weekly basis, when I'm not even looking for it.  


We've all heard the saying that "the truth is somewhere in the middle."  Well that is not the case with news in America.  90% of corporate news in America is a complete lie.  The truth is on the Internet though.  So even if Russia Today has an agenda or is bias, they could only be spewing 50% lies and propaganda instead of 90% like our media.  40% less lies means that more truth/liberty stuff is going to naturally get covered.


Having speculated with all of that, let me now say that I LOVE Russia Today.  Anyone on these forums who followed the Russia/Georgia conflict closely probably has mad respect for Russia Today too.  From the very beginning, and throughout the whole conflict, Russia Today was the only outlet to show EXACTLY what was going on.  They did not show "pro Russia" coverage and anti-Georgia/anti-Western coverage.  They showed EXACTLY what was going on.  In my opinion their coverage of the conflict in George was journalism at its finest.  Since that time, I have followed Russia Today on a regular basis.  Even if they are "up to something," their news is soooooooo much better than American media.  Russia Today's anchors are calm, collected, and actually let their guests talk instead of spewing talking points.  Russia Today rocks!

Oh yeah, I'm taking a class right now with a PHD Poli Sci student from Russia.  Last month I asked him about Russia Today.  He said that he didn't know anything about them, but "I think they are a news channel that tries to make Russia look good to the rest of the world."

----------


## Baptist

> YouTube - Ron Paul in 2012?


Shelly always does an awesome job!  That said, she should of mentioned foreign policy and the wars!!!

----------


## Reason

> I think they are just looking to grow their audience now that the internet has made it more possible to do so.  Setting their sites on the U.S. they probably look at us as a highly active internet user group that is disaffected with the main stream media in our country.  We're receptive, active and we promote media that tells the truth.  If you look at them as a business that simply wants to grow it's easy to see that we're the perfect audience for them to cater too.


*That would seem a lot more plausible to me if they were not funded by the Russian Government.*

----------


## revolutionisnow

> *That would seem a lot more plausible to me if they were not funded by the Russian Government.*


The Russian government is pretty against the "nwo" from what I have seen. They have already been down the road of big government, and it didn't work out so well.

----------


## SwordOfShannarah

> *That would seem a lot more plausible to me if they were not funded by the Russian Government.*


I resist the idea this means government is setting policy or driving an agenda through RT as the motivator for their coverage of our issues when I consider RT trying to cater to a CNN or FOX viewer by comparison. 

If I were satisfied with the current mainstream media I would see no reason to get the same news I normally get from a US company from Russia instead.  Can you imagine your typical FOX viewer switching to RT?  Maybe a slightly better response from CNN viewers.. but still I fail to see what would drive anyone to switch.

We have a reason to switch.  Our group is the only logical choice for any hope of traction (imo) AND we're the perfect demographic for expansion via the internet- which is obviously the cheapest way to gain a global audience.

I also really don't understand the allusions to a "bait and switch" that may be lurking in the shadows.  Manipulative media fails on the internet.  The level of cross-checking and sourcing is intense on the net.  How would you get away with pulling a fast one?  Why risk losing your viewership by breaking their trust?

----------


## NYgs23

Of course it's a state organ with an agenda. Russia just wants to maintain a separate power bloc from the US/EU. I don't think all the governments of the world are part of same monolithic alliance (yet).

----------


## PatriotOne

Whoa.  I see a few people implying that the Russian Gov is against the New World Order and perhaps that is why Russia Today reports on it.  That is erroneous.  A quick google search in the news will quickly show Putin and Medvedev aggressively calling for a New World Order.  Their only beef is how big of a piece of the pie they get.

----------


## rpfan2008

Russia Today is an 'autonomous arm' of RIA Novosti- a state owned news service.

----------


## emazur

Good luck seeing something like this in the New York Times:
"Crisis as a way to build a global totalitarian state"
http://russiatoday.com/Politics/2009...ian_state.html

----------


## james1906

I'm guessing with the eye candy that they have, they're trying to build brand loyalty among the under 30 crowd.  Interesting is that by being young, cute, and friendly, they're able to open people up and give good interviews.

I love this interview with Adam Kokesh that turned into a flirt fest

YouTube - 8/3/09 Adam Kokesh on Russia Today: Audit the Fed!

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Yep, they could be "good guys"
> 
> There are a lot of people on this board who could never imagine this in their wildest dreams..they should be here shortly.


HERE.    I'm one of 'em and no, I don't believe it for an instant.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The Russian government is pretty against the "nwo" from what I have seen. They have already been down the road of big government, and it didn't work out so well.


Are you kidding me???

Government NEVER willingly gives up power.   

The Russkies are up to sumthin'.  Mark my words.

----------


## rpfan2008

Today, only US FED can inflate the money supply and loot the world as $ has a virtual monopoly in international trade...by creating a Global currency or merely by death of the dollar other economies like China/Russia will gain demand in global markets for their currencies....in current scenario US makes a virtual profit from every single international trade deal. 

Although in many parts of the world my last sentence would be said in bit a different way.

----------


## paulitics

> Are you kidding me???
> 
> Government NEVER willingly gives up power.   
> 
> The Russkies are up to sumthin'.  Mark my words.


we are pawns on their board of chess.  There is always an ulterior motive.   We are the dissenters of american imperialism, and so they are shining a spotlight on us, saying..."America, your own people don't believe your lies".  

As far as the NWO.  I don't believe for a second that there aren't forces that are controlling them as well, but I'm not sure if Russia wants to play along.   They have a history of going rogue from time to time.

----------


## catdd

I think we are exposing the lies and corruption in DC and they are feeding on it. Regardless of their motives, this can only be beneficial.

----------


## kkassam

A question I've wondered about as well. All news organizations have a bias. RT is funded by the Russian state, so it's fair to conclude that at least part of their agenda is to advance the interests of the Russian state. 

I think the answer about opposing Russian encirclement is the best for why RT is interested particularly in the RP/liberty movement. I remember first noticing RT when they would interview Ron Paul in the 2007 nomination race and ask him much more detailed and informed questions about US policy in the Mid East, Central Asia and Eastern Europe than any other media--since then, their coverage has increased. 

I also wouldn't conclude that RT is trying to promote particularly pro-market anti-interventionist types,  I've noticed that they give favourable coverage to all sorts of US "dissidents", particularly antiwar types. See for example this interview on RT's front page today with Revolutionary Communist Party of America leader Carl Dix. This also seems consistent with Russian state policy, as Medvedev recently broadcasted intent to meet with US dissidents.

----------


## Bman

It's a bunch of crap.  Russai wants us to reduce our world influence so they can have a greater share in the market of influence. What exactly that means is the question.

The nuts don't fall far from the tree.  I wouldn't trust a Russian further than I could throw him, I'm sure they feel the same.

----------


## LittleLightShining

Someone I sort of know through another site announced yesterday that he had purchased a suit for his job interview for RT. He left before I could ask him anything substantive. When he gets back I'll ask him what he knows.

----------


## mconder

> */cringe at their putting AJ on their airwaves 
> 
> that's all we need, RT facilitating the idea that AJ and RP paddling the same boat.
> *


As much as people can't stand him, I thought that piece was very well stated and almost completely on target.

----------


## Andrew Ryan

> HERE.    I'm one of 'em and no, I don't believe it for an instant.


Still just godless commies right?

----------


## gls

If they're covering Ron Paul's agenda with the goal of hurting America, they're making quite a miscalculation. In the long run Paul's policies would only serve to make the United States stronger. If they really wanted to see our downfall, they would support the status-quo.

----------


## Dieseler

Another interesting RT video here.
Communist Revolution in the U.S.

*Revolution is the solution*

Despite only a small minority of Americans would support the idea of a revolution in the US, it is still worth trying to spread the message, Carl Dix of the Revolutionary Communist Party of America told RT.

http://rt.com/Best_Videos/2009-11-02...bama-dix.html#

----------


## Naraku

As was noted Russia Today is owned by RIA Novosti, a state-owned Russian media company, and no they do not have pure motives. They are a propaganda arm of the Russian government. They promote all the anti-Western conspiracy theories just like many in the West support conspiracy theories about whatever group the U.S. government is targeting at the time.

Anyone who has been paying attention to Russia would know they talk often of forming a New World Order and have been involved in a number of imperialist escapades. Look into Ergenekon and their connections to Russia as well as their philosophy.

People should realize globalists, like any ideological group, have factions who will target each other. That doesn't mean either have pure motives.

----------


## Baptist

/bump

I Love Russia Today!!!!!!!!!!!!


YouTube - Out-FOXed: Bill O'Reilly bites the RT bullet

----------


## UK4Paul

Who cares if they have an agenda? At the moment, they're pushing the LIBERTY agenda, so... happy days

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

                                       MAJOR FOREIGN HOLDERS OF TREASURY SECURITIES
                                                 (in billions of dollars)
                                               HOLDINGS 1/ AT END OF PERIOD


                       Oct     Sep     Aug     Jul     Jun     May     Apr     Mar     Feb     Jan     Dec     Nov     Oct
Country               2009    2009    2009    2009    2009    2009    2009    2009    2009    2009    2008    2008    2008
                     ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------

China, Mainland       798.9   798.9   797.1   800.5   776.4   801.5   763.5   767.9   744.2   739.6   727.4   713.2   684.1
Japan                 746.5   751.5   731.2   724.5   711.8   677.2   685.9   686.7   661.9   634.8   626.0   625.2   629.6
United Kingdom 2/     230.7   249.3   226.9   219.9   214.0   163.7   152.7   128.1   129.0   123.9   130.9   132.4   133.1
Oil Exporters 3/      188.4   185.3   189.1   189.2   191.2   192.8   189.5   192.0   181.7   186.6   186.2   187.2   176.7
Carib Bnkng Ctrs 4/   169.3   171.7   180.0   193.2   189.7   194.8   204.7   213.6   189.1   176.6   197.5   205.0   203.5
Brazil                156.2   144.9   137.3   138.1   139.8   127.1   126.0   126.6   130.8   133.5   127.0   136.1   141.0
Hong Kong             142.0   132.2   124.7   115.3    99.8    93.2    80.9    78.9    76.3    71.7    77.2    70.6    69.8
*Russia                122.5   121.8   121.6   118.0   119.9   124.5   137.0   138.4   130.1   119.6   116.4   108.0   110.8*


    * 2003: Rose Revolution in *Georgia* follows the presidential election, leading to the ouster of Pres. Shevardnadze and election of Mikhail Saakashvili in March 2004;
    * 2004: Orange Revolution in *Ukraine* in the wake of the disputed November 2004 presidential election;
    * 2005: Tulip Revolution in *Kyrgyzstan* following the disputed Kyrgyz parliamentary election in February and March 2005;
    * 2005: Cedar Revolution in Lebanon following the assassination of opposition leader Rafik Hariri, leading to the expulsion of Syrian troops from Lebanon and ending nearly 30 years of occupation;
    * 2005-2009: Red Shirts vs. Yellow Shirts in Thailand, the yellow shirts representing the People's Alliance for Democracy in opposition to the "red shirts", supporters of the deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra;
    * 2009: Grape Revolution or Twitter Revolution in Moldova after the parliamentary election results showed the Moldavian communist party winning the majority of seats;
    * 2009: Green Revolution in *Iran* following the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

etc

why on earth would Russia want someone in charge that has a clue about economics and a non0interventionise foreign policy?

-t

----------


## Working Poor

I think someone ought to ask Ron Paul why he does interviews with them and see what he says. Maybe he knows who is behind them.

----------


## ProBlue33

> I've always just assumed that Russia would love for the US to dismantle its empire so that Russia can fill at least part of the void. It's therefore in Russia's best interest to promote non-interventionists like Ron Paul. You might say they're doing the right thing for the wrong reason, but I still love the favorable coverage.


Bingo we have a winner. You don't think it's music to Russia's ears when Ron Paul says he would bring home every American soldier stationed abroad. Scale back the American military, and only attack countries that directly attack America.
If I was Putin I would really like that type of NEW American foreign policy.

Of course RT will always present Ron Paul in a favorable light, it's in there best interests.

Of coarse the newly rising regional powers India and China would keep them in check, anyway. In Europe, those countries will never submit to Russia now anyway.
Ron Paul knows this he is always ahead of the curve in seeing where world politics is going.

----------


## sparebulb

What evidence is there to substantiate the claim that Russia has an expansionist agenda?  A person with even a smattering of knowledge of history knows that Russia relinquished control of the Soviet Union voluntarily under many, many promises from the West that their former satellite states would NOT be militarized against them.  Well that is a big promise broken by the West and Russia has a long, bitter history of being invaded from the west.  Their paranoia is well earned.

We are all familiar with liars in government, but why would Putin and Medvedev go on record repeatedly saying that communism and socialism was the worst thing to ever happen to Russia?  Russia is a country with a small and declining population, it is hard to take over the world that way.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> An English-language satellite channel, Russia Today, was launched in late 2005. The news-based station is funded by the Kremlin and aims to present "global news from a Russian perspective". 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/co...2275.stm#media


A good start, but not the whole story...

http://blogs.rnw.nl/medianetwork/sat...-for-us-rights

Satellite TV station Russia Today battles for US rights
May 4th, 2007 - 15:31 UTC
by Andy Sennitt.

*The Kremlins* English language satellite television station Russia Today is fighting for control of its US brand rights, it said today, a battle which could decide its broadcasting future in the United States. The United States Trademark Office on Wednesday turned down Russia Todays trademark application for RT Russia Today because it was too similar to Russia Today already owned by IPD Group, an internet media company based in Washington, DC. IPD Group has demanded US satellite companies ditch the Russia Today channel, citing copyright law.

Russia Today said today the US ruling did not mean a rejection, but instead that it had until October to provide proof its brand did not clash with another. This is a standard procedure that requires some time, the station said in a statement.

*Russia has spent millions of dollars on the Russia Today* 24-hour television news station, launched with the words: From Russia to the world. The station, which *was founded by state-owned news agency RIA Novosti*, is aimed at sprucing up Russias image. It says it is *funded from state coffers and bank loans*. Top Russian officials say the worlds view of Russia is tarnished by biased reports by foreign journalists.

Russia Today, which says it *is editorially independent from the Kremlin*, has heavily branded itself with its white, green and black RT logos which appear on its television channel and on cameras and vans around Moscow. IPD Group has sent letters to Comcast, Intelsat and MHz network, all of which carry the Russian governments Russia Today channel, demanding they immediately stop violating the IPD Groups Russia Today trademark, the company said.

IPD Group owns the www.russiatoday.com website and says it registered the trademark in the United States in 1996. The website is a subscription-based digest and roundup of news from Russia. Russia Todays own website, www.russiatoday.ru, says the channel broadcasts to 100 countries around the world and has correspondents throughout the former Soviet Union and in London, Paris, Jerusalem, Cairo and Washington.

Russia Today said that both the Russian federal trademark authority and the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) have recognised its ownership of the brand name. Under WIPO rules each individual country then has up to 18 months to check trademarks do not infringe current rights in the member countries - the process the United States is currently processing with Russia Today.

(Source: Reuters)

-t

----------


## MN Patriot

Here is a website that might shed some light on this issue: http://www.stratfor.com/. My uncle sends me articles occasionally, this organization seems to be credible. You need to sign up, be a member to see all the articles, but it may be worth it if you want to learn more.

I found this article there, browse and ponder...




> *Russia's Window of Opportunity*
> August 21, 2007 1854 GMT
> The United States has entered a place where it has almost no room to maneuver. President George W. Bush is becoming a lame duck in the fullest sense of the term. This opens a window of opportunity for second-tier powers that would not be prepared to challenge the United States while its forces had flexibility. One power in particular has begun to take advantage of this opportunity -- Russia

----------


## sparebulb

I've always assumed that stratfor is the official journal of the military industrial complex.  I assume that it is their responsibility to always define a military threat whether real, exaggerated, or manufactured.

----------


## Baptist

> Bingo we have a winner. You don't think it's music to Russia's ears when Ron Paul says he would bring home every American soldier stationed abroad. Scale back the American military, and only attack countries that directly attack America.
> If I was Putin I would really like that type of NEW American foreign policy.
> 
> Of course RT will always present Ron Paul in a favorable light, it's in there best interests.
> .



Meanwhile people all over the globe are being exposed to non-intervention, Austrian economics, and the liberty movement.  Some of those exposed are Russians, who years down the road become political leaders and take Russia into a new era of prosperity centered on free markets and individual rights. 

Wishful thinking blowback.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> Of coarse the newly rising regional powers *India and China would keep them in check, anyway*. In Europe, those countries will never submit to Russia now anyway.
> Ron Paul knows this he is always ahead of the curve in seeing where world politics is going.


You sure about that?

China and Russia conduct joint military exercises  (2009)
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...t_11736802.htm

Russia and China: Joint Military Exercises  (2005)
http://www.worldpress.org/Asia/2138.cfm 

‘Rival to Nato’ begins first military exercise (2007)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2204006.ece

Russian and Chinese troops are joining forces this week in the first military exercises by an international organisation that is regarded in some quarters as a potential rival to Nato.

Thousands of soldiers and 500 combat vehicles will take part in “Peace Mission 2007”, organised by the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) in the Chelyabinsk region of Russia. Russian officials have also proposed an alliance between the SCO and a body representing most of the former Soviet republics. 

[...]

and is increasingly regarded by Moscow and Beijing as a counterweight to US global influence.

The secretary-general of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) called last week for joint military exercises with the SCO. Nikolai Bordyuzha said that the body representing Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan should work with the SCO to guarantee security across the region. Mr Bordyuzha has already announced a CSTO plan to create a large military force capable of assisting a member state in the event of an attack. A rapid-reaction force is already based in Central Asia and there are plans for a common air defence system covering most of the former Soviet Union. 

[...]

Igor Ivanov, the head of Russian security, played down concerns in May that the SCO was evolving into a military alliance to counter the expansion of Nato into Asia as part of the War on Terror. But MPs on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee expressed fears last year that the West could be on a collision course in the struggle for energy resources with “an authoritarian bloc opposed to democracy” that was based on an alliance between China and Russia.

A newly assertive Russia, flush with oil and gas revenues, is moving rapidly to increase its military capability amid tensions with the West over missile defence and Nato expansion. Almost £100 billion has been set aside for rearmament over the next eight years. 

etc.

-t

----------


## MN Patriot

> I've always assumed that stratfor is the official journal of the military industrial complex.  I assume that it is their responsibility to always define a military threat whether real, exaggerated, or manufactured.


I haven't noticed that slant of Stratfor, from the limited number of articles I've read. It makes its business by assessing the various foreign situations for Fortune 500 companies, so I would think they are trying to be truthful.  Here is the foreword from George Friedman's book_ America's Secret War_: 



> "The war that began on September 11, 2001, might be called the Fourth Global War, the U.S.-Jihadist War, the U.S.-Al Qaeda War, or the U.S.-Islamist War. Some would argue that it isnt a war at all but an isolated act of terrorism that has been manufactured into a war. Nothing tells us more about the extraordinarily ambiguous and divisive nature of the war than the fact that three years into it, we do not even have a name for it.
> 
>     This book is called Americas Secret War not only because so much of the war is hidden. It is the nature of war that each side must hide as much as can be hidden. The secrecy of this war goes deeper. More than in any other war I have studied, the true reasons for each sides actions are hidden from view. If I look at the war through the lens of public discourse, nothing makes very much sense. Actions seem unconnected to one another, leading nowhere, lacking meaning. In the words of Macbeth, it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

----------


## Baptist

just curious why this was moved to hot topics.  Was it the NWO talk?

----------


## puppetmaster

Some mods censor some media sources here. some have judged RT as not important.

General Politics:
Open to all Political Discussion

Unless you discuss something they don't think is political....

----------


## Matt Collins

My good friend and fellow CFL'er Nicole Kardell...... 

YouTube - $700,000,000,000--Gone Missing?
YouTube - Oops! Obama did it again!
YouTube - "Obama has to stop bullying"
YouTube - Obama set to extend the Patriot Act
YouTube - Is the White House watching you on Facebook?
YouTube - US Gov't collects info over Twitter, Facebook on internet - RT 090904

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It's a bunch of crap.  Russai wants us to reduce our world influence so they can have a greater share in the market of influence. What exactly that means is the question.
> 
> The nuts don't fall far from the tree.  I wouldn't trust a Russian further than I could throw him, I'm sure they feel the same.


Hey!  Some of my best friends are Russian!  Like every other nationality, some are good and some are bad.  Not all feel the same as you do, I promise.

----------


## rpfan2008

> My good friend and fellow CFL'er Nicole Kardell......




I remember seeing this lady and one of RPFs member ("lurking bureaucrat") in youtubes !!!

----------


## Matt Collins

> I remember seeing this lady and one of RPFs member ("lurking bureaucrat") in youtubes !!!



Yes she is/was part of that. And she'll be in Atlanta at the CFL event.

----------


## james1906

> Yes she is/was part of that. And she'll be in Atlanta at the CFL event.


I don't accept that she is your friend until you post a picture of yourself with her.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I don't accept that she is your friend until you post a picture of yourself with her.


Since you asked.....


It was a long day and we were out in the sun and had been partying late in DC the previous night so we were all tired.

----------


## FindLiberty

regarding OP "Why?" question, maybe it's the OLD* 
the enemy of my enemy is my friend motive in order
to _appear_ like they are now a friend to Liberty.

*URL to possible  origin of "enemy of my enemy is my friend" expression?

----------


## Baptist

[edit] nm

/bump!

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

YEAH! - the thread is back!

That doesn't happen often....

SPANK MOD!



-t

----------


## dimaniak

Our government is controlled by zionists and part of NWO. Average russian would agree with any foreign policy in exchange of stability and security. Most russians never heard about libertarian ideas I don't know why Kremlin promotes it on RT(probably to discredit it).
According to local libertarians Georgia didn't attack Abkhazia or Ossetia only 66 conscripts were killed not 2000 citizens. Though I don't trust them very much since most russian libertarians are either zionist jews or work for CATO. BTW Saakashvili is only libertarian leader in post-soviet space. He even mentioned Hayek and Rothbard in his recent economic speech

----------


## rpfan2008

^ Georgia, Ukraine & Uzbekistan are OPEN zionist bases.

Russia is a hidden zionist camp right from the days of Bolshevik revolution (just try to fig out who were Cheka and who were the Gulag inmates). In both Vietnam war and Afghanistan, zionists were controlling both parties....it's a very big game to be seen clearly from literature mostly originating from gatekeepers. 

And btw (let's hope it doesn't happen) the patriot movement is a perfect example of future Gulag inmates in US...they give you coverage only to keep you in a false sense of 'succeeding' while keeping you isolated from the masses & they stage the set for their entry into those camps. This is why I always try to emphasize on the zio angle too much (which many members dislike). 

And I hope you were joking with the Shakasvili part.

----------


## dimaniak

> And I hope you were joking with the Shakasvili part.


http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=21541 - Act on Economic Freedom
http://avigdor.livejournal.com/15474...42073#t2942073 - his speech in russian 


> Наши либеральные экономические воззрения, конечно, отражены в работах Милтона Фридмана, Мюрея Ротбарда, Хайека и фон.. [запнулся] и многих других экономистов.


 Translation: Our liberal economic views are reflected in writings of Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Hayek and von [Mises] and many other economists.  
Andrey Illarionov (one of few well-known russian libertarians) supports him.

----------


## james1906

> http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=21541 - Act on Economic Freedom
> http://avigdor.livejournal.com/15474...42073#t2942073 - his speech in russian  Translation: Our liberal economic views reflected in writings of Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Hayek and von [Mises] and many other economists.  
> Andrey Illarionov (one of few well-known russian libertarians) supports him.


They rank high in tax freedom, along with Qatar, UAE, and Hong Kong, but none of them are known for social freedom.

----------


## LibForestPaul

Why is it so hard to believe they are scared? Perhaps the best (and cheapest) way they see of fighting the NWO is getting Americans to fight it. They are weak, they are backwards, they are corrupt, they can not fight the NWO.

----------


## rpfan2008

> http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=21541 - Act on Economic Freedom
> http://avigdor.livejournal.com/15474...42073#t2942073 - his speech in russian  Translation: Our liberal economic views are reflected in writings of Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Hayek and von [Mises] and many other economists.  
> Andrey Illarionov (one of few well-known russian libertarians) supports him.


I had no doubt that he _said_ so, but whether you believe his words or not was my point. Bush _said_ that he loves free market too, so did many other establishment puppets.

There is no point in discussing this zio drama played by puppets Shak and Putin. The goal of that drama was to make Putin look more anti-US.

----------


## YumYum

> http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=21541 - Act on Economic Freedom
> http://avigdor.livejournal.com/15474...42073#t2942073 - his speech in russian  Translation: Our liberal economic views are reflected in writings of Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Hayek and von [Mises] and many other economists.  
> Andrey Illarionov (one of few well-known russian libertarians) supports him.


Weren't Rothbard, Hayek, von Mises and all the other Jewish Austrian economists controlled by Zionists?

----------


## A. Havnes

> all the rt babes are hot,,,
> 
> 
> my question is, when is tgis show on?  who watches it?..is it tv or internet?


It's TV.  The best way to watch it in America is to download LiveStation, which allows you to watch television from all over the world.  It has it's own channel, like Fox News and CNN.  I think it broadcasts in both Russian and English.  It's not uncommon to find foreign news networks in both the local language and English.

----------


## dimaniak

> Weren't Rothbard, Hayek, von Mises and all the other Jewish Austrian economists controlled by Zionists?


Hayek was jewish?

----------


## someguyinpa

Whoever controls our media probably controls RT. I emailed RT to cover the CC2009 event for Americans and the world, but got no response. All attempts to blog info on the CC2009 event on their site failed approval.

----------


## Lovecraftian4Paul

Russia's national interest is to see a libertarian, non-interventionist US so that they will have a freer hand in the world. Some of this may be for self-defense, as current policy is a real affront and threat to their country. But then, let's have no illusions about Russia. I think their ambitions are far less limited than the world conquest some believe they've been out for, but they definitely want a sphere of influence in places traditionally controlled by Soviet/Tsarist Russia.

The idea we have to get over is that this is somehow our problem. To me, it doesn't matter one way or another if Russia wants to knock the heads of their old Soviet republics. Some of their claims may even be legitimate--like the parts of the Crimea in Ukraine totally populated by Russians. It's unfortunate, but not in our interest and not our business to prevent them from doing so.

----------


## dimaniak

> Some of their claims may even be legitimate--like the parts of the Crimea in Ukraine totally populated by Russians. It's unfortunate, but not in our interest and not our business to prevent them from doing so.


Please don't mix population and government interests. Crimea situation is very different from abkazia, ossetia or central asia.

----------


## AmericaFyeah92

^Sure, Putin is just a libertarian at heart . 

NO State will ever say "Well, we tried Big Gov't and it failed so let's try freedom now." Governments and leaders will always grab for more power. A little restructuring (i.e. USSR=>Russian Federation) does not signal a change in perspective. Putin worked for the KGB for chrissakes!! The same ol' blokes are still running the show.

As for all this NWO stuff, I don't buy it. There's nothing "new" about what's going on in the world. And there's no select group running it all. It's a "conspiracy of ideas" like RP says, not an actual conspiracy between individuals (at least not on a global scale). 

Finally, Russia's frequent opposition to the USA does not make them any better or worse. It's basically a case of two predators fighting for the top of the food chain, or two gangs fighting over turf. There are no good guys here

----------


## tron paul

> The Russian government is pretty against the "nwo" from what I have seen. They have already been down the road of big government, and it didn't work out so well.


That's quite the understatement.

No nation has suffered more under the rule of the International Communist Zionists than Russia.  Especially if you include Ukraine.

We really can't relate to what they went through after their royal family was genocided by the Bolsheviks, plunging Russia into 76 years of fear, death, and darkness.

----------


## Baptist

Russia Today just opened a new channel devoted to American news.
http://www.youtube.com/RTAmerica




> RT America broadcasts from studios in Washington, DC. We report on the other side of the story, not making any conclusions, but raising the unanswered questions.
> 
> Tune in to watch news reports, features and talk shows with a totally different perspective from mainstream American television.

----------


## hillbilly123069

> *I wonder what their angle is.
> 
> I doubt it is a genuine love for freedom and liberty...
> 
> First thing that comes to mind would be that Russia would be free to grab worldwide resources more easily if Ron Paul was in power instead of oil hungry neocons that are willing to start wars to feed the MIC.*
> 
> *Thoughts?
> 
> PS: If you haven't been following RT on their YT channel and have no idea wtf I am talking about, check out their YT channel here 
> ...


We're sbout to be invaded for the promises of those imminent domain promises Hillary made.

----------


## jkm1864

Hahahahaha find your Russian wife today... It always seems like everytime someone has a post about Russia that crap pops up.

----------


## Juan McCain

When the CCCP was *the* US rival for most powerful military industrial complex, especially during the 1950's and 1960's -
the Russian population were suffering.

They may be seeing and learning that as they still clear the cobwebs from those military industrial _communist_ complex decades, 
that liberty and the will of the population are a force that _need_ to be recognized by governments - including their own.

----------


## Srg1

Kgb

----------


## Matt Collins

YouTube - No transparency in Obama White House

----------


## Vessol

It's pretty clear the Russia Today is managed by a somewhat loose leash of the Kremlin. Personally I think they hold all these stories as they still hold much of a grudge over the Cold War and love playing stories that are negative about America. Not that it is bad or anything, we do the same in or media about Russia.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

a lot of Russia's history is fighting for their freedom(a different meaning than what we here think of it as)/sovereignty, whether it was misguided or not

----------


## MelissaCato

I didn't read this whole thread, but Vladimir Putin founded and owns Russia Today, if I'm not mistaken.

I remember back during the US 2008 Presidential primaries I wrote alot of letters of thanks just for airing Ron Paul. They did a good job early on airing Adam Kokesh and even the Militias too. Russia Today, believe it or not, gave good coverage of Ron Paul since the start of his 2008 Campaign.. through the primaries, general election and still allowing individuals to defend America. 
 via the 1st.

Russia Today was also at most the early major Tea Parties and Ron Paul rallies. They were at the airports and even some of the dinners meeting US !!!  LMAO

I will always have a great respect and thanks for Russia Today, they had the media there when we really needed them most ... at the beginning. This is true for this the Revolution. They were there for America.

KGB or not, Vladimir Putin and his Russia Today made American history. Our Media knows it and we know it. Thanks to the internet !!! There's no doubt in my mind Russia Today woke up the rest of the world. Thanks again, America needed to be hearn internationally that "we the people" are good folk and will defend this country as founded given the chance.

I just hope Vladimir Putin is on this Revolutions side when SHTF. Too much to hope for I guess concidering this is a new World Order, but, I wish this. I think the Soviet Union would have been. 

Sooo far these colors didn't run !!!   

JMO.

----------


## Vessol

Considering Putin's past policies of censorship and outright killing of journalists and his obvious attempt at maintaining power to get around term limits the last thing I would do is thank or even trust Putin.

----------


## Pete_00

Russia Today does it because they want a non-interventionist US, stop the anti-"Ruskie" paranoia.

And its easy for you to talk your libertarianism on Russia when you are not being surrounded, bullied and subverted from the inside by the exact same filthy-dirty-rich scumbags that gave them the Red Revolution.

Fix the UsSA the UsK and their client states (France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Eastern Europe and IsraHELL) and you will see Russia and their government ending the JUSTIFIABLE opressive measures.

I think many americans and british dont understand how over extended their financial, media and military power is and the terrible direct and indirect damage it does to the World...

Its kind of funny, Russia is becoming the home of spirituality and freedom and the US-led West are becoming the new commies...lol...

----------


## Mattsa

> I tend to agree with the OP, I've thought about this before. RT often has on people like Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan and I think even Alex Jones. They seem to be against the NWO. That doesn't mean they ARE against the NWO, but it doesn't mean they are not against it either.
> 
> If the US ceded global power, Russia would probably be able to grab more resources and gain temporary power over disputed territories, though they would still be fighting against the NWO in Europe... but to keep and grow that power they will have to overextend themselves and their currency, so ultimately we would gain more wealth and be better off.


Oh the irony!

How bizarre that you are more likely to see people like Ron Paul, Alex Jones and others, interviewed on Russia Today than you are on your own national TV stations.

To be fair, at least Ron Paul gets some airtime on US TV. Here in the UK, very few people know who Ron Paul is and most people have absolutely no concept whatsoever of libertariansim or small government conservatism. Even Thatcher, by far the best of a rotten bunch, was an authortarian. The British are so used to ing bullied by the state, they have no idea what it means to run ones own life without state meddling and interference.

----------


## cyberrate

I will start by saying that I am extremely pro-Russia.

Is RT sponsored by Russian government?
YES

Is it bad for the world peace?
No, because RF government is not the US government. Like someone already said here Russia has a centuries long history of being massively invaded from the west. And US government is the most aggressive government in the world since the III Reich.

I saw someone wrote something like: "Don't trust Putin his a KGB for crissakes" or something similar, well I guess it works ... if you see the world from the Hollywood movies perspective, KGB has been their favorite Bogeyman for quite some so I guess I see where that comes from. 

Of course Russia wants to see US more libertarian, more non-interventionist partner. But not to simply have more influence in the world and not to have more of "free hands" in the world. But simply to finally start breathing. The thing we need to remember here is that US has layers of military bases all around Russian border. It has puppet presidents in puppet countries near Russia that constantly provoke Russia.
Only 4 of 15 former SU countries have people from America as presidents and strangely enough only the same 4 have beef with Russia.

The bottom line is that at the moment the western MSM prevails in the English speaking world. So I support RT for trying to give average westerner the truth and giving a chance to speak to people like RP. But if tomorrow all of this changes and Bush family along with Rupert Murdoch and others finally go to jail and RT takes the FOX place I will support RT no more. *RT is Russia's self defense tool from western MSM.*

----------


## Howard_Roark

It amazes me how people look past very obvious answers and instead resort to unproven conspiracy theories etc. I watched an RT episode by Max Keller, and I could barely take more than a couple minutes due to the blatant, hardcore America bashing. That, in a nutshell is what RT is about. Ron Paul, Jim Rogers, Alex Jones are all highly critical of the US government and thus they fit the bill for RT.

----------


## cyberrate

> It amazes me how people look past very obvious answers and instead resort to unproven conspiracy theories etc.


Exactly what are the obvious answers in your opinion?

----------


## Schiff_FTW

With all the major media outlets state-owned there is basically zero freedom of the press in Russia. 

It reminds me of that old Yakov Smirnoff joke: "When I came to America, I was amazed at the freedom of speech comedians had. I couldn't believe they could criticize their country's leaders out in the open. Here in America you could say, "I don't like Reagan". Of course, in Russia, we were allowed to do that too. We could say, "I don't like Reagan!"

----------


## Corto_Maltese

They have some really hot women on the station ive noticed

----------


## Travlyr

> They have some really hot women on the station ive noticed


Sexy sells.  The liberty movement should take a page out of RT's book and promote freedom throughout the world... TV, radio, newsprint and magazines.  

However, in order to get a liberty news organization off the ground we would probably have to incorporate.

----------


## Baptist

> It amazes me how people look past very obvious answers and instead resort to unproven conspiracy theories etc. I watched an RT episode by Max Keller, and I could barely take more than a couple minutes due to the blatant, hardcore America bashing. That, in a nutshell is what RT is about. Ron Paul, Jim Rogers, Alex Jones are all highly critical of the US government and thus they fit the bill for RT.


And they don't have a reason to bash "America?"  America the republic died a long time ago.  We now live under America the empire.  Our nation is pretty much America in name only.  I bash this country all the time.  I hate what this country has become.  As long as the flag-waving Americans continue to defend "America," the rest of the world will continue to hate free-market economics, deregulation, and individual responsibility.  The rest of the world, and all the left inside this country, will continue to hate those things until you and I stand up and say, "You are right.  Screw this fascistic, corporatist, socialistic, war mongering America.  This America sucks.  We want the TRUE America back.  We want the free-market, non-interventionist, personally responsibility America back.  That America got hijacked and we want it back.  This current America SUCKS."

----------


## AGRP

Russia has spent millions of dollars on the Russia Today 24-hour television news station, launched with the words: From Russia to the world. The station, which was founded by state-owned news agency RIA Novosti, is aimed at sprucing up Russias image. It says it is funded from state coffers and bank loans. Top Russian officials say the worlds view of Russia is tarnished by biased reports by foreign journalists.

http://blogs.rnw.nl/medianetwork/sat...-for-us-rights

----------


## libertybrewcity

they love us!

----------


## AGRP

They could also be approching this from a strictcly profit perspective based on econ101 demand curve of supply/demand.

Fox news has capitalized on being the only conservative/fair tilted name in the business.  RT could simply not have to worship the same pay masters as we do. Oddly, the russian system could not be so corrupted much like asia which a freer market than america does.  

Something like this: 

Putin:

"Invest x amount of dollars in a news agency and make sure it makes money."

Money goes to a group of impartial investment execs.  They do an analysis and come to the conclusion that there is a huge demand for a ron paul/alex jones/etc type programming.

----------


## american.swan

> The Russian government is pretty against the "nwo" from what I have seen. They have already been down the road of big government, and it didn't work out so well.


I can't agree with this.  O.K. the public saw state power as bad and now want something more "western" in terms of politics.  That I can understand, but I doubt the KGB and former leaders of the USSR care a whole lot about what the people think. They will move slowly back to more state control over time.  

Even China is calling for a new world currency, we can guess they are implying their own money, but that might not be the case.   The lower managers of the Bank of China are against the NWO, but the leaders of the bank are still for it.  I know this because a Chinese book called "Currency Wars" has had a huge influence on some important people in China.  The book explains the NWO to China.  The lower level managers believe it.  They believe they've been lied to and are a bit pissed. The leaders of the bank are bought and paid for it seems.  

My take is China and Russia want to have a NWO THEY control, not the west!!  That's my best guess.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> They could also be approching this from a strictcly profit perspective based on econ101 demand curve of supply/demand.
> 
> Fox news has capitalized on being the only conservative/fair tilted name in the business.  RT could simply not have to worship the same pay masters as we do. Oddly, the russian system could not be so corrupted much like asia which a freer market than america does.  
> 
> Something like this: 
> 
> Putin:
> 
> "Invest x amount of dollars in a news agency and make sure it makes money."
> ...


More like:

Putin:

"Make Russia the best source of truth for everything that takes place outside of Russia, and then everyone will believe us when we tell them what it is like inside of Russia.  We get to recycle a bunch of old KGB assets, put on a beautiful face for the world, and in the end we come out ahead.  It's good policy."

----------


## dr. hfn

How can we get Russia Today on the TV in America?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> How can we get Russia Today on the TV in America?


convince the tea party that they will call Obama a "communist" and laugh at him.  then sit back and watch in awe and wonder as they make it happen.

----------


## idirtify

> *I have a hard time believing that Russia is scared.*


I have a hard time believing that since they are interested in us and appear to be sympathizing with liberty issues that it means they want to commit some sort of devious antics like grab resources (or whatever the heck you are fear-mongering about).

----------


## Cowlesy

> How can we get Russia Today on the TV in America?


Channel 525 here (TimeWarnerCable)

----------


## Reason

YouTube - Disease Dissent: HIV/AIDS theory, therapy challenged

----------


## Reason

YouTube - Military spending, collapse of US empire

----------


## Zippyjuan

Russia Today is  propoganda channel. Soft propoganda designed to make Russia look good and US look weak. Like Amerikan Voice of Amerika. <Russian Accent>

----------


## libertybrewcity

i've have been thinking the same question for a long, long time.

----------


## AGRP

They're outsourcing production to ronpaulforums.

Cheaper that way

----------


## LibertyEagle

> LoL, dude, I totally am in the know about what the US does in South America.. but my question was, if we stopped engaging down there, would Hugo Chavez and other leftist leaders backed by Russia essentially be able to take over the region and direct the oil to their markets? *Or would we have more of a free global market for oil because Russia respects other nations sovereignty?*
> 
> I mean, Russia can go take over South America if they want, ultimately I think it will hurt them in the long-run just like it is now hurting us, I'm just trying to help the OP determine motive.


You had me until that highlighted sentence, Danno.  Since when has Russia respect other nations' sovereignty?

----------


## Vessol

I think danno was using sarcasm.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> How can we get Russia Today on the TV in America?


They already are, if you live in the east.

----------


## Mach

http://rt.com/about/corporate-profile/

http://rt.com/about/partners/

----------


## Tal

Well you have to remember that during the cold war the KGB had entire divisions working solely on spreading propaganda and undermining other cultural ideals, I think the Kremlin and its KGB officers are behind the start up of RT because they think that if the US ever converted back into a libertarian society like it was in the 19th century then their dreams of russian dominance in the old world could maybe come true. 

Im sure alot of these intelligence officers blames the collapse of the Soviet Union on the US and I think that they think that if the scope of the state in the US was diminished then their dreams of imperial glory for mother Russia could come true and I think that is why the russian state is supporting the libertarian cause in the US.

They view libertarianism as weakness and capitalist corruption and that is exactly the position they want the US to be in (they are wrong on their analysis however that a free society is weaker than a statist society).

----------


## RM918

> Well you have to remember that during the cold war the KGB had entire divisions working solely on spreading propaganda and undermining other cultural ideals, I think the Kremlin and its KGB officers are behind the start up of RT because they think that if the US ever converted back into a libertarian society like it was in the 19th century then their dreams of russian dominance in the old world could maybe come true. 
> 
> Im sure alot of these intelligence officers blames the collapse of the Soviet Union on the US and I think that they think that if the scope of the state in the US was diminished then their dreams of imperial glory for mother Russia could come true and I think that is why the russian state is supporting the libertarian cause in the US.
> 
> They view libertarianism as weakness and capitalist corruption and that is exactly the position they want the US to be in (they are wrong on their analysis however that a free society is weaker than a statist society).


Exactly. We all know what happens to empires.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Russia Today is  propoganda channel. Soft propoganda designed to make Russia look good and US look weak. Like Amerikan Voice of Amerika. <Russian Accent>


Looks like it

YouTube - Aliens Shot Down California Missile [RT]

----------


## yoshimaroka

> Well you have to remember that during the cold war the KGB had entire divisions working solely on spreading propaganda and undermining other cultural ideals, I think the Kremlin and its KGB officers are behind the start up of RT because they think that if the US ever converted back into a libertarian society like it was in the 19th century then their dreams of russian dominance in the old world could maybe come true. 
> 
> Im sure alot of these intelligence officers blames the collapse of the Soviet Union on the US and I think that they think that if the scope of the state in the US was diminished then their dreams of imperial glory for mother Russia could come true and I think that is why the russian state is supporting the libertarian cause in the US.
> 
> They view libertarianism as weakness and capitalist corruption and that is exactly the position they want the US to be in (they are wrong on their analysis however that a free society is weaker than a statist society).


I think it's pretty much the reverse of what you say.

The Soviet Union subverted Hollywood and the academia in the USA. Marxists are prevalent in those two institutions.

Checkout this video with a former Soviet spy who talks about the process:
Soviet Subversion of the Free World Press - 1984

----------


## Matt Collins

Me thinks we are about to see some good things come from "Russia Today". Keep watching

----------


## Matt Collins

> Me thinks we are about to see some good things come from "Russia Today". Keep watching




Here is the press release:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...erica-April-11

----------


## daviddee

Trolled old post.

----------


## Knightskye

> I've been wondering this myself. Also, if it's _Russia_ Today, why is it all in English?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

A simple search for Россия Сегодня (Russia Today) turns up this-http://russiainnews.ru/en/ (russian version is-http://russiainnews.ru/)
It's just a general interest site, discussing everything from current events to developments in social networks.  It's most likely that the RT english tv channel caters to Anglophones' penchant for conspiracy theories and such.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

> I tend to agree with the OP, I've thought about this before. RT often has on people like Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan and I think even Alex Jones. They seem to be against the NWO. That doesn't mean they ARE against the NWO, but it doesn't mean they are not against it either.
> 
> If the US ceded global power, Russia would probably be able to grab more resources and gain temporary power over disputed territories, though they would still be fighting against the NWO in Europe... but to keep and grow that power they will have to overextend themselves and their currency, so ultimately we would gain more wealth and be better off.


Of COURSE Russia is against the NWO, especially if they aren't leading it.  Look back in history, there was probably not even one century Russia didn't have to defend itself.  Look how many times it was attacked by its neighbors, near and far.  The only difference now is they have the largest nuclear stockpile in the world.  As a matter of fact, WW2 was a over over Russia, the only reason Hitler moved west was because Britain and France declared war on Germany shortly after the invasion of Poland.

----------

