"Russia Reportedly Wants its Cold War Aircraft Carrier Back from China - Even though there is no overt ideological alignment, Beijing and Moscow currently enjoy the best relations since the late 1950s. While China and Russia have no formal alliance, the two countries do have an informal agreement to coordinate diplomatic and economic movies."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-wants-to-buy-back-its-old-aircraft-carrier-from-china/ar-AA168DHA

Why not?
If Russia promises to use it for Self Defense purpose only, China could certainly sell it to Russia. In reality, China should have no reason not to
help Russia for its self-defense.

ltlee1, <news:809bb9c9-aea3-4bc4-9fce-65f2bfb2d2efn@googlegroups.com>

> "Russia Reportedly Wants its Cold War Aircraft Carrier Back from China -
> Even though there is no overt ideological alignment, Beijing and Moscow
> currently enjoy the best relations since the late 1950s. While China and
> Russia have no formal alliance, the two countries do have an informal
> agreement to coordinate diplomatic and economic movies."

> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-wants-to-buy-back-its-old-aircraft-carrier-from-china/ar-AA168DHA

| "Given the current situation, I propose to buy the ship from China,
| give it the name of the founder of the Liberal Democratic Party
| Vladimir Zhirinovsky and make it the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet,"
| Karginov, a member of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR),
| told .."

The Liberal Democratic Party (LDPR) in Russia is a quasi-opposition
semi-clownish party which primary social-political function is to curb
and spoil real - if any - radical nationalism: they pick some impulses
and slogans that might fit to radical nationalist sentiment and turn
it into hot air so that it ends with essentially nothing.

It's a part of the Kremlin's "counter-extremist" social engineering.

As one may notice, the folks seek for something bold that can be named
after Zhirinovsky, their former party leader (earlier they also sought
to name one of the Aeroflot's airplanes in honor of Zhirinovsky).

In turn, this "old aircraft carrier" theme started back autumn 2021.
Beijing Today newspaper <https://is.gd/g3SzEP> wrote about rumors that
China allegedly seeks to sell its old ships (including the old Soviet-
design aircraft carrier that China once bought from the Ukriane) to
Russia or India. I could not find the Beijing Today's article online,
but few Russian outlets discussed these rumors referring to the Beijing
Today's article (<https://is.gd/QmtM0t>, <https://clck.ru/33FM3V>).

Then there were also speculations in the American media on "the realm
of possibility the Russian Navy will operate decades in the future with
Chinese-made aircraft carriers" <https://clck.ru/33FMCg>.

What this LDPR (Liberal Democratic Party) member has said looks like an
echo from those rumors, and so far his claim should be seen mainly as a
PR action intended to produce a hot air around the LDPR once again.

Given that certain cooperation between Russia and China really exists,
it's not impossible that there'd be something more behind these noises
and rumors. However, it'd be better to rely on some more reliable news
from more official sources. So far there were no such news on the topic,
as far as I know.

On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 8:08:55 AM UTC, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
> ltlee1, <news:809bb9c9-aea3-4bc4...@googlegroups.com>
> > "Russia Reportedly Wants its Cold War Aircraft Carrier Back from China -
> > Even though there is no overt ideological alignment, Beijing and Moscow
> > currently enjoy the best relations since the late 1950s. While China and
> > Russia have no formal alliance, the two countries do have an informal
> > agreement to coordinate diplomatic and economic movies."
>
> > https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-wants-to-buy-back-its-old-aircraft-carrier-from-china/ar-AA168DHA
> | "Given the current situation, I propose to buy the ship from China,
> | give it the name of the founder of the Liberal Democratic Party
> | Vladimir Zhirinovsky and make it the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet,"
> | Karginov, a member of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR),
> | told .."
>
> The Liberal Democratic Party (LDPR) in Russia is a quasi-opposition
> semi-clownish party which primary social-political function is to curb
> and spoil real - if any - radical nationalism: they pick some impulses
> and slogans that might fit to radical nationalist sentiment and turn
> it into hot air so that it ends with essentially nothing.
>
> It's a part of the Kremlin's "counter-extremist" social engineering.
>
> As one may notice, the folks seek for something bold that can be named
> after Zhirinovsky, their former party leader (earlier they also sought
> to name one of the Aeroflot's airplanes in honor of Zhirinovsky).
>
> In turn, this "old aircraft carrier" theme started back autumn 2021.
> Beijing Today newspaper <https://is.gd/g3SzEP> wrote about rumors that
> China allegedly seeks to sell its old ships (including the old Soviet-
> design aircraft carrier that China once bought from the Ukriane) to
> Russia or India. I could not find the Beijing Today's article online,
> but few Russian outlets discussed these rumors referring to the Beijing
> Today's article (<https://is.gd/QmtM0t>, <https://clck.ru/33FM3V>).

Looks like Russia media was quoting British and Beijing Today reporting
which, in turn, based on Chinese netters discussion.
https://news.sina.com.cn/c/2021-12-04/doc-ikyakumx1916701.shtml
>
> Then there were also speculations in the American media on "the realm
> of possibility the Russian Navy will operate decades in the future with
> Chinese-made aircraft carriers" <https://clck.ru/33FMCg>.
>
> What this LDPR (Liberal Democratic Party) member has said looks like an
> echo from those rumors, and so far his claim should be seen mainly as a
> PR action intended to produce a hot air around the LDPR once again.
>
> Given that certain cooperation between Russia and China really exists,
> it's not impossible that there'd be something more behind these noises
> and rumors. However, it'd be better to rely on some more reliable news
> from more official sources. So far there were no such news on the topic,
> as far as I know.

Russia wants to buy an aircraft carrier from China also offers the meeting of
minds on both the ethics and legitimacy of weapon sale and transfer. And
if self-defense is always ethical and legitimacy, when is self-defense self-defense?

ltlee1, <news:40939da4-2595-40a9-a2fe-6ad446abe396n@googlegroups.com>
> On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 8:08:55 AM UTC, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
>> In turn, this "old aircraft carrier" theme started back autumn 2021.
>> Beijing Today newspaper <https://is.gd/g3SzEP> wrote about rumors that
>> China allegedly seeks to sell its old ships (including the old Soviet-
>> design aircraft carrier that China once bought from the Ukriane) to
>> Russia or India. I could not find the Beijing Today's article online,
>> but few Russian outlets discussed these rumors referring to the Beijing
>> Today's article (<https://is.gd/QmtM0t>, <https://clck.ru/33FM3V>).
>
> Looks like Russia media was quoting British and Beijing Today reporting
> which, in turn, based on Chinese netters discussion.
> https://news.sina.com.cn/c/2021-12-04/doc-ikyakumx1916701.shtml

Very good research!

| .. After verification, the Chinese government has never stated that
| it will resell the "Liaoning" to Russia or India .. After verification,
| the Beijingtoday website registered by Kunming Lewang Digital
| Technology Co., Ltd. has a "Military" column. On November 29, an
| article titled "Once the Liaoning is decommissioned, is it feasible to
| sell it back to Russia?" .. Further searches found that this article
| was published on the "Today's Toutiao" platform on November 28, and it
| was originally created by the military self-media "Baiyang Observation
| Room" .. This article cannot be called a press release. It can only be
| regarded as the opinion of ordinary netizens, and it cannot be used as
| a source of news reports ..

Those who look through the China's internet periodically, know well that
there's a lot of Chinese bloggers (what's called "self-media" in Chinese
style) who often speculate even on "sensitive" topics related to politics
and military, and their individual opinions may deviate from the China's
official settings, and sometimes their opinions may be even crazy.

Do the editors of Gazeta.ru know this?

Maybe no, then it's a blatant unprofessionalism.
Maybe yes, then it's a deliberate spewing of misinformation.
In the both cases, it harms the Gazeta.ru's reputation.

Gazeta.ru has been more than once seen spreading dubious reporting with
regard to China (I once already noticed it <https://tinyurl.com/kayf7vah>,
"2021-02-12 Russian "liberal opposition" outlet says ...", and that case
looked definitely as an intentional spreading of confusing stuff related
to China).

As to the mentioned LDPR member, as an MP, he's aside from the executive
branch. What exactly he did is that he's sent to some government agency
his proposal "to buy the ship from China" likely keeping in mind the idea
(which he likely picked up from the misleading Gazeta.ru/Aif's articles)
that China seeks to sell it. If so, then all this is nothingburger.

On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 9:44:37 PM UTC, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
> ltlee1, <news:40939da4-2595-40a9...@googlegroups.com>
> > On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 8:08:55 AM UTC, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
>
> >> In turn, this "old aircraft carrier" theme started back autumn 2021.
> >> Beijing Today newspaper <https://is.gd/g3SzEP> wrote about rumors that
> >> China allegedly seeks to sell its old ships (including the old Soviet-
> >> design aircraft carrier that China once bought from the Ukriane) to
> >> Russia or India. I could not find the Beijing Today's article online,
> >> but few Russian outlets discussed these rumors referring to the Beijing
> >> Today's article (<https://is.gd/QmtM0t>, <https://clck.ru/33FM3V>).
> >
> > Looks like Russia media was quoting British and Beijing Today reporting
> > which, in turn, based on Chinese netters discussion.
> > https://news.sina.com.cn/c/2021-12-04/doc-ikyakumx1916701.shtml
> Very good research!
>
> | .. After verification, the Chinese government has never stated that
> | it will resell the "Liaoning" to Russia or India .. After verification,
> | the Beijingtoday website registered by Kunming Lewang Digital
> | Technology Co., Ltd. has a "Military" column. On November 29, an
> | article titled "Once the Liaoning is decommissioned, is it feasible to
> | sell it back to Russia?" .. Further searches found that this article
> | was published on the "Today's Toutiao" platform on November 28, and it
> | was originally created by the military self-media "Baiyang Observation
> | Room" .. This article cannot be called a press release. It can only be
> | regarded as the opinion of ordinary netizens, and it cannot be used as
> | a source of news reports ..
>
> Those who look through the China's internet periodically, know well that
> there's a lot of Chinese bloggers (what's called "self-media" in Chinese
> style) who often speculate even on "sensitive" topics related to politics
> and military, and their individual opinions may deviate from the China's
> official settings, and sometimes their opinions may be even crazy.
>
> Do the editors of Gazeta.ru know this?
>
> Maybe no, then it's a blatant unprofessionalism.
> Maybe yes, then it's a deliberate spewing of misinformation.
> In the both cases, it harms the Gazeta.ru's reputation.

If your point is that countries R, A, C and etc could not trusted to report responsibility
on countries non-R, non-A, non-C and etc, I agree. In general, publications are only as
good as their readers.

For myself, I mostly read English language publications. Supposedly quality US publication
either misled their leaders intentionally or unintentionally all the time. If you think Gazeta.ru
is unprofessional in comparison to well known publications like the NYTimes, WashingtonPost,
the WSJ, and etc, please explain with your comparative experience.

>
> Gazeta.ru has been more than once seen spreading dubious reporting with
> regard to China (I once already noticed it <https://tinyurl.com/kayf7vah>,
> "2021-02-12 Russian "liberal opposition" outlet says ...", and that case
> looked definitely as an intentional spreading of confusing stuff related
> to China).
>
> As to the mentioned LDPR member, as an MP, he's aside from the executive
> branch. What exactly he did is that he's sent to some government agency
> his proposal "to buy the ship from China" likely keeping in mind the idea
> (which he likely picked up from the misleading Gazeta.ru/Aif's articles)
> that China seeks to sell it. If so, then all this is nothingburger.

When is a nothingburger a nothingburger?

Feel free to speculate on whether the member of the Liberal Democratic Party of
Russia was misled by Gazeta.Ru. And what did he want to accomplish by raising
the issue. He is after all speaking as a Russian insider on Russian issue. Whether
Russia could buy the originally made in Russia aircraft carrier or not does not per se
make the issue a nothingburger from Russian point of view.

His buying the Liaoning is also a way to invite the world to discuss broader issues
concerning the ethics and legitimacy of selling and/or transferring weapons from
one nation to another. When is self-defense/counter-strike self-defense/counter-strike?
Or is it still a matter of might makes right and to be defined only by the most powerful
country/alliance?

On 12 Jan 2023 at 00:23:18 CET, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Russia Reportedly Wants its Cold War Aircraft Carrier Back from China - Even
> though there is no overt ideological alignment, Beijing and Moscow currently
> enjoy the best relations since the late 1950s. While China and Russia have no
> formal alliance, the two countries do have an informal agreement to coordinate
> diplomatic and economic movies."
>
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-wants-to-buy-back-its-old-aircraft-carrier-from-china/ar-AA168DHA
>
> Why not?
> If Russia promises to use it for Self Defense purpose only, China could
> certainly sell it to Russia. In reality, China should have no reason not to
> help Russia for its self-defense.

Wait, if China wants to sell its Air carrier, which means China will have only
one left air carrier in its arsenal that combat ready / active
--
-alien-
~ Work like you don't need the money. ~
~ Love like you've never been hurt. ~
~ Dance like nobody is looking. ~

ltlee1, <news:fe391b84-da97-45b2-8f44-e15ad42e6bf2n@googlegroups.com>
> On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 9:44:37 PM UTC, Oleg Smirnov wrote:

>> As to the mentioned LDPR member, as an MP, he's aside from the executive
>> branch. What exactly he did is that he's sent to some government agency
>> his proposal "to buy the ship from China" likely keeping in mind the idea
>> (which he likely picked up from the misleading Gazeta.ru/Aif's articles)
>> that China seeks to sell it. If so, then all this is nothingburger.
>
> When is a nothingburger a nothingburger?
>
> Feel free to speculate on whether the member of the Liberal Democratic
> Party of Russia was misled by Gazeta.Ru. And what did he want to accomplish
> by raising the issue. He is after all speaking as a Russian insider on
> Russian issue. Whether Russia could buy the originally made in Russia
> aircraft carrier or not does not per se make the issue a nothingburger from
> Russian point of view.

Pure non-speculative fact is that a freaky MP has filed his
individual proposal to one of the MFA's departments.
Presenting it like "Russia wants etc" is a misinterpretation.
So the statement in the headline of the MSN's article you've
posted here is misleading.

In Russia-related infospace it's not being discussed. There
were initial news reports in January 6 about the proposal.
After that, there were no comments from officials as well as
no comments in the media, and in the Russian social networks
I saw very few negative remarks sort of "look, what a fool".

That is what the case looks like without speculations.

ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Russia Reportedly Wants its Cold War Aircraft Carrier Back from China
> - Even though there is no overt ideological alignment, Beijing and
> Moscow currently enjoy the best relations since the late 1950s. While
> China and Russia have no formal alliance, the two countries do have an
> informal agreement to coordinate diplomatic and economic movies."
>
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-wants-to-buy-back-its-old-aircraft-carrier-from-china/ar-AA168DHA
>
> Why not?
> If Russia promises to use it for Self Defense purpose only, China
> could certainly sell it to Russia. In reality, China should have no
> reason not to help Russia for its self-defense

Does USA use (currently) aircraft carriers for "self defense only"?
Military might projection *far away* seems fit better.

--
A. Filip : Big (Tech) Brother is watching you.
| What passes for optimism is most often the effect of an
| intellectual error. (Raymond Aron, "The Opium of the Intellectuals")

On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:00:47 PM UTC, A. Filip wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > "Russia Reportedly Wants its Cold War Aircraft Carrier Back from China
> > - Even though there is no overt ideological alignment, Beijing and
> > Moscow currently enjoy the best relations since the late 1950s. While
> > China and Russia have no formal alliance, the two countries do have an
> > informal agreement to coordinate diplomatic and economic movies."
> >
> > https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-wants-to-buy-back-its-old-aircraft-carrier-from-china/ar-AA168DHA
> >
> > Why not?
> > If Russia promises to use it for Self Defense purpose only, China
> > could certainly sell it to Russia. In reality, China should have no
> > reason not to help Russia for its self-defense
> Does USA use (currently) aircraft carriers for "self defense only"?
> Military might projection *far away* seems fit better.

The US, China, as well as other countries do not commit their aircraft carrier for
defense. In contrast, Japan has its constitution, an added on imposed by the US,
limiting its military for self defense. Yet with US help,

"Japan has After 76 Years, Japan Has Aircraft Carriers Again."

Could other countries following US/Japan's example concerning what could be count
as self-defense?
>
> --
> A. Filip : Big (Tech) Brother is watching you.
> | What passes for optimism is most often the effect of an
> | intellectual error. (Raymond Aron, "The Opium of the Intellectuals")

On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 3:12:39 AM UTC, alien wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2023 at 00:23:18 CET, "ltlee1" wrote:
>
> > "Russia Reportedly Wants its Cold War Aircraft Carrier Back from China - Even
> > though there is no overt ideological alignment, Beijing and Moscow currently
> > enjoy the best relations since the late 1950s. While China and Russia have no
> > formal alliance, the two countries do have an informal agreement to coordinate
> > diplomatic and economic movies."
> >
> > https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-wants-to-buy-back-its-old-aircraft-carrier-from-china/ar-AA168DHA
> >
> > Why not?
> > If Russia promises to use it for Self Defense purpose only, China could
> > certainly sell it to Russia. In reality, China should have no reason not to
> > help Russia for its self-defense.
> Wait, if China wants to sell its Air carrier, which means China will have only
> one left air carrier in its arsenal that combat ready / active

Well, the whole is currently just a suggestion from a member of
the Russian government. It is not clear that Russia really needs
one.

But I found the proposition timely. Could China or other nations contribute to
self-defense without contributing war suffering through weapon sales and/or
transfer?

US got itself wealthy through arms sales and strategic material sales to NAZI
Germany and Imperial Japan in the past. More currently, many people in the
Middle East also blame the US for its sales/transfer to Israel.

The US also invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq under the doctrine of PREVENTIVE
WAR, supposedly an act of self-defense, and hence considered law by the US.

"PREVENTIVE WAR. Preventive war occurs when a state launches a military
conflict to prevent another state or other international actor from becoming a
threat. This type of war differs from the more typical situation in which states
go to war after a period of crisis or as a reaction to a particular event. "

There is as yet not much discussion as well a universal consensus on what count
as self-defense.

> --
> -alien-
> ~ Work like you don't need the money. ~
> ~ Love like you've never been hurt. ~
> ~ Dance like nobody is looking. ~

On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 7:23:19 AM UTC+8, ltlee1 wrote:
> "Russia Reportedly Wants its Cold War Aircraft Carrier Back from China - Even though there is no overt ideological alignment, Beijing and Moscow currently enjoy the best relations since the late 1950s. While China and Russia have no formal alliance, the two countries do have an informal agreement to coordinate diplomatic and economic movies."
>
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-wants-to-buy-back-its-old-aircraft-carrier-from-china/ar-AA168DHA
>
> Why not?
> If Russia promises to use it for Self Defense purpose only, China could certainly sell it to Russia. In reality, China should have no reason not to
> help Russia for its self-defense.

This is interesting, the topic is worth consideration. If Russia wants to buy back its carrier now, the answer is, Yes.

For sure, there is a need for it. For both side, there is a reason for it, too.

If not careful, to sell and purchase could take some years of discussions between them. If takes too long, a lot can happen. A change of mind can happen. The need may not be there anymore. There may be a change of plan, too. The sale and purchase may delay longer or even ended.

Buy back or lease option is worth a consideration. Lease is a faster option than purchase. Just pay the rental lease of the carrier and it can send over to Russia. Rental payment can be paid by way of sales of oil and natural gas or sales of lands too.

Another option is to have China built new carrier for Russia. China can, on average, build a new carrier in 3 years and commissioning in another 1 year. Another option is for Russia and China to jointly build a new carrier instead. Russia can design their carrier and let China build for them. China can also jointly with China, as it can shorten the long house in

On Monday, January 16, 2023 at 1:57:30 AM UTC+8, stoney wrote:
> On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 7:23:19 AM UTC+8, ltlee1 wrote:
> > "Russia Reportedly Wants its Cold War Aircraft Carrier Back from China - Even though there is no overt ideological alignment, Beijing and Moscow currently enjoy the best relations since the late 1950s. While China and Russia have no formal alliance, the two countries do have an informal agreement to coordinate diplomatic and economic movies."
> >
> > https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-wants-to-buy-back-its-old-aircraft-carrier-from-china/ar-AA168DHA
> >
> > Why not?
> > If Russia promises to use it for Self Defense purpose only, China could certainly sell it to Russia. In reality, China should have no reason not to
> > help Russia for its self-defense.
> This is interesting, the topic is worth consideration. If Russia wants to buy back its carrier now, the answer is, Yes.
>
> For sure, there is a need for it. For both side, there is a reason for it, too.
>
> If not careful, to sell and purchase could take some years of discussions between them. If takes too long, a lot can happen. A change of mind can happen. The need may not be there anymore. There may be a change of plan, too.. The sale and purchase may delay longer or even ended.
>
> Buy back or lease option is worth a consideration. Lease is a faster option than purchase. Just pay the rental lease of the carrier and it can send over to Russia. Rental payment can be paid by way of sales of oil and natural gas or sales of lands too.
>
> Another option is to have China built new carrier for Russia. China can, on average, build a new carrier in 3 years and commissioning in another 1 year. Another option is for Russia and China to jointly build a new carrier instead. Russia can design their carrier and let China build for them. China can also jointly with China, as it can shorten the long house in

Correction to last line: Russia can also jointly build carrier with China. China has capacity of speed and time. They can shorten the long years of building it in Russia. Russia can customize design but produced in China. China can build more yards to produce for countries too.

On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 11:15:14 AM UTC, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
> ltlee1, <news:fe391b84-da97-45b2...@googlegroups.com>
> > On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 9:44:37 PM UTC, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
>
> >> As to the mentioned LDPR member, as an MP, he's aside from the executive
> >> branch. What exactly he did is that he's sent to some government agency
> >> his proposal "to buy the ship from China" likely keeping in mind the idea
> >> (which he likely picked up from the misleading Gazeta.ru/Aif's articles)
> >> that China seeks to sell it. If so, then all this is nothingburger.
> >
> > When is a nothingburger a nothingburger?
> >
> > Feel free to speculate on whether the member of the Liberal Democratic
> > Party of Russia was misled by Gazeta.Ru. And what did he want to accomplish
> > by raising the issue. He is after all speaking as a Russian insider on
> > Russian issue. Whether Russia could buy the originally made in Russia
> > aircraft carrier or not does not per se make the issue a nothingburger from
> > Russian point of view.
> Pure non-speculative fact is that a freaky MP has filed his
> individual proposal to one of the MFA's departments.
> Presenting it like "Russia wants etc" is a misinterpretation.
> So the statement in the headline of the MSN's article you've
> posted here is misleading.

freaky MP?
According to whom and what criteria?
>
> In Russia-related infospace it's not being discussed. There
> were initial news reports in January 6 about the proposal.
> After that, there were no comments from officials as well as
> no comments in the media, and in the Russian social networks
> I saw very few negative remarks sort of "look, what a fool".

So?

For comparison, was Nixon a freaky politician for befriending
China? Was not being wildly discussed made the issue foolish
or irrelevant?

If Kissinger feigning illness while visiting Pakistan and then
got on a plane to China freaky?

> That is what the case looks like without speculations.

ltlee1, <news:c255d56c-7b9a-4f11-970a-cf1ecca71ee9n@googlegroups.com>
> On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 11:15:14 AM UTC, Oleg Smirnov wrote:

>> Pure non-speculative fact is that a freaky MP has filed his
>> individual proposal to one of the MFA's departments.
>> Presenting it like "Russia wants etc" is a misinterpretation.
>> So the statement in the headline of the MSN's article you've
>> posted here is misleading.
>
> freaky MP?
> According to whom and what criteria?

According to the fact that his proposal is silly.
Also, he was known for some unrealistic proposals before.
As well as the LDPR is known as "hot air" party.

>> In Russia-related infospace it's not being discussed. There
>> were initial news reports in January 6 about the proposal.
>> After that, there were no comments from officials as well as
>> no comments in the media, and in the Russian social networks
>> I saw very few negative remarks sort of "look, what a fool".
>
> So?
>
> For comparison, was Nixon a freaky politician for befriending
> China? Was not being wildly discussed made the issue foolish
> or irrelevant?
>
> If Kissinger feigning illness while visiting Pakistan and then
> got on a plane to China freaky?
>
>> That is what the case looks like without speculations.

On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 1:30:37 PM UTC, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
> ltlee1, <news:c255d56c-7b9a-4f11...@googlegroups.com>
> > On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 11:15:14 AM UTC, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
>
> >> Pure non-speculative fact is that a freaky MP has filed his
> >> individual proposal to one of the MFA's departments.
> >> Presenting it like "Russia wants etc" is a misinterpretation.
> >> So the statement in the headline of the MSN's article you've
> >> posted here is misleading.
> >
> > freaky MP?
> > According to whom and what criteria?
> According to the fact that his proposal is silly.
> Also, he was known for some unrealistic proposals before.
> As well as the LDPR is known as "hot air" party.

1. So you don't really known him as a person. And you can't or don't care
to distinguish a politician who occasionally has silly proposal and a freaky
politician. And because he is Russian? Yes.

2. More important, silly or not is often a matter of perspective and
context. The common saying is one man's meat is another man's
ˈpoison'.

Anyway, whether the specific suggestion is silly or the Russian politician
is freaky is irrelevant. Because his question is touching one of the most
important question of on international peace. The question of arms transfer
and when is self-defense self-defense.

> >> In Russia-related infospace it's not being discussed. There
> >> were initial news reports in January 6 about the proposal.
> >> After that, there were no comments from officials as well as
> >> no comments in the media, and in the Russian social networks
> >> I saw very few negative remarks sort of "look, what a fool".
> >
> > So?
> >
> > For comparison, was Nixon a freaky politician for befriending
> > China? Was not being wildly discussed made the issue foolish
> > or irrelevant?
> >
> > If Kissinger feigning illness while visiting Pakistan and then
> > got on a plane to China freaky?
> >
> >> That is what the case looks like without speculations.

On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 11:45:39 AM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 1:30:37 PM UTC, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
> > ltlee1, <news:c255d56c-7b9a-4f11...@googlegroups.com>
> > > On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 11:15:14 AM UTC, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
> >
> > >> Pure non-speculative fact is that a freaky MP has filed his
> > >> individual proposal to one of the MFA's departments.
> > >> Presenting it like "Russia wants etc" is a misinterpretation.
> > >> So the statement in the headline of the MSN's article you've
> > >> posted here is misleading.
> > >
> > > freaky MP?
> > > According to whom and what criteria?
> > According to the fact that his proposal is silly.
> > Also, he was known for some unrealistic proposals before.
> > As well as the LDPR is known as "hot air" party.
> 1. So you don't really known him as a person. And you can't or don't care
> to distinguish a politician who occasionally has silly proposal and a freaky
> politician. And because he is Russian? Yes.
>
> 2. More important, silly or not is often a matter of perspective and
> context. The common saying is one man's meat is another man's
> ˈpoison'.
>
> Anyway, whether the specific suggestion is silly or the Russian politician
> is freaky is irrelevant. Because his question is touching one of the most
> important question of on international peace. The question of arms transfer
> and when is self-defense self-defense.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Putin Says NATO Countries Indirectly Involved in Ukraine's Crimes Against Civilians

MOSCOW (Sputnik) - Weapon supplies to Ukraine free-of-charge by NATO countries makes them an accomplice, albeit indirectly, to crimes committed by Kiev against civilians in the regions that broke away from it in the east, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Sunday.
"It is not a simple military cooperation, as they [NATO countries] do not get money in return. They are unilaterally supplying weapons [to Ukraine], which means that they are involved — at least indirectly — in the crimes committed by the Kiev regime, including the shelling of residential areas in Novorossiya and Donetsk," Putin told the Moscow.Kremlin.Putin TV show.

Western countries have been supplying Ukraine with various types of weapon systems, including air defense missiles, multiple launch rocket systems, tanks, self-propelled artillery, and anti-aircraft guns since Russia launched its special military operation in Ukraine a year ago.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://sputniknews.com/20230226/putin-says-nato-countries-indirectly-involved-in-ukraines-crimes-against-civilians-1107821260.html