Russia has been turning into a fascist state for more than a decade. I am not surprised because they never really understood what is wrong with totalitarianism and have been lamenting the loss of their European colonies that took place in the 1990ies. The majority of Russians are primitive shameless people for whom being feared by the outside world is the ultimate satisfaction.

In contrast to that, the majority of Germans regrets that their country was a totalitarian monster 70-80 years ago. Regardless of the fact that Hitler's Germany was the single strongest country of that time and was undoubtedly feared.

for many years. The writing has been on the wall all the time. Those idiotic threats are just the tip of the iceberg. It would be wrong to downplay them with the arguments like "some idiot lost his nerves". The bellicosity has been on the rise in Russia for many years and no, the reason is not that they were unjustly insulted by the West. The fascist-like regime wants to expand and dominate. It is that simple. The fascizoids can never be stopped by appeasement. The appeasement did not work before WWII and will not work now. The only argument they understand is raw power. For them, politeness and tolerance are signs of weakness and met with derision. Maybe, I hope, one day the Russian people will kick the fascists out of power but for the forseeable future this is wishful thinking.

Well, international relations are heating up again, coffee-break is over and the West should better wake up and start doing something. If raw power is the only thing that can stop the bad guys, raw power we must accumulate.

Ironically, the Russians (that gave Snowden shelter) have been doing that same thing for as long as Internet is available there.

Is that the article?

http://news.sciencemag.org/arc...

Snowden chose to take part in a war. A war that takes place on many fronts; part of it is a real hot war (against the islamists - the scale may be not one of a total war but it is a real war with active killings), part of it is cold (against Russia and/or China - no shooting takes place on those fronts but there is some real struggle about shifting the power balance this or that way). Whose side one takes is a matter of preference. I personally feel part of the Western world and consequently I side with the US because the US is the only remaining real Western power. The hot war the US wages against the islamists keeps them pinned down in some remote (from my POV) locations. It is leftist myth that if the US withdraws the islamists will calm down; for a while, maybe, and then they will be upon us; they clearly seek control and domination. The US kinda decreased the pressure on Russia during Obama's presidency and we are witnessing the ill effects of that at the moment, Russia smothering Ukraine into submission. The EU has some ways to influence Russia but they are clearly insufficient and it is really sad to watch the EU senility and inability against the bold arrogance of Northern Asia.

Those wars are out there, like it or not. The US has done terrible wrongs but, from my POV, that is secondary to the fact the US is the only real power that can keep the Asian autoritarianism at distance. Information is absolutely vital for not losing a war (winning is impossible anyway) and what Snowden did, no matter what the motives, clearly hurt our side. To whine about "clemency" is ridiculous. He chose to switch sides himself. His former job was such that getting into neutral position for him is impossible. I doubt Russia will ever let him be free to move at will. Just like the USSR never trusted Kim Filby and kept him in a controlled environment, more a showcase rather then any asset of any value, I suspect now Snowden will be a pet monkey for the Kremlin satrap. However, if Snowden is let free, I will not shed any tears when the long arm of youknowwho reaches him.

The impact on global climate would be NOTHING MEASURABLE whatsoever. Several years ago I read China is about to launch 700+ coal power stations by 2020. Sure, China will decommission other stations in that period, but the overall trend is obvious. Even if the whole Norway, not just the army, stops eating anything and even stops breathing to reduce the so called carbon footprint, the impact would be ... nothing. China alone will more than compensate :)

We have been knowing for a long time that in Russia, "government" and "organised crime" are pretty synonymous. Now we have a direct evidence: in all examples of detained Russian, the said citizens are known criminals. The government, however, does not deplore the fact they are criminals, it deplores the fact the criminals get caught.

The Earth's climate has always been changing and will be changing while the planet is alive. It is uncertain whether humans have measurable influence on those changes at all; the fact that people with clear financial interests claim so does not make it certainty. Even if we suppose there is a measurable influence it is still uncertain whether the human influence is setting the current trends -- there have been warm ages in the past, too. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period.

When I was growing up, i.e. the 70ies and the 80ies, the climate scare was The Big Bad Global Cooling. At the end of the 90ies and until recently, the climate scare was The Big Bad Global Warming. Then the scare mongers got smarter and now the scare is The Big Bad Climate Change Whatever It Is. Since the climate is always changing it is a perfectly safe bet it is going to change, somehow. To prevent the climate from changing is about as possible as to prevent the Earth from rotating :)

BTW, we have an unusually cold summer here in the Balkans.

If the US did play entirely by the rules, the USSR would win the Cold War. The USSR was a fascist country, although the red sort of fascism, and observed no rules in its quest for dominance over Eurasia. I am glad the West's only country capable of standing against the USSR had politicians like Dr Kissinger that were focused on winning.

Some reality check first. It is completely unthinkable to have a major country that has no state secrets and whose information is completely free and open for anyone interested. By "major country" I mean one that has geopolitical standing and ambitions. A country that is completely open, information-wise, if such exists, is an irrelevant entity -- a satellite in the orbit of one of the major players.

Sorry if you don't like the reality. Reality has the interesting property to exist regardless of whether we like it, or even whether we believe in it. The reality is that the political world is not, and cannot be, a single entity ruled by mutual trust and eternal love. The political world is divided into hostile blocks. Even if our block falls down (due to, among other reasons, too much assangeness), the blocks will not disappear, they will reshape. China has enough vitality as far as I can tell. Surely the chikoms would not mind all US secrets being published openly. Surely they can fill in the geopolitical void left by the US (hypothetically speaking).

Of course, there is a flip side to that. The government secret agencies tend to do nasty things behind the veil of secrecy and in that sense it is a good thing to have civil control over them. However, that does not alter one bit the fact that it is impossible to be a successful geopolitical player that reveals **all** her secrets.

J. Assange took an active part in a war. He may not realise that but he did. Now he whines that the party he damaged is trying to destroy him :) Welcome to the real world, idiot! Every major player will do the same. Try hurting Russia or China or Turkey or Israel and see what happens. The sissies from the Western shelter have become accustomed to the idea you can hurt the state with impunity. Well, that's only possible in a small part of the world. Only inside the shelter that protects from the brutal reality. And is possible only to a certain degree. If too much assangeness happens, either the state will find means of protecting itself from the cancer, or will be overrun by a hostile party that allows no assangeness :)

Poverty is an inevitability, not a social ill. What is social ill is the attempt to eradicate poverty at any cost -- since people's capabilities are vastly different, the stratification of a free society is inevitable, so 1) it takes a huge (and unnecessary) effort to bring the so called minimum standard of living to those that are incapable and/or lazy, and 2) the said effort decreases the overall freedom.

Try your tricks on a country that is not guilt-ridden. Try suing China. They are gonna show you a three-finger configuration as tall as the exhaust towers of their most recent thermal power plant.

China alone is going to commission more than 700 new coal power plants by 2020. Sure, in the meantime they are gonna decommission other plants but the overall tendency is obvious. And there is NOTHING you can do about it.

Most likely, the AGW is bullshit. I notice that recently the alarmist changed they mantras from "global warming" to "climate change" -- since there is always some climate change, it gives the alarmists a much safer option for permanent occupation. However, assuming AGW is not bullshit, still you can do NOTHING because a huge part of the world is 1) out of your reach 2) interested predominantly in its own growth. :)

Even *if* there is stable tendency towards global warming and *if* it is man made, you cannot change anything. China alone will start, IIRC, 700+ coal power plants by 2020 or 2025. The data is from the Nat Geo magazine. Sure, China will decomission some coal power plants in the meantime, but overall it will increase CO2 emissions in such a way that Western CO2 savings will make no real difference whatsoever. Even if the West halts its industry to zero, the overall tendency will be man made CO2 increase. And you cannot do ANYTHING. You cannot stop China and India. You cannot force them to submit to the green religion. You certainly can lose the competition ... and that's the most you can achieve by self imposing restrictions and guilt.

Human activities (except for nuclear ones) cannot cause serious earthquakes unless there is already sufficient tectonic tension (probably not the right term, I am not a geologist) in the region. I believe that fracking can cause an earthquake but only as a trigger. Just like a firecracker can trigger an avalanche, provided the right conditions for avalanche are already there. In that sense, those earthquakes are "benign" because those regions earthquake-prone anyways; the longer the period of building tension, the worse is the inevitable earthquake that releases it.