Ukraine burns

[alanschu]

To be fair, any application of the CSA flag outside of the United States implies a degree of "I don't understand what they're using that flag for."

[213374U]

To be fair, any application of the CSA flag outside of the United States implies a degree of "I don't understand what they're using that flag for."

 

Have you met any skinhead or other "foot soldier" types? They aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed. You don't understand what they are using that flag for, because they don't understand it themselves. All part of the job description, I guess.

 

I assumed that the association of the Keltenkreuz with neo-nazi groups was well known, but I guess peeps living on the other side of the pond aren't much aware of Euro neo-nazi symbologies. TIL...

[Tagaziel]

To be fair, any application of the CSA flag outside of the United States implies a degree of "I don't understand what they're using that flag for."

That has a lot to do with a general lack of research. Kind of like with people dismissing UPA as a collaborationist militia, ignoring the historical complexities of the region and the fact that UPA was pursuing a doctrine trying to carve out an independent Ukraine between the Nazis and the Soviets. It didn't work out too well.

[Malcador]

Forgot you have the Gigolo rep.

You have me confused with...hmm..is it Shryke still ? No, Rosbjerg now.

[Tagaziel]

You have me confused with...hmm..is it Shryke still ? No, Rosbjerg now.

May be. Would Shryke be really interested in bedding Vladimira Pootyn?

[Mor]

It's still a compromise to his legitimacy as head of state.

His legitimacy would be the same as that of Barack Obama in the hypothetical scenario in which he would have been impeached, after running away and being unreachable during time of national crisis, in which a battle was raging in NY, with dozens of Occupy Wall Street protesters dead after he gave the order to use live ammo and before that used squads of hired goons to break them .. then after he got impeached and criminal charges were field pop up again play surprised.

 

* "I mean, even in (the very silly) Vancouver riot, there were anarchists among the crowd looking on starting trouble. They just helped rally the drunken, angry hockey fans by instigating trouble."

* "I'm of the opinion that anyone who thinks using the Confederate Flag to represent anything other than slavery is going to immediately undermine their position enough that it's almost meaningless."

* "I think seeing this as a putsch (which is basically just a coup) isn't really an unfair way to look at it."

Pretty much first two, only the rallying is done by Russia guiding hand and instead of a Confederate Flag we got a Nazi one, used to paint nationalist elements of one side fence with familiar colors that carry a lot of baggage for the other.

 

As for the later. I seen an early elections called after president run away during national crisis and was impeached. From here to calling it a coup(usually used associated with military coup) or Putsch which is the German word for it seem to serve one and the same goal of Russian propaganda

 

Further, things like repealing the language laws are certainly going to cause concern, especially if there are concerns over how much power/influence fascists have obtained (and I think it'd be convenient to simply state "none at all"). It's obviously been established much longer in Canada, but despite being almost exclusively an anglophone, I'd consider it a bad sign if French was suddenly no longer an official language of Canada.

Only Russian never was an official language of Ukraine, what you refer to is a decision to revert a recent regional year old law by the deposed president, that allowed second language status to minorities that constitute more 10% of regions population. Which IMO isn't a big issue, since it could be easily reinstated after the election if there is a majority for it, but I'd love to see you make a leap from and issue that aggravated underlying ethnic tensions and animosities to "fascism" and if you do try, please also explain the difference between Nationalism and fascism i.e. why would anyone refer to nationalist on one sides as fascist and not on the other. Edited March 5, 2014 by Mor

[Malcador]

Well the woman's body his face was put on isn't all that bad (not sure what the aim of that was to begin with).

[Mor]

 

Meanwhile in the US:

 

* Disclaimer, this user doesn't actually support Obama, US\EU direct action or think that much can be done directly against Russia bullying in Ukraine.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Mor

[alanschu]

Tymoshenko feels signatories of 1994 treaty are the ones that have to negotiate with Russia now

 

Mostly because she feels Ukraine's negotiation ability is compromised due to Russian soldiers in their borders.

 

 

 

Which IMO isn't a big issue, since it could be easily reinstated after the election if there is a majority for it, but I'd love to see you make a leap from and issue that aggravated underlying ethnic tensions and animosities to "fascism" and if you do try, please also explain the difference between Nationalism and fascism i.e. why would anyone refer to nationalist on one sides as fascist and not on the other.

At this point I mostly just consider you a myopic, unreasonable poster. If you can't see it, it's because you are choosing to not see it. I can see it, even though I don't agree with it. To me it's trivial to see how someone can make that conclusion, even if I don't think it's the correct one. Especially in a world of media propaganda (on both sides) and sufficient self-awareness that most (if not all) of us are making the best suppositions we can based on this imperfect information.

 

It's clear you don't consider it a complicated situation. You see it as "one side is wrong." That isn't a tricky nor complicated situation. It's a simple one (with the only complications being what to do about it). In any case, I've said my bit to you regarding this and will leave it at that going forward.

Edited March 5, 2014 by alanschu

[alanschu]

Tweet: Kerry continues to encourage Russia to talk with Ukraine

 

(Shared this mostly in that it's not in alignment with what Tymoshenko feels is necessary.

[213374U]

 

To be fair, any application of the CSA flag outside of the United States implies a degree of "I don't understand what they're using that flag for."

That has a lot to do with a general lack of research. Kind of like with people dismissing UPA as a collaborationist militia, ignoring the historical complexities of the region and the fact that UPA was pursuing a doctrine trying to carve out an independent Ukraine between the Nazis and the Soviets. It didn't work out too well.

 

 

Keep trying. With practice, you may be good for comic relief. Because, as far as facticity is concerned, you just aren't making the cut. As the armed wing of the OUN—an organization that collaborated closely with and was financed by the German Abwehr, and whose leaders aimed to throw the Bolsheviks from Ukraine "under the banner of Adolf Hitler" (p.338) until the tide turned at Stalingrad and they figured that they had been jerked around enough by the Germans—UPA was formed to push an agenda of ethnic cleansing on western Ukraine (of Poles, ironically enough—still feeling sympathetic to these dregs?) as well as to fight any foreign powers in Ukraine: Germans, Soviets, Poles, Czechoslovaks. OUN encouraged the recruitment of more than 80,000 Ukrainians into the Waffen-SS and was operationally in charge of the Abwehr-organized Nachtigall and Roland spec ops battallions.

 

But please, show me this "research" that I'm missing that gives nuance to the issue of Ukrainian fascists and fully explores the "complexities of the region", instead of just throwing a few weasel words around to cover your woefully one-sided view of the matter. I'd love to read it!

Edited March 5, 2014 by 213374U

[alanschu]

Liz Wahl resigns on the air

 

Note that she is an American in the US branch of Russia Today.

[Mor]

@alanschu, please be more specific. You disagree that this law is a minor issue on the current Ukrainian agenda? that it has been blown up out of proportion by interested parties that wish to marginalize complex issues by perpetuation an image they can easily discredit?(e.g. see posts by oby) That Russia had been steering the pot from before Euromaidne protests and intervened within another sovereign nation? That Russia main interest is Russia and weak submissive puppet Ukraine? That Russia had destabilizing effect on Independent Ukraine for a long time, and its current action has adverse to Ukrainian solving their internal issues? or even though you agree that this a complex situation and spent several paragraph to formulate single issue, that you don't get the hang of loaded terms in the context of this crisis?

 

Also i'd still love to know what in your opinion is the difference between fascist and nationalist here and where Ukrainian Nationalist who fight for his nations Independence, Crimean Nationalist(Separatist) or the ones Pro-Russian ones in east Ukraine come into play?

Edited March 5, 2014 by Mor

[Zoraptor]

You disagree that this law is a minor issue on the current Ukrainian agenda? that it has been blown up out of proportion by interested parties that wish to marginalize complex issues by perpetuation an image they can easily discredit?

 

 

Oh for the love of...

 

Of course removing the official status of the language is a big deal. It's a big deal to the people effected, it's also a big deal to the new government.

 

It was one of the very first things the new government did, they obviously thought it was of critical importance.

 

Ye gods man, even the people you're defending without question think it's a big deal.

 

The only people arguing that it isn't are people who want to paint the Ukrainian rump parliament in the best possible light, and don't want the burden of having to justify the- minority, per elections- inflicting their vision onto other regions and telling them what languages can be supported. It also gives credence to Svoboda's "Ukraine for Ukrainian" rhetoric, as well as appointing Svoboda members to those most reconciliatory of positions- Prosecutor General (!) and Minister of Defence (!!!). Face facts, there was not going to be reconciliation.

 

Be interesting to see how it still manages to be Putin's fault and him blowing it all out of proportion due to propaganda, when the entire western media didn't even report on it for a week plus.

 

(Plus, nice racism. Good to see the drunken Russian stereotype is alive and well. Can't really object as it just shows how poor your arguments are. At least Tagaziel's ones are topical, if not less biased)

Edited March 5, 2014 by Zoraptor

[AGX-17]

If Russia put Yulia Tymoshenko back in power the world would suddenly and inexplicably support Russia unconditionally.

Edited March 6, 2014 by AGX-17

[Mor]

 

You disagree that this law is a minor issue on the current Ukrainian agenda? that it has been blown up out of proportion by interested parties that wish to marginalize complex issues by perpetuation an image they can easily discredit?

Of course removing the official status of the language is a big deal. It's a big deal to the people effected, it's also a big deal to the new government.

ed)

 

Yes Zaptor for the love of good.. Also let go of the straws, the question wasn't if it is big deal to.., but it is a big deal on the current agenda.. or just used to perpetuation an image of anti Russia bias (fascist and what not) to which you adhere to.

 

Considering that they just had amendments to constitution(revoking the extended powers to given to the president in 2004), in the middle of immense internal political and economical challenges, with Russian invasion on their hands and one stop from defaulting. Do tell what is this major issue that you and oby keep bringing up above allllll else. This law which could be easily reintroduced if there would be majority for it, was voted down not by the "new government" per se, but by majority withing Ukraine council (which iirc haven't been changed and still represent Ukraine electorates) Also this year+ old law was part of long controversy and only recently pushed in by the deposed president regardless recommendations, It is laso seen as contributing factor to underlying ethnic tensions and animosities.

 

So do tell, how is this minor blip on the current immediate issues at hand, which was voted down democratically, due to its association with deposed president corruption and as the cause of current issues which ~divide by language lines abd which could be easily reinstead with a mjorty once thing call down, is your holly grail of fascism?

 

Because the only major connection to Nazi germany I see is this:

 

 

[alanschu]

Of course removing the official status of the language is a big deal. It's a big deal to the people effected, it's also a big deal to the new government.

 

It was one of the very first things the new government did, they obviously thought it was of critical importance.

I think in general we seem to be on opposite sides of the situation on the whole, but I have to say that this cannot really be understated.

 

 

I mean, sure it could easily be reenacted at a later date, but it sends a pretty clear message. "Hi, we're the new government in power. And one of the first things we're going to do is this thing that can be construed as a move to marginalize someone based on their minority status." Even if it's not, the optics of a move like this send inappropriate messaging and helps muddy the waters a lot, in my opinion. Especially since, from what I have read, it sounds like this was a major catalyst for some of the response in the east and in Crimea.

 

Given how fascist regimes often rally around the perceived injustices incurred at the hands of minorities (and I think it's fair that even most of the Russian speaking people in Ukraine are mostly your fairly standard, non-monster of a human being), this type of step sends a terrifying message IMO. Especially among the plethora of other, "first thing we need to do" types of responses the government could have done.

 

I have a hard time believing that the government would have been oblivious to the fact that it'd only escalate tensions, at best. I mean, did they sit down and say "this would definitely be in the immediate best interests of our country??"

[milczyciel]

As the armed wing of the OUN—an organization that collaborated closely with and was financed by the German Abwehr, and whose leaders aimed to throw the Bolsheviks from Ukraine "under the banner of Adolf Hitler" (p.338) until the tide turned at Stalingrad and they figured that they had been jerked around enough by the Germans—UPA was formed to push an agenda of ethnic cleansing on western Ukraine (of Poles, ironically enough—still feeling sympathetic to these dregs?) as well as to fight any foreign powers in Ukraine: Germans, Soviets, Poles, Czechoslovaks. OUN encouraged the recruitment of more than 80,000 Ukrainians into the Waffen-SS and was operationally in charge of the Abwehr-organized Nachtigall and Roland spec ops battallions.

Well, to be honest I do not feel sympathetic towards extremists of all kind. Also most Poles dislikes Bandera and his legacy with passion. I'm bit torn whether to let it go, if only because I think I understand Ukrainians sentiment towards him and UPA but on the other hand my grandmothers family came from Wolyn (Volhynia) and she lost aunt and two uncles because of those ethnic cleansing. Then again, no Ukrainian ever hurt me, in fact they were even far friendlier then I expected, given that I was that kind of annoying tourist, who tries to communicate with locals using his own language again and again and again :D

For now though, I/we will roll with them and see how situation unfolds. If only because of "reasons" given by polandball comics (what can I say, doing things against Papa Bear will is kinda national hobby here).

 

This way or another, I ask you, humbly, to not meddle in that issue, as I strongly believe it should be left to us, Poles and Ukrainians alone to settle. I've seen enough of Russian inspired (or paid of) traffic on the comment sections of most Polish news sites lately. Needles to say overwhelming majority of them are clearly aimed to stirring up public opinion by reminding about "Volhynian slaughter" as we call it. Something we're quite aware of, just like we are about some of Svoboda's and Right Sector's sentiments.

 

Sure you can call me paranoid, but it's the same story all over again - happened back when our president supported Georgia in 2008 and also on few other occasions. In most cases results are the same - they're just annoying and appealing only to those, who are lost cause anyway, as majority of Poles can see through their disguise. After all our language isn't called one of the worst for nothing, thus for us, native speakers it's quite easy to distinguish a foreigner thanks to anachronisms usage, specific grammar mistakes or (in this case specifically) things so obvious as addressing other forum users as "brothers" (protip: no Pole will do that unless he's pompous 80 year old or a priest celebrating mass).

Allow me not to go into more details because I do not wish to make Oby's job any easier

 

Anyway I suppose that Russian cyber/information warfare capabilities (even if underestimated as unsophisticated en masse strategy) are nothing new to the most of you, so let me end it right here.

 

Have a nice day.

Edited March 6, 2014 by milczyciel

[alanschu]

Standoff ranges from tense to surreal

 

 

I will say that I am happy that, thus far, the armed forces on both sides seem to have stayed any sort of impetuousness in terms of responses that could be led to more open confrontation.

[213374U]

This way or another, I ask you, humbly, to not meddle in that issue, as I strongly believe it should be left to us, Poles and Ukrainians alone to settle. I've seen enough of Russian inspired (or paid of) traffic on the comment sections of most Polish news sites lately. Needles to say overwhelming majority of them are clearly aimed to stirring up public opinion by reminding about "Volhynian slaughter" as we call it. Something we're quite aware of, just like we are about some of Svoboda's and Right Sector's sentiments.

 

Sure you can call me paranoid, but it's the same story all over again - happened back when our president supported Georgia in 2008 and also on few other occasions. In most cases results are the same - they're just annoying and appealing to those, who are lost cause anyway, as majority of Poles can see through their disguise. After all our language isn't called one of the worst for nothing, thus for us, native speakers it's quite easy to distinguish a foreigner thanks to anachronisms usage, specific grammar mistakes or (in this case specifically) things so obvious as addressing other forum users as "brothers" (protip: no Pole will do that unless he's pompous 80 year old or a priest celebrating mass).

Allow me not to go into more details because I do not wish to make Oby's job any easier

 

If you have only read that post, I guess it would be easy to misunderstand my position. But so far, I have not taken sides. I have not defended Russia sending troops in. I have not defended Yanukovych. I have not even accused Maidan protesters of being neo-nazis, because those who have usurped power do not necessarily constitute a representative sample of the Ukrainian citizenry. I am not on the FSB payroll (if only!). But if there is to be any measure of understanding, we have to begin by calling a spade a spade—just pretending that everyone on the opposing side of the guys we don't like are bleeding heart pacifists facing off against tyranny doesn't leave much room for debate. You cannot expect one side to honor a deal if the other side doesn't. The cornerstone of my arguments is always the same: Western double standards. Yes, Russia also plays that game (any major player does), but it's not Putin you hear all the time touting the importance of abiding by the law and generally playing nice.

[Mor]

US state department memo, so take it with a grain of salt, still it provide a good summary of the major point raised by the two side. I wouldn't say that Russia would necessarily pick those 10 points for its case, but its good enough and provide decent summary (I learned new details on two points)

 

As Russia spins a false narrative to justify its illegal actions in Ukraine, the world has not seen such startling Russian fiction since Dostoyevsky wrote, “The formula ‘two plus two equals five’ is not without its attractions.”

Below are 10 of President Vladimir Putin’s recent claims justifying Russian aggression in the Ukraine, followed by the facts that his assertions ignore or distort:

 

1. Mr. Putin says: Russian forces in Crimea are only acting to protect Russian military assets. It is “citizens’ defense groups,” not Russian forces, who have seized infrastructure and military facilities in Crimea.

 

The Facts: Strong evidence suggests that members of Russian security services are at the heart of the highly organized anti-Ukraine forces in Crimea. While these units wear uniforms without insignia, they drive vehicles with Russian military license plates and freely identify themselves as Russian security forces when asked by the international media and the Ukrainian military. Moreover, these individuals are armed with weapons not generally available to civilians.

 

2. Mr. Putin says Russia’s actions fall within the scope of the 1997 Friendship Treaty between Ukraine and the Russian Federation.

 

The Facts: The 1997 agreement requires Russia to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Russia’s military actions in Ukraine, which have given them operational control of Crimea, are in clear violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.

 

3. Mr. Putin says The opposition failed to implement the February 21 agreement with former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

 

The Facts: The February 21 agreement laid out a plan in which the Rada, or Parliament, would pass a bill to return Ukraine to its 2004 Constitution, thus returning the country to a constitutional system centered around its parliament. Under the terms of the agreement, Yanukovych was to sign the enacting legislation within 24 hours and bring the crisis to a peaceful conclusion. Yanukovych refused to keep his end of the bargain. Instead, he packed up his home and fled, leaving behind evidence of wide-scale corruption.

 

4. Mr. Putin says Ukraine’s government is illegitimate. Yanukovych is still the legitimate leader of Ukraine.

 

The Facts: On March 4, President Putin himself acknowledged the reality that Yanukovych “has no political future.” After Yanukovych fled Ukraine, even his own Party of Regions turned against him, voting to confirm his withdrawal from office and to support the new government. Ukraine’s new government was approved by the democratically elected Ukrainian Parliament, with 371 votes – more than an 82% majority. The interim government of Ukraine is a government of the people, which will shepherd the country toward democratic elections on May 25th – elections that will allow all Ukrainians to have a voice in the future of their country.

 

5. Mr. Putin says There is a humanitarian crisis and hundreds of thousands are fleeing Ukraine to Russia and seeking asylum.

 

The Facts: To date, there is absolutely no evidence of a humanitarian crisis. Nor is there evidence of a flood of asylum-seekers fleeing Ukraine for Russia. International organizations on the ground have investigated by talking with Ukrainian border guards, who also refuted these claims. Independent journalists observing the border have also reported no such flood of refugees.

 

6. Mr. Putin says Ethnic Russians are under threat.

 

The Facts: Outside of Russian press and Russian state television, there are no credible reports of any ethnic Russians being under threat. The new Ukrainian government placed a priority on peace and reconciliation from the outset. President Oleksandr Turchynov refused to sign legislation limiting the use of the Russian language at regional level. Ethnic Russians and Russian speakers have filed petitions attesting that their communities have not experienced threats. Furthermore, since the new government was established, calm has returned to Kyiv. There has been no surge in crime, no looting, and no retribution against political opponents.

 

7. Mr. Putin says Russian bases are under threat.

 

The Facts: Russian military facilities were and remain secure, and the new Ukrainian government has pledged to abide by all existing international agreements, including those covering Russian bases. It is Ukrainian bases in Crimea that are under threat from Russian military action.

 

8. Mr. Putin says There have been mass attacks on churches and synagogues in southern and eastern Ukraine.

 

The Facts: Religious leaders in the country and international religious freedom advocates active in Ukraine have said there have been no incidents of attacks on churches. All of Ukraine’s church leaders, including representatives of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate, have expressed support for the new political leadership, calling for national unity and a period of healing. Jewish groups in southern and eastern Ukraine report that they have not seen an increase in anti-Semitic incidents.

 

9. Mr. Putin says Kyiv is trying to destabilize Crimea.

 

The Facts: Ukraine’s interim government has acted with restraint and sought dialogue. Russian troops, on the other hand, have moved beyond their bases to seize political objectives and infrastructure in Crimea. The government in Kyiv immediately sent the former Chief of Defense to defuse the situation. Petro Poroshenko, the latest government emissary to pursue dialogue in Crimea, was prevented from entering the Crimean Rada.

 

10. Mr. Putin says The Rada is under the influence of extremists or terrorists.

 

The Facts: The Rada is the most representative institution in Ukraine. Recent legislation has passed with large majorities, including from representatives of eastern Ukraine. Far-right wing ultranationalist groups, some of which were involved in open clashes with security forces during the EuroMaidan protests, are not represented in the Rada. There is no indication that the Ukrainian government would pursue discriminatory policies; on the contrary, they have publicly stated exactly the opposite.

Edited March 6, 2014 by Mor

[alanschu]

Russia Today responds to Liz Wahl's resignation

 

I can agree that this may not be the most professional way of doing things. At the same time, however, I am not sure if it is shameless self-promotion or not because I could see an act like this compromising her professionally.

 

On the other hand, sometimes people feel something needs to be said in a particularly shocking way. In any case, she made her bed in this way.

[milczyciel]

If you have only read that post, I guess it would be easy to misunderstand my position. But so far, I have not taken sides. I have not defended Russia sending troops in. I have not defended Yanukovych. I have not even accused Maidan protesters of being neo-nazis, because those who have usurped power do not necessarily constitute a representative sample of the Ukrainian citizenry. I am not on the FSB payroll (if only!). But if there is to be any measure of understanding, we have to begin by calling a spade a spade—just pretending that everyone on the opposing side of the guys we don't like are bleeding heart pacifists facing off against tyranny doesn't leave much room for debate. You cannot expect one side to honor a deal if the other side doesn't. The cornerstone of my arguments is always the same: Western double standards. Yes, Russia also plays that game (any major player does), but it's not Putin you hear all the time touting the importance of abiding by the law and generally playing nice.

I followed every post in that thread (even Oby's, just in case) and were addressing mostly underscored and bolded part of our post... or I tried to.

I don't believe I accused you of taking sides, only wanted to point out, that by calling Polish involvement as "ironical" you sound like an FSB pawn to a statistical Pole. I suppose I may not fit the role model but hey, I'm the best you got .

Funny enough I even had that one sentence written, where I made it pretty clear and asked if you really want to be seen as such, but deleted it because I could not fit it anywhere without rewriting whole paragraph. Even so I assumed that I did myself clear enough... but it seems I was overconfident.

If such was the case, then I'm sorry.

 

So again, for clarification's sake - I only ask for letting us, Poles, to decide whether we're going to brag (or not) about grandfather's sins when our neighbour seems to be in dire need.

 

Cheers!

[213374U]

 

Russia Today responds to Liz Wahl's resignation

I can agree that this may not be the most professional way of doing things. At the same time, however, I am not sure if it is shameless self-promotion or not because I could see an act like this compromising her professionally.

On the other hand, sometimes people feel something needs to be said in a particularly shocking way. In any case, she made her bed in this way.

 

I don't know. Back in the day, journalists had a responsibility not only to convey facts, but also as a sort of cultural beacon people could look at for honest assessment and guidance. If she really believes RT is a propaganda outlet for the Kremlin and this is incompatible with her dignity as a journalist, she did the right thing by making her resignation a public matter, in my eyes. Impossible to know whether she has something better lined up (which would diminish the value of the act) or if the real reasons are what she stated, but no reason to assume they are not.

 

I wish this sort of thing happened more often, to be honest.

 

 

 

that by calling Polish involvement as "ironical" you sound like an FSB pawn to a statistical Pole. [...]

 

So again, for clarification's sake - I only ask for letting us, Poles, to decide whether we're going to brag (or not) about grandfather's sins when our neighbour seems to be in dire need.

 

Right. So maybe I should clarify, too. The irony I was remarking on is that a Pole was whitewashing an organization that was created to carry out the ethnic cleansing of... Poles. And I felt this irony was worth pointing out because the sole reason for this defense is a pig-headed adherence to a manichaean, Europe-vs-Russia view of the issue, from page one. I'm not too sure if this is the same Polish involvement you are talking about.

 

And to make it perfectly clear: I am not bragging or otherwise using war crimes to take a moral high ground. But are you suggesting that we should sweep the past under the rug because things are rough in Ukraine and extend moral blank checks to anyone that stands up to Putin? Sorry but I can't do that. I'd be partaking in the same double standards I've been raising hell about. Agree to disagree and all that.

[alanschu]

I don't know. Back in the day, journalists had a responsibility not only to convey facts, but also as a sort of cultural beacon people could look at for honest assessment and guidance. If she really believes RT is a propaganda outlet for the Kremlin and this is incompatible with her dignity as a journalist, she did the right thing by making her resignation a public matter, in my eyes. Impossible to know whether she has something better lined up (which would diminish the value of the act) or if the real reasons are what she stated, but no reason to assume they are not.

 

 

 

I wish this sort of thing happened more often, to be honest.

It wasn't clear in my post, but I agree. It may not be professional, but perhaps it still needed to be shared with people at large. A behind the scenes conversation may not solve anything (though may still cost her her job).