Ongoing discussion of Ukraine

[Drowsy Emperor]

I am almost speechless. You're buying the idea that the Russian media, with provable direct ownership straight to Putin, is more trustworthy than Western media organisations with a long history of independence and multiple mechanisms for enforcing as much impartiality as possible...

 

I guess what interests me is why you'd pick the former. Is it that you hate the latter and you'll choose any damn fool who is against NATO?

 

Can I ask whether you also believed comical Ali? I'm genuinely curious.

 

You conveniently side-stepped the fact that the western media flat out lied, or supported the state enforced propaganda lie that Saddam Hussein had WMD as they have many times before and since. I've been following the Ukraine crisis closely and there is no significant difference between the two media sides. Western media has their propaganda, the Russians have theirs, but the west is supporting an illegitimate side and breaking international law so their media is recruited to provide support for the whole charade and is therefore less reliable. The Russians could afford to tell more of the truth seeing as how it wins them points in the international community.

[Agiel]

So you don't believe many of us don't cross-check stories across multiple sources, from Reuters to AP, from Al Jazeera to Vice, from Stratfor to the BBC? Because on top of the fact that Russia's own mouthpieces are craving for blood when the above sources have said virtually nothing of the sort in response, I think you have a pretty good idea on why we draw the conclusions that we do. I'll freely admit I'll never read any news-related link with "RT.com" in the URL, but I also extend that courtesy to anything with "Freerepublic" in it.

Edited April 27, 2014 by Agiel

[Walsingham]

I note, for example, that Putin said categorically that no Russian troops were in Crimea. Then later said that 'of course' they were in Crimea.

 

But you feel free to keep hopping along in Putin's shadow, mate. I'm sure it's a viable long term strategy and won't result in Russia economy suffering further chronic lack of investment, coupled with ludicrous divestment via a coterie of oligarchs.

 

russia sells only two thingsthat the rest of the world wants: petrochems and weapons. It's a banana republic, without the weather.

[Zoraptor]

'Cross checking sources' is utterly useless if all the articles, ultimately, have the same source. That's why "US spokesman says" articles are exactly as useless as "Russian spokesman says" articles from the other side, and the current horrific trend of asking 'random' people on the street for their opinions and giving them inordinate weight. I can cite dozens of articles saying that Russian jets invaded Ukrainian airspace for example- and they all have exactly the same source: "US/ Ukrainian spokesman says", full stop. There is no proof, there isn't even any evidence offered, beyond the raw statement. No times, no places, nothing. It's unprovable, and it relies entirely on 'trust us' for any weight.

 

It is understandable that they don't offer anything else at this point as they have had a pretty appalling strike rate with anything and everything refutable- the beardy man pictures, who I see popped up again on the Beeb at a wedding, plus the incorrectly translated anti Jew letters in Donetsk just over the last few days- almost certainly because they're taking whatever Kiev says at face value, and quite possibly because they know that even if they chuck false stuff out there it'll be parroted blithely and most people won't ever see any corrections that may be made.

 

That is, essentially, exactly what happened with the WMD issue as well, they had a very bad strike rate with anything involving concrete evidence and refutable stuff (like the plagiarising from a public record Master's Thesis) but got better results the more vague and "trust us, we know where the WMDs are" they were- and the media tended to do the classic circle jerk where because other media outlets report whatever "US spokesman says" it gets an inordinate amount of weight because they point at each other as reinforcement. And, as we know now, they had a truly appalling accuracy when relying acritically on tame sources which said what they wanted to hear.

 

The western press failed hopelessly with Iraq, and it's only got worse since then.

[Walsingham]

 

The western press failed hopelessly with Iraq, and it's only got worse since then.

 

I don't suppose you've any evidence, or should I just trust you?

[Gorgon]

Misinformation campaigns and irregular warfare was Putin's modus operandi in south ossetia as well as Crimea. A sudden 'need' for military intervention presents itself and he retains deniability. 

 

You are honestly fools to believe much of anything with an official Russian stamp of approval. Western media has a different disease. Quite often an editioral line or simply entertainment masquarading as news is what muddles the waters. There are precious few news outlets concerned chiefly with a reputation for impartiality and quality reporting. 

[Sarex]

Misinformation campaigns and irregular warfare was Putin's modus operandi in south ossetia as well as Crimea. A sudden 'need' for military intervention presents itself and he retains deniability. 

 

You are honestly fools to believe much of anything with an official Russian stamp of approval. Western media has a different disease. Quite often an editioral line or simply entertainment masquarading as news is what muddles the waters. There are precious few news outlets concerned chiefly with a reputation for impartiality and quality reporting. 

 

The western media flat out lies, so I don't know what you are talking about. They lied in Iraq, they lied in Bosnia, they lied about Kosovo. There is no muddling of the water, there is just media printing what their government tells them.

[Gorgon]

No, the Bush administration lied. They decided to sidetrack Blix and the weapons inspectiors and present a situation where there was a continuous threat from WMD. A complete fantasy as it would turn out. 

 

 The media was in no possition to challenge classified material. They simply reported what they were presented from both Washington and Downing street.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

Misinformation campaigns and irregular warfare was Putin's modus operandi in south ossetia as well as Crimea. A sudden 'need' for military intervention presents itself and he retains deniability. 

 

How is this different from US conduct in Iraq, Afghanistan etc.? At least Putin has an excuse given these countries NATO ambitions and the fact that they share a border with Russia. I don't see Russia's military bases all over the world or them intervening halfway across the planet on account of "national security".

 

The west dismisses anything Russian on account of simple racism. They're the enemy so anything they say  is automatically misguided at best, flat out lies at worst. 

 

Please, you're capable of better arguments surely.

[Drowsy Emperor]

No, the Bush administration lied. They decided to sidetrack Blix and the weapons inspectiors and present a situation where there was a continuous threat from WMD. A complete fantasy as it would turn out. 

 

 The media was in no possition to challenge classified material. They simply reported what they were presented from both Washington and Downing street.

 

The media that simply reports what the government presents them is called state media in the service of state propaganda. When the media decides to do something independent that doesn't sit well with the government they simply tell them to destroy what they have "or else". 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/31/footage-released-guardian-editors-snowden-hard-drives-gchq

[Gorgon]

So ?. I'm not suggesting Iraq was justified, more that both the US and Russia do whatever they please and lie and cheat to make the public go along with it. 

[Walsingham]

And who exposed the falsity of the WMD claim? The Western media.

 

Remind me what happens to media outlets which contradict the Kremlin?

[Mor]

No, the Bush administration lied. They decided to sidetrack Blix and the weapons inspectiors and present a situation where there was a continuous threat from WMD. A complete fantasy as it would turn out.

So ?. I'm not suggesting Iraq was justified, more that both the US and Russia do whatever they please and lie and cheat to make the public go along with it.

I agree in principle with what you said about USA and Iraq, but comparing it to the current situation is wrong without context. Despite Bush administration jumping the gun on poor evidence, and the poorer results of that war, they had ample international legal ground to act in Iraq, with the burden of proof on Sadam. Russia had no such legal grounds to violate Ukraine sovereignty, in fact it was suppose to uphold it.

[Mor]

 

I am almost speechless. You're buying the idea that the Russian media, with provable direct ownership straight to Putin, is more trustworthy than Western media organisations with a long history of independence and multiple mechanisms for enforcing as much impartiality as possible...

 

I guess what interests me is why you'd pick the former. Is it that you hate the latter and you'll choose any damn fool who is against NATO?

 

Can I ask whether you also believed comical Ali? I'm genuinely curious.

 

You conveniently side-stepped the fact that the western media flat out lied, or supported the state enforced propaganda lie that Saddam Hussein had WMD as they have many times before and since. I've been following the Ukraine crisis closely and there is no significant difference between the two media sides. Western media has their propaganda, the Russians have theirs, but the west is supporting an illegitimate side and breaking international law so their media is recruited to provide support for the whole charade and is therefore less reliable. The Russians could afford to tell more of the truth seeing as how it wins them points in the international community.

 

BS demagoguery. Westren media isn't the USA, not everyone in the west supported USA action in Iraq, and unless you were aware at the time of proof that there were no WMDs the only "trustworthy" issue here is with Bush administration.

 

Anyway WMDs incident aren't your "free card" that you can just wave around to dismiss criticism, so you can shovel in your opinion that "there is no significant difference between the two media sides" - when Walsingham just outlined the fundamental deference.

Edited April 27, 2014 by Mor

[Malcador]

So ?. I'm not suggesting Iraq was justified, more that both the US and Russia do whatever they please and lie and cheat to make the public go along with it.

Yep, sign of a powerful nation in a way. The hilarious part is when one calls another on it.

 

And remember Western media exposed the NSA via Snowden and there's been no reprisals or anything, so they aren't all bad.

Edited April 27, 2014 by Malcador

[Sarex]

And who exposed the falsity of the WMD claim? The Western media.

 

Remind me what happens to media outlets which contradict the Kremlin?

 

By then it was to late, the damage was done and the people were informed too late. You could say that by that point it didn't matter what the press printed. When the truth was needed the media did nothing and parroted what it's government said.

Edited April 27, 2014 by Sarex

[213374U]

And who exposed the falsity of the WMD claim? The Western media.

 

Oh?

 

When Iraqi Freedom was over, after combing the country for stuff that hadn't existed since 1991 and finding diddly squat, they finally concluded that "we may have been operating on faulty intel". The whole affair was such a cluster**** that they tried to pin the blame on the Brits, to make it seem like the rationale for the war had been an honest mistake. This wasn't a media mea culpa—it was, once again, simply reporting on the official government line and the conclusions of the IIC, without one bit of independent review or critique. A tacit admission that they had, and still were basically parroting the latest story the ministry of truth had come up with. Not exactly what I'd call "exposing".

 

Accountability has all but disappeared as neither the gov't spokespeople that go on record with fabricated stories nor their media collaborators ever have to answer personally for their dishonesty. The moment journalism became about echoing unsourced (as the sources must remain secret to protect "national security") and unverified statements, was the moment the long history of independence you cited was betrayed. Can't live off the old glory days forever.

[Hassat Hunter]

Any people who think Western Media is not biased at all and totally neutral probably never turned on Fox News...

 

There's your proof right there... ???

[Mor]

 

And who exposed the falsity of the WMD claim? The Western media.

 

Remind me what happens to media outlets which contradict the Kremlin?

 

By then it was to late, the damage was done and the people were informed too late. You could say that by that point it didn't matter what the press printed. When the truth was needed the media did nothing and parroted what it's government said.

 

Again, are you suggesting that at the time the "westren media", didn't expressed doubts, noted that this was according to .. or was flat out against war in Iraq.

 

Because this is the fundamental difference: There is no "westren media", there are a lot of independent media outlets with various view which are located in the west; and there is no "Russian media" there is only Russia.

 

overall it doesn't matter how much you wave WMDs, Biden or any other appeal to emotion card, bottom line here where Russia has an obvious conflict of interest its version will always be suspect, especially when everyone around reporting something else.

 

Any people who think Western Media is not biased at all and totally neutral probably never turned on Fox News...

 

There's your proof right there... ???

In my previous example Russia is FOX news, western media isn't. Edited April 27, 2014 by Mor

[Rostere]

 

But really, what Ukraine would need first before caring about Eastern Ukraine is new elections in the entire country. A violent situation complicates that. Who knows, had they pushed to hold elections earlier we might have avoided this entire crisis in Eastern Ukraine.

The elections are a month away. The insurgency in eastern Ukraine is a convenient method for dismissing the election results by Russia, to be honest.

 

This is of course the other way to look at Eastern Ukraine today - not that the dire situation is due to lack of elections, but that the postponement of elections is due to the dire situation. For all practical purposes I would adopt the former approach myself if I was an Ukrainian statesman, though.

 

 

Ros, do you have a concrete source on the scale of desertions? Can't find a reliable source.

 

Nope. I'm pretty much watching this matter from a bird's perspective.

 

 

The best way to end this conflict in the current situation is in my mind to hold a referendum in Eastern Ukraine.

 

Yes but, a referendum... on what? Independence? Federalization? The Constitution doesn't allow for that—the indivisibility of Ukraine is promulgated throughout the document and amendments to the Constitution aimed at "violating" this indivisibility are explicitly forbidden. There is no such thing as a territorial referendum either, only an All-Ukrainian referendum that must be called on by the President and approved by a 2/3 majority of the Rada, complicating things even more; it's not just the government in Kiev that must be willing to resolve this by casting ballots, it's a majority of politicians and people in Ukraine.

 

Hey, you know what. Call this guy and tell him the American Revolutionary War was unconstitutional.

 

You might have noticed that the lawful government was overthrown recently. I bet that wasn't entirely constitutional. Anyways, this reminds me of the "Lawful Stupid" trope. If the President and the Rada wanted to, they could declare a carrot the King of Ukraine. This is only a matter of the legitimacy, as perceived by the public, of the decision. Who will be angry if a referendum is held? It would (I'm being Captain Obvious now) be a problem if Yanukovich had held a referendum on the independence of the Donbass region, because the ethnic Ukrainian factions would be upset. But since they are in charge now, the complaints of unconstitutionality would be greatly mitigated. That said, it's very unlikely they would ever do this, but it would certainly be my advice to them.

 

 

Ukraine's Constitution is fairly rigid even by European standards, and it's designed first and foremost to guarantee the status quo. I don't disagree that a referendum would be a way out of the cul-de-sac the Kiev gov't has put the country in, but you can't just ignore the legal hurdles. Among other things because that would legitimize the Crimean referendum, which is a big no-no for Kiev (and the West).

 

No, it wouldn't legitimize the Crimean referendum. The state might imprison people which it considers criminals. If you imprison somebody you consider a criminal, you are likely deemed a criminal yourself. In similar fashion, the state might arrange for a referendum to be held. You might not initiate a referendum yourself for the formal independence of your living room.

 

Anyway, this doesn't really matter to any sensible person. I understand nationalistic Ukrainians wants Crimea to be Ukrainian (for some reason...), but really, they are better off this way.

[Volourn]

"or supported the state enforced propaganda lie that Saddam Hussein had WMD a"

 

It's a known fact he did. That was no lie. The lie is the myth he didn't have any. The guy flat out admitted to it.

Edited April 27, 2014 by Volourn

[Mor]

I like how Russia is portrayed as the good guy, a stable, prosperous nation led by a wise, modest, and truly global-thinking visionary, who is just concerned about Ukraine and tries its best to stabilize the situation there. Meanwhile, Europe and the U.S. are big bad bullies.

 

Oh, poor, poor Russia. You have gone through so much harassment throughout the 20th century. Like when those big bad Poles forced you to invade, then had themselves arrested by NKVD and shot, just to make you look bad.

I think this article might shed some light on the how these way of thinking are coming about and what it means for Russia.

[Gorgon]

We were talking about the decisionmaking leading up to the invasian. He had a muke programme, which had been canned, and a chemical programme which was largely dismantled by the inspectors. 

 

If you know something else, by all means. Would be interesting to hear after all these years. 

[Mor]

Kiev/US seems to hunger for war... or is just extremely incompetant. Both are possible...

But really, all I hear is the US making threats, and Russia doing... well, nothing. Who seems warmongering now.

I don't know who is more delusional oby who considers West Ukraine as US colony, or you do...

 

---

 

At least we know where they got this message of the day: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27166923 first few seconds of the interview where the Russian foreign minister accuse the west at attempting a land grab.. you got to love the audacity and the 180 spin. It is their strategy to confuse the masses, throw any accusation back at them, until facts on the ground will pave over the truth and empty words will be gone with the wind. Also OSCE monitors were seized in Sloviansk by pro-russian militias.

 

Yeah, can't be too sympathetic with the observers- sending a team which is almost all NATO (and one token 'neutral'- ha ha, very funny- Swede) and a bunch of Ukrainian Army Officers into rebel held territory is an... odd decision, if you actually wanted to avoid provocation.

Yes, latest RT news branded OSCE observers as NATO spies, so here we go... But its always nice when you can't be too sympathetic with abduction (or overall too sympathetic with cause to see collateral).

 

Yes the idea that 'Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe' is sending into a military conflict, observers with military background is shocking indeed. While local authority providing security to external observers at least until they reach to rebel held territory where they negotiate their passage is certainly ground breaking.. same goes for simply baring entry from OSCE observers, but I suppose that an abduction and broadcasting NATO spies has more catchy tune to it then refuse to cooprate with OSCE observers. (one reinforce the narrative that the west is out to get them and allows them to both sends a message to EU to stay out, the other counter productive to their interests)

 

What isn't shocking is that here like in Crimea (only several degrees worse) Observers/reporters anyone who isn't with the program are assaulted. Also I'd appreciate little consistency around here, you can't rant about the horrible government sending the troops against helpless civilians when you yourself regard it as "rebel held territory", armed militias who can take on military convoys and blow up military choppers. ( although I suppose you'd probably go with Russia "WMD" timeline clamming its Ukraine who started it)

 

As for spies, if I was NATO, ignoring local assets, i'd send my spies through Russia and in more obscure roles then big convoy of people clearly designated as EU observers. But lets be honest, its not about about spies, but control on information.. you just way to happy to parrot RT headlines.

 

 

 

EDIT:

Also couple of interspersing simply analysis of the situation:

* Ukraine crisis: Is war inevitable?

* Ukraine shooting highlights Russian media tactics

Edited April 27, 2014 by Mor

[Hassat Hunter]

At least we know where they got this message of the day: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27166923 first few seconds of the interview where the Russian foreign minister accuse the west at attempting a land grab.. you got to love the audacity and the 180 spin

Ehm, no?

 

It's pretty obvious to all people that they did with Kiev, and backing an illegitimate government even if they enact War Crimes(!) while any other government doing that would met international scorn.

Also there are the sponsorships of 1.2 billion by the EU and several hundreds of millions by the US and loans of more.

So, where's the "180 spin"?