Topic: Demonstrations In Ukraine

[Lenin.]

Rawks a footy site and not really a place to simply put humungous tracts from, or lots of clickbait continuously to, the Northite SEP cult site.

I wouldn't know mate. I am not a member of any political party.

[RojoLeón]

Just for you, AWWYC

http://www.thenation.com/article/178344/distorting-russia#

The degradation of mainstream American press coverage of Russia, a country still vital to US national security, has been under way for many years. If the recent tsunami of shamefully unprofessional and politically inflammatory articles in leading newspapers and magazines—particularly about the Sochi Olympics, Ukraine and, unfailingly, President Vladimir Putin—is an indication, this media malpractice is now pervasive and the new norm.

There are notable exceptions, but a general pattern has developed. Even in the venerable New York Times and Washington Post, news reports, editorials and commentaries no longer adhere rigorously to traditional journalistic standards, often failing to provide essential facts and context; to make a clear distinction between reporting and analysis; to require at least two different political or “expert” views on major developments; or to publish opposing opinions on their op-ed pages. As a result, American media on Russia today are less objective, less balanced, more conformist and scarcely less ideological than when they covered Soviet Russia during the Cold War.

The history of this degradation is also clear. It began in the early 1990s, following the end of the Soviet Union, when the US media adopted Washington’s narrative that almost everything President Boris Yeltsin did was a “transition from communism to democracy” and thus in America’s best interests. This included his economic “shock therapy” and oligarchic looting of essential state assets, which destroyed tens of millions of Russian lives; armed destruction of a popularly elected Parliament and imposition of a “presidential” Constitution, which dealt a crippling blow to democratization and now empowers Putin; brutal war in tiny Chechnya, which gave rise to terrorists in Russia’s North Caucasus; rigging of his own re-election in 1996; and leaving behind, in 1999, his approval ratings in single digits, a disintegrating country laden with weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, most American journalists still give the impression that Yeltsin was an ideal Russian leader.

Since the early 2000s, the media have followed a different leader-centric narrative, also consistent with US policy, that devalues multifaceted analysis for a relentless demonization of Putin, with little regard for facts. (Was any Soviet Communist leader after Stalin ever so personally villainized?) If Russia under Yeltsin was presented as having legitimate politics and national interests, we are now made to believe that Putin’s Russia has none at all, at home or abroad—even on its own borders, as in Ukraine.

Russia today has serious problems and many repugnant Kremlin policies. But anyone relying on mainstream American media will not find there any of their origins or influences in Yeltsin’s Russia or in provocative US policies since the 1990s—only in the “autocrat” Putin who, however authoritarian, in reality lacks such power. Nor is he credited with stabilizing a disintegrating nuclear-armed country, assisting US security pursuits from Afghanistan and Syria to Iran or even with granting amnesty, in December, to more than 1,000 jailed prisoners, including mothers of young children.

Not surprisingly, in January The Wall Street Journal featured the widely discredited former president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili, branding Putin’s government as one of “deceit, violence and cynicism,” with the Kremlin a “nerve center of the troubles that bedevil the West.” But wanton Putin-bashing is also the dominant narrative in centrist, liberal and progressive media, from the Post, Times and The New Republic to CNN, MSNBC and HBO’s Real Time With Bill Maher, where Howard Dean, not previously known for his Russia expertise, recently declared, to the panel’s approval, “Vladimir Putin is a thug.”

The media therefore eagerly await Putin’s downfall—due to his “failing economy” (some of its indicators are better than US ones), the valor of street protesters and other right-minded oppositionists (whose policies are rarely examined), the defection of his electorate (his approval ratings remain around 65 percent) or some welcomed “cataclysm.” Evidently believing, as does the Times, for example, that democrats and a “much better future” will succeed Putin (not zealous ultranationalists growing in the streets and corridors of power), US commentators remain indifferent to what the hoped-for “destabilization of his regime” might mean in the world’s largest nuclear country.

Certainly, The New Republic’s lead writer on Russia, Julia Ioffe, does not explore the question, or much else of real consequence, in her nearly 10,000-word February 17 cover story. Ioffe’s bannered theme is devoutly Putin-phobic: “He Crushed His Opposition and Has Nothing to Show for It But a Country That Is Falling Apart.” Neither sweeping assertion is spelled out or documented. A compilation of chats with Russian-born Ioffe’s disaffected (but seemingly not “crushed”) Moscow acquaintances and titillating personal gossip long circulating on the Internet, the article seems better suited (apart from some factual errors) for the Russian tabloids, as does Ioffe’s disdain for objectivity. Protest shouts of “Russia without Putin!” and “Putin is a thief!” were “one of the most exhilarating moments I’d ever experienced.” So was tweeting “Putin’s fucked, y’all.” Nor does she forget the hopeful mantra “cataclysm seems closer than ever now.”

* * *

For weeks, this toxic coverage has focused on the Sochi Olympics and the deepening crisis in Ukraine. Even before the Games began, the Times declared the newly built complex a “Soviet-style dystopia” and warned in a headline, Terrorism and Tension, Not Sports and Joy. On opening day, the paper found space for three anti-Putin articles and a lead editorial, a feat rivaled by the Post. Facts hardly mattered. Virtually every US report insisted that a record $51 billion “squandered” by Putin on the Sochi Games proved they were “corrupt.” But as Ben Aris of Business New Europe pointed out, as much as $44 billion may have been spent “to develop the infrastructure of the entire region,” investment “the entire country needs.”

Overall pre-Sochi coverage was even worse, exploiting the threat of terrorism so licentiously it seemed pornographic. The Post, long known among critical-minded Russia-watchers as Pravda on the Potomac, exemplified the media ethos. A sports columnist and an editorial page editor turned the Olympics into “a contest of wills” between the despised Putin’s “thugocracy” and terrorist “insurgents.” The “two warring parties” were so equated that readers might have wondered which to cheer for. If nothing else, American journalists gave terrorists an early victory, tainting “Putin’s Games” and frightening away many foreign spectators, including some relatives of the athletes.

The Sochi Games will soon pass, triumphantly or tragically, but the potentially fateful Ukrainian crisis will not. A new Cold War divide between West and East may now be unfolding, not in Berlin but in the heart of Russia’s historical civilization. The result could be a permanent confrontation fraught with instability and the threat of a hot war far worse than the one in Georgia in 2008. These dangers have been all but ignored in highly selective, partisan and inflammatory US media accounts, which portray the European Union’s “Partnership” proposal benignly as Ukraine’s chance for democracy, prosperity and escape from Russia, thwarted only by a “bullying” Putin and his “cronies” in Kiev.

Not long ago, committed readers could count on The New York Review of Books for factually trustworthy alternative perspectives on important historical and contemporary subjects. But when it comes to Russia and Ukraine, the NYRB has succumbed to the general media mania. In a January 21 blog post, Amy Knight, a regular contributor and inveterate Putin-basher, warned the US government against cooperating with the Kremlin on Sochi security, even suggesting that Putin’s secret services “might have had an interest in allowing or even facilitating such attacks” as killed or wounded dozens of Russians in Volgograd in December.

Knight’s innuendo prefigured a purported report on Ukraine by Yale professor Timothy Snyder in the February 20 issue. Omissions of facts, by journalists or scholars, are no less an untruth than misstatements of fact. Snyder’s article was full of both, which are widespread in the popular media, but these are in the esteemed NYRB and by an acclaimed academic. Consider a few of Snyder’s assertions:

§ ”On paper, Ukraine is now a dictatorship.” In fact, the “paper” legislation he’s referring to hardly constituted dictatorship, and in any event was soon repealed. Ukraine is in a state nearly the opposite of dictatorship—political chaos uncontrolled by President Viktor Yanukovych, the Parliament, the police or any other government institution.

§ ”The [parliamentary] deputies…have all but voted themselves out of existence.” Again, Snyder is alluding to the nullified “paper.” Moreover, serious discussions have been under way in Kiev about reverting to provisions in the 2004 Constitution that would return substantial presidential powers to the legislature, hardly “the end of parliamentary checks on presidential power,” as Snyder claims. (Does he dislike the prospect of a compromise outcome?)

§ ”Through remarkably large and peaceful public protests…Ukrainians have set a positive example for Europeans.” This astonishing statement may have been true in November, but it now raises questions about the “example” Snyder is advocating. The occupation of government buildings in Kiev and in Western Ukraine, the hurling of firebombs at police and other violent assaults on law enforcement officers and the proliferation of anti-Semitic slogans by a significant number of anti-Yanukovych protesters, all documented and even televised, are not an “example” most readers would recommend to Europeans or Americans. Nor are they tolerated, even if accompanied by episodes of police brutality, in any Western democracy.

§ ”Representatives of a minor group of the Ukrainian extreme right have taken credit for the violence.” This obfuscation implies that apart perhaps from a “minor group,” the “Ukrainian extreme right” is part of the positive “example” being set. (Many of its representatives have expressed hatred for Europe’s “anti-traditional” values, such as gay rights.) Still more, Snyder continues, “something is fishy,” strongly implying that the mob violence is actually being “done by russo-phone provocateurs” on behalf of “Yanukovych (or Putin).” As evidence, Snyder alludes to “reports” that the instigators “spoke Russian.” But millions of Ukrainians on both sides of their incipient civil war speak Russian.

§ Snyder reproduces yet another widespread media malpractice regarding Russia, the decline of editorial fact-checking. In a recent article in the International New York Times, he both inflates his assertions and tries to delete neofascist elements from his innocuous “Ukrainian extreme right.” Again without any verified evidence, he warns of a Putin-backed “armed intervention” in Ukraine after the Olympics and characterizes reliable reports of “Nazis and anti-Semites” among street protesters as “Russian propaganda.”

§ Perhaps the largest untruth promoted by Snyder and most US media is the claim that “Ukraine’s future integration into Europe” is “yearned for throughout the country.” But every informed observer knows—from Ukraine’s history, geography, languages, religions, culture, recent politics and opinion surveys—that the country is deeply divided as to whether it should join Europe or remain close politically and economically to Russia. There is not one Ukraine or one “Ukrainian people” but at least two, generally situated in its Western and Eastern regions.

Such factual distortions point to two flagrant omissions by Snyder and other US media accounts. The now exceedingly dangerous confrontation between the two Ukraines was not “ignited,” as the Times claims, by Yanukovych’s duplicitous negotiating—or by Putin—but by the EU’s reckless ultimatum, in November, that the democratically elected president of a profoundly divided country choose between Europe and Russia. Putin’s proposal for a tripartite arrangement, rarely if ever reported, was flatly rejected by US and EU officials.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

But the most crucial media omission is Moscow’s reasonable conviction that the struggle for Ukraine is yet another chapter in the West’s ongoing, US-led march toward post-Soviet Russia, which began in the 1990s with NATO’s eastward expansion and continued with US-funded NGO political activities inside Russia, a US-NATO military outpost in Georgia and missile-defense installations near Russia. Whether this longstanding Washington-Brussels policy is wise or reckless, it—not Putin’s December financial offer to save Ukraine’s collapsing economy—is deceitful. The EU’s “civilizational” proposal, for example, includes “security policy” provisions, almost never reported, that would apparently subordinate Ukraine to NATO.

Any doubts about the Obama administration’s real intentions in Ukraine should have been dispelled by the recently revealed taped conversation between a top State Department official, Victoria Nuland, and the US ambassador in Kiev. The media predictably focused on the source of the “leak” and on Nuland’s verbal “gaffe”—“Fuck the EU.” But the essential revelation was that high-level US officials were plotting to “midwife” a new, anti-Russian Ukrainian government by ousting or neutralizing its democratically elected president—that is, a coup.

Americans are left with a new edition of an old question. Has Washington’s twenty-year winner-take-all approach to post-Soviet Russia shaped this degraded news coverage, or is official policy shaped by the coverage? Did Senator John McCain stand in Kiev alongside the well-known leader of an extreme nationalist party because he was ill informed by the media, or have the media deleted this part of the story because of McCain’s folly?

And what of Barack Obama’s decision to send only a low-level delegation, including retired gay athletes, to Sochi? In August, Putin virtually saved Obama’s presidency by persuading Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to eliminate his chemical weapons. Putin then helped to facilitate Obama’s heralded opening to Iran. Should not Obama himself have gone to Sochi—either out of gratitude to Putin, or to stand with Russia’s leader against international terrorists who have struck both of our countries? Did he not go because he was ensnared by his unwise Russia policies, or because the US media misrepresented the varying reasons cited: the granting of asylum to Edward Snowden, differences on the Middle East, infringements on gay rights in Russia, and now Ukraine? Whatever the explanation, as Russian intellectuals say when faced with two bad alternatives, “Both are worst.”

[Anywhichwayicant]

Of course, sorry. You represent the gold standard for rawk political debate

Its already been discussed that my knowledge of Ukrainian politics, society and history is shamefully poor. So instead of discussing a banned member, can we get on with discussing the current conflict.

I'm interested in learning about Ukraine, but not remotely interested in the current one-upmanship that is infesting the thread at present.

So instead of personal jibes, could you please make a meaningful contribution.

[Anywhichwayicant]

Just for you, AWWYC

http://www.thenation.com/article/178344/distorting-russia#

Much better. Thank you.

[BoRed]

Rawks a footy site and not really a place to simply put humungous tracts from, or lots of clickbait continuously to, the Northite SEP cult site.

.....

Funny that, I could have sworn the post you were replying to asked you to say what you disagreed with in the article.

And surprise, surprise, the Russian chess player fell for it, came up with a party political broadcast and is now either going to get banned or the thread will be locked. Either way, article forgotten, points never addressed, I suppose what you'd call a result?

[Lots of Medals]

Its already been discussed that my knowledge of Ukrainian politics, society and history is shamefully poor. So instead of discussing a banned member, can we get on with discussing the current conflict.

I'm interested in learning about Ukraine, but not remotely interested in the current one-upmanship that is infesting the thread at present.

So instead of personal jibes, could you please make a meaningful contribution.

 I agree that's why I posted the article. Its obvious that there is a set campaign to clear the opposition of any link to the Far Right and Fascists groups. That article is important because it exposes who these people are and their history.

We are told that democracy has come to Ukraine, it hasn't and that was never the plan. the US want to push Russia's borders back, The EU Germany especially want to take control of Ukraine, turn it into a cheap labour nations similar to China and India.

[The Gulleysucker]

Oh so tiresomely predictable.

http://www.permanent-revolution.org/polemics/smear_campaign.htm

[The Gulleysucker]

If you care to read the embedded links, they are on the KGB disinformation campaigns post war.

I don't expect you will though.

[BoRed]

If you care to read the embedded links, they are on the KGB disinformation campaigns post war.

I don't expect you will though.

I did, as it happens. And if you think the KGB is waging cyberwarfare on RAWK, and the best they can do is Lots of Medals, you have a screw loose on both counts.

And even if you're right, I'd still like to hear what you actually disagree with in the article.

[The Gulleysucker]

I did, as it happens.

You obviously haven't, otherwise you wouldn't be asking me the question.

[Lenin.]

Oh well, at least I got a new sig out of it.

[Zeb]

Just something on the media coverage, you try to inform yourself a little bit and then you hit things like this:

A black and red flag, this one raised by pro-Ukraine protesters, belongs to the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA). The members were Ukrainian nationalists who fought against both sides in WW2 for an independent Ukraine - even resorting to collaborating with the German army as a tactical strategy to achieve nationalist goals. Some accuse them of murdering Jews and Poles, so in Russia this flag is regarded as fascist.

BBC

There's no doubt that they murdered Jews and Poles - to the extent that the Wehrmacht considered collaboration with the UPA counterproductive to maintaining order in German occupied Ukraine. There are records of the UPA leadership, even whilst imprisoned by the Germans, praising the German policies towards the Jews. So, no, there's really not a thing where 'some claim' about what OUN/UPA were up to. What's problematic is that they're also viewed as heroes of Ukrainian nationalism because the west has spent 70 years covering over the nasty stuff about them because they were good anti-commies.

It's grubby stuff really. Just increasingly amazed that both Russia and the west seem to be trying to force Ukraine into a binding decision which will just open up really nasty faultlines, especially ones which trigger historic Russian concerns about their buffer zone to the west. Can't be arsed with the 'Putin makes the trains run on time' apologism either.

[BoRed]

Oh well, at least I got a new sig out of it.

And you were never going to get an answer anyway.

[Lenin.]

And you were never going to get an answer anyway.

I dont know why not. The channel 4 and Owen Jones links that I posted also refer to the Neo Nazis involved.

[BoRed]

I dont know why not.

Neither do I, though the answer is apparently in all those links. I was obviously too thick to find it, but it seems to go along the lines of "the KGB is so good at propaganda that it is virtually impossible to pick holes in their arguments, so one might as well not bother". Sounds feeble to me, but it clearly works for some.

The channel 4 and Owen Jones links that I posted also refer to the Neo Nazis involved.

The Owen Jones article was very good. People are constantly asking for a bit of balance, but when it's provided, it goes virtually unnoticed. It's much easier to score points by having a go at wildly biased opinions. The same happened to the article Conocino posted yesterday:

Quite an informative little piece, I thought.

Everything you know about Ukraine is wrong

BY MARK AMES

http://pando.com/2014/02/24/everything-you-know-about-ukraine-is-wrong/

[Lots of Medals]

Just something on the media coverage, you try to inform yourself a little bit and then you hit things like this:

BBC

There's no doubt that they murdered Jews and Poles - to the extent that the Wehrmacht considered collaboration with the UPA counterproductive to maintaining order in German occupied Ukraine. There are records of the UPA leadership, even whilst imprisoned by the Germans, praising the German policies towards the Jews. So, no, there's really not a thing where 'some claim' about what OUN/UPA were up to. What's problematic is that they're also viewed as heroes of Ukrainian nationalism because the west has spent 70 years covering over the nasty stuff about them because they were good anti-commies.

It's grubby stuff really. Just increasingly amazed that both Russia and the west seem to be trying to force Ukraine into a binding decision which will just open up really nasty faultlines, especially ones which trigger historic Russian concerns about their buffer zone to the west. Can't be arsed with the 'Putin makes the trains run on time' apologism either.

That's why the intervention of the working class is so vital. They haven't come on the scene yet but events will change that. The Egyptian revolution only took proper shape when the workers struck in the factories and threw off any faith in the army. If the workers in the S.East and East can form committees of action, Soviets, it will ignite the Russian workers too. There are still big historical links to socialism in both countries, but they have to be aware of who is and who isn't on their side,

[Zeb]

That's why the intervention of the working class is so vital. They haven't come on the scene yet but events will change that. The Egyptian revolution only took proper shape when the workers struck in the factories and threw off any faith in the army. If the workers in the S.East and East can form committees of action, Soviets, it will ignite the Russian workers too. There are still big historical links to socialism in both countries, but they have to be aware of who is and who isn't on their side,

Not sure forming soviets is a great idea in the country which went through the Holodomor, but the wider point is one Ames' mentions. He doesn't see much of the wider based 'people power' which moved the orange revolution there yet either. But is that really going to happen? The picture of Ukrainian politics is one of gangsters and corruption and the ordinary bloke getting shafted whichever way he turns. Egypt isn't a great recent example either, sadly. Whichever government is formed in the Ukraine has to walk a tightrope in a country with internal divisions dating back to at least the Tsarist Empire. Would think the approach advocated by Taylor is a reasonable one, where the West and Russia recognise common interests and try to work together on those and help the Ukrainians move towards a functioning government again without demanding they pick a side in the geopolitical push and shove. Yeah, I'm an idealist in my own special way

I'm left of centre mate, I'd probably call much of what I believe in socialist, but I'm also someone who's spent a long time studying about the impact of totalitarianism in all forms so some terms give me little shivers.

[Red_Mist]

Ah right...so now Russia's using democracy as a political weapon against the West...it was inevitable I suppose as a sort of historically ironic twist. And there's probably not much the West can do about it. Putin is a twat, but he's played everyone like a fiddle here.

Crimea will end up Russian. What that leads to is anyone's guess. Some Ukranian & Western bluster and not much else hopefully. Much as I dislike Putin and the Russian actions here, Western hypocracy has probably come home to roost. Popular opinion will say, "Crimea wants to be Russian, and has voted to be Russian, so let them be Russian".

In the modern world, the legality of it all doesn't seem to matter a fuckin toss. And we know who created that monster.

[Lenin.]

Ah right...so now Russia's using democracy as a political weapon against the West...it was inevitable I suppose as a sort of historically ironic twist. And there's probably not much the West can do about it. Putin is a twat, but he's played everyone like a fiddle here.

Crimea will end up Russian. What that leads to is anyone's guess. Some Ukranian & Western bluster and not much else hopefully. Much as I dislike Putin and the Russian actions here, Western hypocracy has probably come home to roost. Popular opinion will say, "Crimea wants to be Russian, and has voted to be Russian, so let them be Russian".

In the modern world, the legality of it all doesn't seem to matter a fuckin toss. And we know who created that monster.

Eh? Crimea was Russian from 1783. It was not a democratic decision when it was gifted to  the Ukraine Soviet in 1954. So what is wrong if they do vote democratically to become part of Russia again?

[Red_Mist]

Eh? Crimea was Russian from 1783. It was not a democratic decision when it was gifted to  the Ukraine Soviet in 1954. So what is wrong if they do vote democratically to become part of Russia again?

It's not Russian now though is it. I'm not necessarily against them voting to be Russian again. Just the manner in which it's happened is very undemocratic....and yet, ironically, democracy will be used to justify it. It's so complicated I'm willing to accept it's twisted my head inside out so that I'm possibly spouting utter bollocks. I'll leave it to the great minds of Rawk to debate 

[Lots of Medals]

How was it not a strong written attack on members of the new regime? The dictionary does not say anything. It is a dry reference work. You say an awful lot.

Sorry for being a bit abrupt before ... getting my backside bitten a bit ....As I understand it a polemic is usually an argument against a point of view or a theory. This is a news article,in the form of an expose'

[Lots of Medals]

Obama said two things, national security and foreign policy. I think it's fairly clear to anyone with the barest smidgin of objectivity that US national security is completely unaffected by Russia's actions. In other words, what Russia is doing makes it no more likely that the US will be attacked by Russia or indeed anyone else.

Since US foreign policy, on the other hand, is a heady mélange of bullying, pillaging and invading, I suppose both you and High Cotton are right. It is affected, in that there is another country on the planet who won't do what they're told.

Its about control of strategic regions. If Russia is forced out of Crimea her Naval power will be severely restricted. Sevastopol is their only war into the Med and
S Atlantic. It was from here that Russia sent ships to the coast of Syria when the US threatened to attack.

[jerseyhoya]

Its about control of strategic regions. If Russia is forced out of Crimea her Naval power will be severely restricted. Sevastopol is their only war into the Med and
S Atlantic. It was from here that Russia sent ships to the coast of Syria when the US threatened to attack.

Russia could build a naval base in Russia on the Black Sea.

(I understand why they'd rather keep the base they already have and I think they're likely to keep the naval base no matter what the outcome is in Crimea so I don't think this is all about the strategic control of regions but even if this was some grand plan to boot them from their naval base, take a look at a map)

[JackBauer]

The Owen Jones article was very good. People are constantly asking for a bit of balance, but when it's provided, it goes virtually unnoticed. It's much easier to score points by having a go at wildly biased opinions. The same happened to the article Conocino posted yesterday:

Yep, same happened with the one Pata posted, which I found interesting but it seems no one else deems it worthy of comment.

Thought this was pretty skillz on Putin & Ukraine
http://nplusonemag.com/ukraine-putin-and-the-west

[bigbonedrawky]

Russia could build a naval base in Russia on the Black Sea.

(I understand why they'd rather keep the base they already have and I think they're likely to keep the naval base no matter what the outcome is in Crimea so I don't think this is all about the strategic control of regions but even if this was some grand plan to boot them from their naval base, take a look at a map)

Traditionally its the ideal place for a naval base but in the modern warfare age those strengths are probably redundant and a new base could be built anywhere on the Black Sea. However Sevastopol has strong emotive ties with Russia itself, wars have been fought, blood as been spilt and sacrifices have been made. Russia has many reasons to not give this base up.   Unlike (for example ) Guantanamo Bay where 19th century  foreign policies still has its perks to this day.

[RedRabbit]

Russia could build a naval base in Russia on the Black Sea.

(I understand why they'd rather keep the base they already have and I think they're likely to keep the naval base no matter what the outcome is in Crimea so I don't think this is all about the strategic control of regions but even if this was some grand plan to boot them from their naval base, take a look at a map)

Surely they'll lose it. Even if everything turns out peacefully, wouldn't they have violated terms in the lease agreement?

[No Appreciation of Liverpool Opposition]

Crimea will be part of Russia this time next year.

[jerseyhoya]

Traditionally its the ideal place for a naval base but in the modern warfare age those strengths are probably redundant and a new base could be built anywhere on the Black Sea. However Sevastopol has strong emotive ties with Russia itself, wars have been fought, blood as been spilt and sacrifices have been made. Russia has many reasons to not give this base up.   Unlike (for example ) Guantanamo Bay where 19th century  foreign policies still has its perks to this day.

I don't think they will have to or should have to give up the naval base. They agreed to an extension for keeping the base there until 2042.

Just saying that viewing this as some push to cut off Russia's influence in the Mediterranean and South Atlantic is silly because worst case scenario for them, this doesn't eliminate Russia's ability to have a Naval base on the Black Sea. We just got done watching an Olympics which took place on the Black Sea in Russia.

[Corkboy]

The Owen Jones article was very good. People are constantly asking for a bit of balance, but when it's provided, it goes virtually unnoticed.

I noticed it, thought it was good but since I had said largely the same thing with my first post on this thread (albeit with a Vatican analogy Mr Jones didn't achieve) , I didn't feel the need to comment further.

[jerseyhoya]

Surely they'll lose it. Even if everything turns out peacefully, wouldn't they have violated terms in the lease agreement?

I dunno. Possession is 9/10ths of the law and inertia is a powerful force and *insert more cliches here*. Not sure who's going to kick them out.

[RedRabbit]

I dunno. Possession is 9/10ths of the law and inertia is a powerful force and *insert more cliches here*. Not sure who's going to kick them out.

Well yeah, I suppose if they're in possession when it ends they won't have many issues. I was thinking that "peacefully" might be more 'them going home' sort of thing. 

[BoRed]

I noticed it, thought it was good but since I had said largely the same thing with my first post on this thread (albeit with a Vatican analogy Mr Jones didn't achieve) , I didn't feel the need to comment further.

I know, I wasn't pointing fingers, I hadn't commented on it myself originally. Just trying to say that the likes of Snyder or wsws will always result in heated debates, while no one will object to a balanced opinion, so it will quickly be forgotten (like, indeed, the article Pata posted).

Perhaps a good way to find balanced information would be to look for articles no one has commented on.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

I know Danny and that is a laughably false caricature, what was the single issue and what peasants in the UK are you serious? He posted on many issues including football issues he is a passionate Red, why don't you say that. He was seen as a threat to the establishsed theorists on here.

 He was "ejected" during the first Election of Obama because he argued against those who were praising the skies because he was the first Black President. Danny pointed out that they were deluding themselves if they expected anything  different than Bush. That it was not the colour of his skin that was the issue for it was the crisis in capitalism and Obama would carry out attacks on the working class the same as Bush would, they were both capitalist politicians, and so it has  turned out.

He was accused of being racist by some cretin who couldn't  separate his emotions from his intelligence, because he stood on class principles, he demanded an apology, instead he was thrown out without warning.  When the Mod asked me recently did I know what had happened to my comrades it was a threat.

Well its up to you either learn to understand whats going on in the world or stay dumb and wait for the Sky to fall around you.

Bye bye Danny boy.

[RedRabbit]

How is this referendum even supposed to work?

Even if you take the Crimean government's claim that the Ukrainian government is illegal that doesn't make the constitution illegal by default, does it?

Does somebody need to ratify it or something or can areas within countries do this anywhere?

Can Cork finally be free? 

[Something Awful]

I believe the next step is Russia to press on to Crimea, who welcome them with open arms. Then President Ryan Obama sends in special forces and small squads of aircraft to stop them marching onto the rest of the Ukraine. Meanwhile John Clark and Ding Chavez a secret unit starts digging into Putin's past to discredit him and force him to retreat.

[RojoLeón]

Clancy is still a fuckwit 

[Something Awful]

Clancy is still a fuckwit 

Fuckwit...prophet...YMMV.

[Lenin.]

​Whitewashing Ukraine’s Nazi collaborators ‘morally repulsive’ – Russia’s UN envoy


Attempts to whitewash the backgrounds of Ukrainian nationalists who openly cooperated with the Nazis and committed mass murders in WWII are “morally repulsive,” and encourage “nationalist ideology, extremism and intolerance,” Russia’s UN envoy says.

“It is deeply disturbing that the followers of [Stepan] Bandera are openly marching these days in Ukraine, displaying his portraits and fascist insignia, and are wielding considerable political power in Kiev,” Vitaly Churkin said after Thursday's Security Council meeting in response to response to comments made earlier by Ukrainian Ambassador to the UN Yury Sergeyev.

Attempts to whitewash them “are not only morally repulsive, they amount to encouraging nationalist ideology, extremism and intolerance,” Churkin stated.

Churkin quoted Sergeyev as saying earlier that Soviet Union “tried to press Western allies to recognize what you called ‘Banderas’ and others as killers.” And the reason the Nurnberg process didn’t recognize that was “because it was falsified.”

In response to that claim, Churkin said that there are “massive documentary evidence” that proves otherwise, pointing to the fact that the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) “collaborated with the Nazis.”

“They took part in mass killings of civilians and punitive operations against partisans in Belarus, Ukraine and Poland,” Churkin said.

It began with the invasion of Ukraine by the Nazi troops, which was followed by OUN’s leader Stepan Bandera issuing the Act of Proclamation of Ukrainian Statehood that stated: “The newly-formed Ukrainian state will work closely with the National-Socialist Greater Germany, which under leadership of Adolf Hitler is forming a new order in Europe and the world…”

During WWII those Ukrainians that joined in the Nazi collaborators “provided the majority of the executioners who murdered over 150,000 Jews in Babiy Yar in Kiev. Gypsies and Soviet POWs were also executed there,” the Russian UN envoy stated.

Churkin cited another horrific example in which over 100,000 women, children and unarmed men were slaughtered in Volhynia, Poland.

During the last decade any attempts by Ukraine to make Bandera out to be a national hero were heavily criticized around the world.

Churkin quoted international Jewish human rights organization the Simon Wiesenthal Center as expressing “deepest revulsion” in 2010 at the decision by the then-president of Ukraine to honor Bandera.

In another case, the European Parliament adopted a resolution also in 2010, which criticized the decision to award Bandera the title of ‘National Hero of Ukraine’.

“The European Parliament called on the Ukrainian leadership to reconsider such decision and ‘maintain its commitment to European values’,” Churkin recalled.

That same year, Polish President Lech Kaczynski acknowledged that OUN and UPA helped with mass murders of Polish civilians, killing 100,000 people. Churkin quoted him as saying: “Poles were being killed for being Poles.
http://on.rt.com/iyhql6

[RedRabbit]

Guilt by association again. Great. 

Bandera was imprisoned by the Nazis in a concentration camp and the OUN destroyed by them.

[Lenin.]

Guilt by association again. Great. 

Bandera was imprisoned by the Nazis in a concentration camp and the OUN destroyed by them.

Sorry, who is associating guilt to who?