More Propaganda from the NY Times.

[boneyard bill]

What do you mean by taken? The parliament and the public in Crimea both voted for it. Was it a "fair" election? Who knows. But the outcome isn't what want wouldn't have expected under the circumstances.

So let's get this straight.

You're saying that the invasion of Crimea wasn't an invasion, because there was a referendum afterwards? And it doesn't matter that the referendum was held at gunpoint by Russian soldiers, because the result is sort of what you would have expected anyway?

But the change of power in Kiev, that was a coup d'état by the US, even though the US didn't have any troops there, and the result was remarkably similar to what happened in the elections in March of this year?

Is there not a consistency problem here?

No. There was no invasion of Crimea. Russia had a right under its treaty with Ukraine to maintain up to 25,000 troops in Crimea. Kerry claimed an invasion when he was talking to the media, but in this Senate testimony he acknowledged that Russia had treaty right, and he never claimed that they had exceeded that number of troops.

Since Crimea was already an autonomous republic, they already had their own president and parliament so it was easy for them to simply vote for secession. I don't know how proper the election was but, since 60% of Crimea is Russian and there are various other ethnic groups besides Ukrainians, the vote to join Russia is not surprising.

That is not at all the same situation as you had in Kiev where there was an out-and-out coup d'état against a democratically-elected government, but even if it were, that merely would put Putin in the position of doing the same thing the US was doing since we were, and still are, actively supporting the coup leaders both with diplomatic support, money, and possibly US paid mercenaries.

If we are so anxious to support democracy in the world, why aren't we demanding the return of the democratically-elected government or at least threatening the Kiev regime with sanctions or a cut off of aid as we are with the Egyptian regime? At the very least, we are guilty of outrageous hypocrisy. Of course, most people don't think about that because the msm conveniently fails to mention that the Yanukovych government was democratically elected. Instead, they claim, quite untruthfully, that the usurper regime in Kiev was a protest by "democracy supporters."

 

[boneyard bill]

If the US government now can make all the world's* news media spout US propaganda, why are we even talking about the Ukraine? Surely the death of independent media would be more important to talk about than everything else?

And won't the US government be pissed they didn't have these powers back when Snowden's revelations were published. At least from now on surely no more stories will surface which will embarrass the US government.

* apart for brave little Russia

I really can't say about the world's media, but the horrible coverage in the US certainly is worth discussing. The problem is that it's been going on for quite a long time. The State Department or the White House sets the narrative and the media repeats in entirely uncritically.

I know that the BBC did report that there was sniper fire in the Maidan from both sides, not just the police, as was reported in the US media. And I know that a German newspaper reported that mercenaries from Academi (formerly Blackwater) were operating in the Ukraine. We haven't heard anything about that in the US media either.

But the fact that the Yanukovych government was democratically elected, and that the "protestors" who overthrew it were armed and that "parliament" that ousted Yanukovych was merely a rump parliament after Yanukovych's supporters fled has not been reported in the US msm as far as I can see although it has been reported on the internet of course. The narrative being presented to the American people isn't just incomplete, it is entirely wrong.

Snowden's revelations were published in the Guardian, not in the US media. Of course, internet sites quickly picked it up so the msm couldn't ignore it. If there were no internet, the British would probably be the only ones who knew about NSA spying.

 

[boneyard bill]

What do you mean by taken? The parliament and the public in Crimea both voted for it. Was it a "fair" election? Who knows. But the outcome isn't what want wouldn't have expected under the circumstances.

So let's get this straight.

You're saying that the invasion of Crimea wasn't an invasion, because there was a referendum afterwards? And it doesn't matter that the referendum was held at gunpoint by Russian soldiers, because the result is sort of what you would have expected anyway?

But the change of power in Kiev, that was a coup d'état by the US, even though the US didn't have any troops there, and the result was remarkably similar to what happened in the elections in March of this year?

Is there not a consistency problem here?

You keep forgetting that Maidan was before Crimea going back to Russia.
And US was all over Maidan talking and coordinating over unsecure cell phones
And no, for the millionth's time, there was no invasion of Crimea and no gun point referendum.
They voted and left Ukraine, the end.

One more thing, long live Kosovo!

Kosovo did vote for independence. Last time I checked, they didn't vote while unmarked foreign soldiers were in their territory, and then join the nation those soldiers belonged to.

The KLA was all over the place in Kosovo when they voted and there were NATO troops as well and NATO was supporting independence despite NATO's promise that Kosovo would remain a part of Yugoslavia.

 

[Ford]

I really can't say about the world's media, but the horrible coverage in the US certainly is worth discussing. The problem is that it's been going on for quite a long time. The State Department or the White House sets the narrative and the media repeats in entirely uncritically. .

Quite some time indeed.

Remember when the New York Times released the Pentagon Papers at the behest of the White House?

And the government's orchestration of the Watergate Scandal? Jeez, I'd like to have seen how much Woodward and Bernstein got paid to promote that story!

Iran/Contra? Pure propaganda!

What really blows my mind is how the mainstream media were led by the nose to promote the notion that Bubba Clinton was screwing his intern. What dupes!


I don't know about you guys, but it is clear we need to reject pretty much anything passed off by mainstream American press when it comes to what's happening in "Eastern Russia" and rely on the Kremlin for the Pravda. I mean, Putin wouldn't lie to us...would he?

 

[barbos]

I don't know about you guys, but it is clear we need to reject pretty much anything passed off by mainstream American press when it comes to what's happening in "Eastern Russia" and rely on the Kremlin for the Pravda. I mean, Putin wouldn't lie to us...would he?

Yes, It's funny but as far as this Ukrainian debacle concerned Kremlin are the good guys and US/NATO are bad ones.

None of these scandals you mentioned had anything to do with Russia.
And internal scandals do not apply anyway, because opposing party is always interested in it.
I think US has never got out of cold war mentality and everybody is united against this percieved threat.

 

[Ford]

Yes, It's funny but as far as this Ukrainian debacle concerned Kremlin are the good guys

And the "good" the Kremlin has done is...?

 

[barbos]

Yes, It's funny but as far as this Ukrainian debacle concerned Kremlin are the good guys

And the "good" the Kremlin has done is...?

Well, recently, they prevented US from making a mistake in Syria. then saving Crimea from Ukraine.

 

[Ford]

Yes, It's funny but as far as this Ukrainian debacle concerned Kremlin are the good guys

And the "good" the Kremlin has done is...?

Well, recently, they prevented US from making a mistake in Syria. then saving Crimea from Ukraine.

So Crimea would have been destroyed by Ukraine, so they needed "saving."


Can you elaborate on how the Ukrainians would have slaughtered the helpless residents of Crimea?


I mean...you make it seem like the region was in danger of being wiped out or something.


Why did they need to be "saved," again?

 

[barbos]

Yes, It's funny but as far as this Ukrainian debacle concerned Kremlin are the good guys

And the "good" the Kremlin has done is...?

Well, recently, they prevented US from making a mistake in Syria. then saving Crimea from Ukraine.

So Crimea would have been destroyed by Ukraine, so they needed "saving."


Can you elaborate on how the Ukrainians would have slaughtered the helpless residents of Crimea?

The same way they are doing it now in Eastern Ukraine.

I mean...you make it seem like the region was in danger of being wiped out or something.


Why did they need to be "saved," again?

They are people, I think it's enough.

 

[Ford]

Yes, It's funny but as far as this Ukrainian debacle concerned Kremlin are the good guys

And the "good" the Kremlin has done is...?

Well, recently, they prevented US from making a mistake in Syria. then saving Crimea from Ukraine.

So Crimea would have been destroyed by Ukraine, so they needed "saving."


Can you elaborate on how the Ukrainians would have slaughtered the helpless residents of Crimea?

The same way they are doing it now in Eastern Ukraine.

I mean...you make it seem like the region was in danger of being wiped out or something.


Why did they need to be "saved," again?

They are people, I think it's enough.

Apparently it is too much to expect you to be specific.

 

[boneyard bill]

I really can't say about the world's media, but the horrible coverage in the US certainly is worth discussing. The problem is that it's been going on for quite a long time. The State Department or the White House sets the narrative and the media repeats in entirely uncritically. .

Quite some time indeed.

Remember when the New York Times released the Pentagon Papers at the behest of the White House?

And the government's orchestration of the Watergate Scandal? Jeez, I'd like to have seen how much Woodward and Bernstein got paid to promote that story!

Iran/Contra? Pure propaganda!

What really blows my mind is how the mainstream media were led by the nose to promote the notion that Bubba Clinton was screwing his intern. What dupes!


I don't know about you guys, but it is clear we need to reject pretty much anything passed off by mainstream American press when it comes to what's happening in "Eastern Russia" and rely on the Kremlin for the Pravda. I mean, Putin wouldn't lie to us...would he?

I think the media pretty much got all those things that you mentioned wrong, but they didn't simply shill for the White House back then the way they do now.

You don't have to listen to Putin. He's really not saying very much publicly anyway. All you have to do is look at what you WEREN'T told by the msm here in the US such as that the it was armed protestors who overthrew a democratically elected government and that we are supporting the anti-democratic faction in the Ukraine not some "democracy movement." That Putin didn't invade Crimea because the Russians are authorized to have 25,000 troops there by treaty. Or that our own Asst Secretary of State knew who the new rebel prime minister of Ukraine would be a month before the coup even happened.

When you add in those inconvenient facts, the official narrative makes no sense at all. So, if you are going to be intellectually honest, you have to look for some other narrative. That other narrative wouldn't make Putin into some kind of hero, but it wouldn't leave him in the role of the villain either.

 

[Ford]

I think the media pretty much got all those things that you mentioned wrong, but they didn't simply shill for the White House back then the way they do now..

Well then it is up to you to present evidence that all these media outlets are uncritically shilling for the White House when it comes to Putin's righteous assertion of Russian authority over clearly Russian territory which has always been and will always be part of Greater Russia.

And while you're at it maybe you could point out where the evil Western Media is wrongly presenting Putin as a guy who is trying to set himself up as President of Russia For Life which he is clearly not trying to do.

I mean, he's just this guy who keeps getting elected against his will...right?

 

[barbos]

I think the media pretty much got all those things that you mentioned wrong, but they didn't simply shill for the White House back then the way they do now..

Well then it is up to you to present evidence that all these media outlets are uncritically shilling for the White House when it comes to Putin's righteous assertion of Russian authority over clearly Russian territory which has always been and will always be part of Greater Russia.

And while you're at it maybe you could point out where the evil Western Media is wrongly presenting Putin as a guy who is trying to set himself up as President of Russia For Life which he is clearly not trying to do.

I mean, he's just this guy who keeps getting elected against his will...right?

I am starting to think this whole Ukraine crisis is not about Ukraine at all. It's about Putin
Had it been President Medvedev Ukraine would still have Yanukovich as president.

 

[boneyard bill]

I think the media pretty much got all those things that you mentioned wrong, but they didn't simply shill for the White House back then the way they do now..

Well then it is up to you to present evidence that all these media outlets are uncritically shilling for the White House when it comes to Putin's righteous assertion of Russian authority over clearly Russian territory which has always been and will always be part of Greater Russia.

And while you're at it maybe you could point out where the evil Western Media is wrongly presenting Putin as a guy who is trying to set himself up as President of Russia For Life which he is clearly not trying to do.

I mean, he's just this guy who keeps getting elected against his will...right?

Go back and re-read my previous post to you. When you factor in key elements that the msm left out, the narrative that we have been presented with by the media makes no sense. As for your claims above, they are simply wrong. Putin does not lay claim to a "Greater Russia," he merely reserves the right to intervene in defense of ethnic Russians in former Soviet Republics. This is Russian policy which precedes Putin. But, in fact, he hasn't done so. He has not acted in east Ukraine even those the Ukrainian national guard has killed many unarmed Russian-speakers there.

If he had wanted Ukraine, he could have invaded immediately after Yanukovych fled on the grounds that he was restoring the legitimate, democratically-elected government and would have been in Kiev before John Kerry could have learned to pronounce Sevastopol.

 

[Ford]

I am starting to think this whole Ukraine crisis is not about Ukraine at all.

Funny, I'm starting to think you and the other Kremlin fan boys here think Ukraine doesn't actually exist at all.

It is just a breakaway republic of Greater Russia, and like Crimea must be brought to heel.

Apparently the Kremlin misses it's former status as a world power with provincial vassals that it could intimidate, and the notion of independent nations upon it's borders is a problem.

 

[Ford]

As for your claims above, they are simply wrong.

So then it is your position that Putin is not in any way, shape, or form trying to set himself up as a perpetual head of state in Russia. He's just this guy who happens to be asked to run for office time and time again, and he's totally not trying to be anything other than a dedicated public servant who serves at the whim of the Russian electorate.

 

[barbos]

I am starting to think this whole Ukraine crisis is not about Ukraine at all.

Funny, I'm starting to think you and the other Kremlin fan boys here think Ukraine doesn't actually exist at all.

It is just a breakaway republic of Greater Russia, and like Crimea must be brought to heel.

Apparently the Kremlin misses it's former status as a world power with provincial vassals that it could intimidate, and the notion of independent nations upon it's borders is a problem.

Good job at parroting US media propaganda.

 

[ksen]

I'm not that surprised some libertardians have a hardon for Putin.

 

[Togo]

What do you mean by taken? The parliament and the public in Crimea both voted for it. Was it a "fair" election? Who knows. But the outcome isn't what want wouldn't have expected under the circumstances.

So let's get this straight.

You're saying that the invasion of Crimea wasn't an invasion, because there was a referendum afterwards? And it doesn't matter that the referendum was held at gunpoint by Russian soldiers, because the result is sort of what you would have expected anyway?

But the change of power in Kiev, that was a coup d'état by the US, even though the US didn't have any troops there, and the result was remarkably similar to what happened in the elections in March of this year?

Is there not a consistency problem here?

No. There was no invasion of Crimea. Russia had a right under its treaty with Ukraine to maintain up to 25,000 troops in Crimea.

But they so not have the right to move those troops out of their designated areas and take over governement buildings, cities and blockade the Ukrainian army. An invasion is an invasion irregardless of whether the enemy troops start across the border or as invited guests within your borders.

Since Crimea was already an autonomous republic, they already had their own president and parliament so it was easy for them to simply vote for secession. I don't know how proper the election was but, since 60% of Crimea is Russian and there are various other ethnic groups besides Ukrainians, the vote to join Russia is not surprising.

This is still the sticking point. You seem to be saying here that it doesn't matter if the election was fair or not, because they would have voted to succeed in any case. However, you don't apply the same standard to Kiev.

That is not at all the same situation as you had in Kiev where there was an out-and-out coup d'état against a democratically-elected government, but even if it were, that merely would put Putin in the position of doing the same thing the US was doing since we were, and still are, actively supporting the coup leaders both with diplomatic support, money, ..

Except that both the US and Russia had signed a treaty to keep Ukraine as a single unit, which by your arguement Putin is breaking and the US is not.

 

[barbos]

Except that both the US and Russia had signed a treaty to keep Ukraine as a single unit, which by your arguement Putin is breaking and the US is not.

Too bad there was no treaty about "Not trying to to depose democratically elected president"

And actually there was no such treaty signed. Not even Ukraine signed it and since it was part of the Ukraine (Crimea) which decided to leave, then everything is fine treaty wise.
Another fun fact is that border between Russia and Ukraine was not officially demarcated so as far as UN concerned Ukraine is part of Russia or vice versa