boneyard bill
Veteran Member
Be serious. We've discussed this several times before. You've already seen the links. Why should I expect that you would believe them now if you didn't believe them then?
-
Features
NATO's new insane policy in the Ukraine.
- Thread starter boneyard bill
- Start date
Be serious. We've discussed this several times before. You've already seen the links. Why should I expect that you would believe them now if you didn't believe them then?
Harry Bosch
Contributor
Because your thesis that all media is controlled by the US does not hold water. On my own, I did an extensive ukraine search on even Al Jazerra, and could not find support for your opinions. Is it your view that Al Jazerra is controlled by the US?
They're obviously taking control whether they formally annex it or not.
- - - Updated - - -
I don't recall a specific link but it's not hard to find stuff:
http://www.tol.org/client/article/24093-mass-grave-found-in-serbia-kyiv-takes-stock-after-latest-huge-rally.html
barbos
Contributor
Russia took control 20 years ago and Georgia have never had any control over these territories. They broke away from them the moment Soviet Union broke apart and Georgia became independent country.
In other words these places have never been part of Georgia.
dystopian
Veteran Member
You mean the cease fire that would never have been needed to be called for if Russia hadn't spent years trying to incite a rebellion in the east of Ukraine?
Why shouldn't the west arm the legitimate government of a country that has had part of its territory stolen by Russia, which even now continues to arm and add its own troops to rebel forces? Oh wait, those Russian troops are just 'vacationing' there, so it doesn't count.
Probably because Russia's been shown to say one thing but do another. They promised they wouldn't annex Crimea, but no more than 2 weeks after they said that they did exactly that. They promised to withdraw their forces from the border, but they're still there. They promised they weren't helping the rebels, while they were shelling Ukraine from Russian territory. On and on the lies go.
One doesn't negotiate with compulsive liars.
dystopian
Veteran Member
Right... European media are just part of the *US* ministry of propaganda.
I'm not going to comment on US media bias; but anyone who thinks of European media as a monolithic block that tows government lines is someone who'se never been exposed to European media. Maybe our governments want the media to constantly paint them as some sort of combination of evil and incompetent? That'd be the only scenario in which our media would count as government propaganda.
tupac chopra
Veteran Member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#Opinions_concerning_foreign_policy
WIKI said:
I think it is actively working to prevent the emergence of a rival.
The USA has committed far more war crimes than Russia in recent years.
But, since we a\re looking at the Ukraine, here is how the separatists in Eastern Ukraine treated terrorists from Kiev.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us9lPiQ9btA&list=UUdnB82ob_V7EXwwcCtB1vUg
It has served a purpose I think, but it's shortcomings are becoming dangerous to us allSo yes this is a battle of ideas. Western ideas vs. Russian ideas, but all you have to do is take a look at the statistics and there is a clear winner as of which system has so far provided the best living standards for a majority of their population. That does not mean that a "western" system of free markets with state welfare is perfect, it is by all means a work in progress, but compared to the misery of other systems it is the best one we've got at this point in humanity's history. And by the way: I am not even an American.
Never before has one Empire had the potential to end all or most life on the entire planet. If the science on global warming is to be believed this "great system" will be the end of us all. Sure, we had some benefits but the ideology is totally incapable of any sort of sensible holistic view of the planet.
I think his point is that, in direct contradiction to your statement, Russian troops did stay in Georgia after the war, and are still there now, in provinces with governments which are so extremely pro-Russian and so dependent on Russia that a cynic might call them puppet regimes. Certainly the evidence for that in Georgia is far stronger than anything you've suggested for the Ukraine.
But he made it clear there were strings attached. The discount on natural gas was to be at least partly passed on to ordinary people in the form of price subsidies, continuing the existing policy. Putin made it clear he intended to monitor Ukraine for signs of the economy weakening further, and to renegotiate should things go worse. The negotiations for the second tranche of lending lasted for months. These are all sensible precautions for when a country lends someone $15billion, but they're hardly 'no strings attached'.
That may be because the IMF had already agreed to lend Ukraine $15million. Putin didn't take that figure out of the air, he made specific reference to the fact that he was offering to match the amount the IMF had already offered. There were, as you say, conditions, attached, most prominently that they didn't suspend currency trading and so artificially fix their currency. That's partly because it would be a disastrous move, and partly because it would represent a default on their debt. The second condition was to phase out the natural gas subsidies and price controls, which deepen Ukrainian dependence on Russian natural gas.
There's no need to speculate on what dire conditions might be included. The loans have now happened, so you can cite any unfair terms directly.
tupac chopra
Veteran Member
You are far too naive.
Right... European media are just part of the *US* ministry of propaganda.
I'm not going to comment on US media bias; but anyone who thinks of European media as a monolithic block that tows government lines is someone who'se never been exposed to European media. Maybe our governments want the media to constantly paint them as some sort of combination of evil and incompetent? That'd be the only scenario in which our media would count as government propaganda.
German Journalist Blows Whistle On How the CIA Controls The Media
Leading German Journalist admits CIA routinely ‘Bribed’ him; Germany is a colony of the USA
tupac chopra
Veteran Member
This semi-coherent rant goes into great detail on the evils of the west by virtue of things they might do at some point in the future. It also makes some dubious claims, such as the fact that much of the loan money was used for foreign payments was evidence that it was being stolen, rather than the more prosaic idea that it might have been used to pay overdue loans.
But what it does do is mention some of the draconian 'strings' attached to Russian loans, thus supporting my earlier point, albeit from what looks like a very unreliable source.
boneyard bill
Veteran Member
Al Jazerra is controlled by Dubai which owns it. I would expect that they would deferential to the US govt but not necessarily controlled by it. Which means there could well be a lot that they simply don't cover.
You have already been provided with the links to the conversations of Victoria Nuland and her claims elsewhere that the US had poured $5 billion into the "democracy" movement in Ukraine. The evidence is pretty clear. It's not quite a smoking gun but pretty close.
boneyard bill
Veteran Member
Ok. I did a search on "Mass graves in Kosovo." The search included many references to the discovery of alleged mass graves in Serbia rather than Kosovo. But in every reference, the actual digging had not yet been completed. So all of the claims were speculative. I did not find any news articles about the actual finds post-excavation. So what were the results? This was the same pattern we saw when investigators went into Kosovo. There were lots of news reports about sites the were discovered and "believed" to contain bodies of Albanian civilians. But where were the follow-up stories that confirmed the that suspicions were actually confirmed. I couldn't find any about Kosovo nor do I find any about these alleged Serbian sites.
boneyard bill
Veteran Member
You mean the cease fire that would never have been needed to be called for if Russia hadn't spent years trying to incite a rebellion in the east of Ukraine?
Why shouldn't the west arm the legitimate government of a country that has had part of its territory stolen by Russia, which even now continues to arm and add its own troops to rebel forces? Oh wait, those Russian troops are just 'vacationing' there, so it doesn't count.
Probably because Russia's been shown to say one thing but do another. They promised they wouldn't annex Crimea, but no more than 2 weeks after they said that they did exactly that. They promised to withdraw their forces from the border, but they're still there. They promised they weren't helping the rebels, while they were shelling Ukraine from Russian territory. On and on the lies go.
One doesn't negotiate with compulsive liars.
Your points here are weak enough not to require a response. One does not negotiate with liars? Then why would one negotiate with the US? Practically everything John Kerry told the media about Ukraine was a lie, and most of it was contradicted by his own Senate testimony just a few days later.
In international relations, you can pretty much discount legal or moral claims. Power relationships win out. Promises made in one circumstance will not be operative when circumstances change. The issue here is not primarily legal and moral. The key point, even if we had law and morality on our side, which we don't, is that efforts to take control of Ukraine by the West are risking nuclear war. What did Ike do when the Soviet Union invaded Hungary? What did LBJ do when they invaded Czechosolvia during the Prague Spring? When did Reagan do when the Communist General Jaruselski pulled his coup in Poland? The answer to all these questions is that they did nothing. Did we have right on our side? Yes. Did we want to risk nuclear war over it? No. That's why our policy is insane.
boneyard bill
Veteran Member
Right... European media are just part of the *US* ministry of propaganda.
I'm not going to comment on US media bias; but anyone who thinks of European media as a monolithic block that tows government lines is someone who'se never been exposed to European media. Maybe our governments want the media to constantly paint them as some sort of combination of evil and incompetent? That'd be the only scenario in which our media would count as government propaganda.
I haven't followed the European media except a little bit from the BBC. If the European media are parroting the US State Department line uncritically, then they are spewing propaganda. It's that simple. Where is the critical commentary? Where are the people representing the Russian position? Are they given any voice at all in the European media? Judge that for yourself. If there is no serious debate and critical commentary, then they are being propagandistic.
Here's a critical commentary. Did it get any coverage by the European media?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uNsXEu8ljM
boneyard bill
Veteran Member
There are Russian troops in the breakaway republics, but there were already Russian peace-keeping troops at least in South Ossetia before the war. It was the attack on these "trip-wire" troops that prompted the Russian intervention.
Putin offered to purchase $15 billion in Ukrainian bonds. A demand that Ukraine handle its finances more responsibly for continued funding is quite different from telling the Ukrainians how to do it which is what the IMF was doing. I don't know what conditions on the current loans have been imposed, but the situation has changed. Much of the current loans have been spent on trying to re-take the Eastern region.
dystopian
Veteran Member
No, you're just far too gullible.
dystopian
Veteran Member
Oh good, that means the response I got must be imaginary.
I said *compulsive* liars. Curious that you'd leave that word out.
Because the US doesn't have a habit of telling us they're not going to annex territory and then do it practically the next day.
"Practically everything" must have a different meaning in your world. Also, why exactly would you expect anyone to take you seriously when you complain that a politician lied (although apparently the notion that he didn't lie but instead jumped the gun before knowing the facts didn't occur to you), then in *the very same sentence* say that it was contradicted by the contents of a senatorial testimony you got word of from where? That's right... the media.
Hardly. *Most* countries on the planet do acknowledge international law. Yes, at this point you're going to rant about the US not doing so, but I don't fucking care about that in the context of this argument since A) It doesn't validate Russia not doing so either, and B), I'm not American.
Oh but it very much is.
Oh but we do.
Let's see if I get this right:
The west offers Ukraine a trade deal = OMG WEST IS TRYING TO TAKE CONTROL! THEY RISK NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION!
Russia outright invades and steals part of the Ukraine and threathens to use nukes if the west intervenes = OMG you guys, stop believing western propaganda! *they're* the ones trying to control Ukraine! *They're* the ones trying to start WW3!
If this led to war, it'd be the equivalent of me offering my neighbor a loan, prompting his other neighbor to kick him in the teeth and steal his garage then shooting me in the head when I try to help my neighbor to kick him out, and then having you blame *me* for everything because I should've known better than to be nice to a guy who'se other neighbor is a fucking psychopath.
Sorry, but that logic only works on crazy people.
dystopian
Veteran Member
Like I said, anyone who thinks of European media as a monolithic block that tows government lines is someone who'se never been exposed to European media.
They're not.
Only if 1) you start from the assumption (which of course *you* do) that what the US state department puts out is automatically false and,
2) that any media that says the same thing didn't look at what was being said with a critical eye (and the idea that someone could come to hold the same position as the US state department puts out arrived at that position through critical thought is one that obviously conflicts with *your* narrative),
3) that they didn't arrive at said position independently.
or 4) That reporting on what the politicians say is the same thing as endorsing it.
Where is it *not*? You admit you haven't followed any European media. I don't have to hold your hand as I take you through the fragmented landscape of multi-lingual European media just to show you what any European knows. Why don't you ask independent organizations for press freedom where in the world you're going to have the most freedom and accuracy of the press? (hint: it's Europe).
Unfortunately, it seems they're everywhere.
Yes. They do nothing but try to obfuscate matters, unfortunately.
This may be hard for you to understand, but *I* already did. Unlike you, I'm not ignorant of the amount of press freedom we have in the western world. *You* are the one who decided to pretend that we're all sipping US propaganda kool-aid without you knowing a damn thing about what goes on in 90% of the western world. Talk about falling for propaganda.
If you think Nigel Farage's comments on just about anything don't get media traction here, I'd like to live in the delusional fantasy world you've concocted. It'd certainly make me a happier person.
That's not a rebuttal.