NATO's new insane policy in the Ukraine.

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

So what if they aren't complete? Bodies have been found.

Mass graves in Serbia don't rebut mass graves in Kosovo.

 

[Togo]

Here's a critical commentary. Did it get any coverage by the European media?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uNsXEu8ljM

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.

Speeches in Strasbourg are not usually reported verbatim, but certainly Nigel Farage's admiration for Vladamir Putin, and his assessment that we shouldn't be involved in the Ukraine since that would provoke Russia, have been widely reported in the UK since the beginning of the year.

 

[Underseer]

And "Crackpot" normally means crackpot science.
So if you want to include politics into the term then FoxNews is a crackpot site too by that definition.

I wouldn't really call Faux Noise "crackpot", they're nowhere near as wacky as globalresearch.ca.

Well of course you wouldn't call FOX News "crackpot."

After all, they're Fair And Balanced^TM.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I wouldn't really call Faux Noise "crackpot", they're nowhere near as wacky as globalresearch.ca.

Well of course you wouldn't call FOX News "crackpot."

After all, they're Fair And Balanced^TM.

Haven't you noticed that I usually call them Faux Noise?

They are very often wrong or distorted but that's not the same thing as crackpot.

 

[boneyard bill]

Oh good, that means the response I got must be imaginary.

One does not negotiate with liars?

I said *compulsive* liars. Curious that you'd leave that word out.

Then why would one negotiate with the US?

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 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.

"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.

In international relations, you can pretty much discount legal or moral claims.

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.

The issue here is not primarily legal and moral.

Oh but it very much is.

The key point, even if we had law and morality on our side, which we don't,

Oh but we do.

is that efforts to take control of Ukraine by the West are risking nuclear war.

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.

Again, you're arguments are so weak they aren't worth responding to. You are grasping at straws. One point of substance that you make is the issue of John Kerry's Senate testimony. I got it from the internet, not from the mainstream media.

Look, nuclear war is a pretty serious prospect, and you want to brush it off as nothing at all. That is crazy.

 

[boneyard bill]

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.

If the European media are parroting the US State Department line uncritically,

They're not.

then they are spewing propaganda. It's that simple.

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 the critical commentary?

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).

Where are the people representing the Russian position?

Unfortunately, it seems they're everywhere.

Are they given any voice at all in the European media?

Yes. They do nothing but try to obfuscate matters, unfortunately.

Judge that for yourself.

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.

Here's a critical commentary. Did it get any coverage by the European media?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uNsXEu8ljM

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.

You're outrage and insults are entirely misplaced. I said nothing about the European media except that I didn't follow it. So why are you complaining that I made charges that I never made? My comments on the media were limited to the mainstream media in the US, and I never made any representations about European media. Instead, I asked you what they were reporting, and now you go off on a tirade. Did I actually hit a tender spot? Let me ask you a few more questions. Did you learn from the European media that the Yanukovich government was democratically elected? Did you learn that some of the protestors in the Maidan were armed? Did you learn that some of those protestors were avowed neo-Nazis? Did you hear the protestors being described as a "democracy movement"? If you did hear these statements, then shouldn't the latter two statements raise some cognitive dissonance with respect to the first two?

 

[boneyard bill]

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.

So what if they aren't complete? Bodies have been found.

Mass graves in Serbia don't rebut mass graves in Kosovo.

You completely missed the point or perhaps you deliberately overlooked it. Where were the follow up reports? If you have estimated so many bodies that are believed to be Albanian civilians, then there should be subsequent reports that confirm the number of dead bodies, the cause of death, the age and maybe the sex of the bodies, and perhaps the identity of the corpses with respect to nationality and/or military or civilian status. The absence of any follow up reports suggests that there was nothing newsworthy to follow up. Certainly, it is not credible that such evidence was uncovered and nobody thought it worth notifying the public. So we have guesses and suspicions but no evidence even though, if the guesses and suspicions were correct, they should have been confirmed by now. The reasonable conclusion is that those guesses and suspicions were not correct.

We had the exact same news coverage with respect to Kosovo only it came much earlier. There were many claims that mass graves were found and were about the be excavated, and the then whole story simply disappeared from the news media. I have never read any reports where graves of more than about a half dozen bodies were found, and they were classified as either natural deaths or combat deaths by apparent military personnel.

 

[boneyard bill]

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.

Speeches in Strasbourg are not usually reported verbatim, but certainly Nigel Farage's admiration for Vladamir Putin, and his assessment that we shouldn't be involved in the Ukraine since that would provoke Russia, have been widely reported in the UK since the beginning of the year.

I didn't think Farage's comments reflected admiration for Putin so much as it represented fear. It's foolish to grab the tiger by the tail. We're in Putin's back yard and Putin has nukes. Meanwhile the gains of admitting Ukraine to NATO are trivial in comparison with the risk. I don't see why everyone can't see how stupid this is. If Putin had never been born, it would still be stupid policy regardless of which Russian leader had his finger on the red button. If Putin is to be admired, it for the restraint that he has shown. Imagine if Yeltsin were still in charge and had too much vodka which was his habit to do.

 

[boneyard bill]

Well of course you wouldn't call FOX News "crackpot."

After all, they're Fair And Balanced^TM.

Haven't you noticed that I usually call them Faux Noise?

They are very often wrong or distorted but that's not the same thing as crackpot.

They're very close to being crackpot because they are reporting what the State Department says and that's pretty crackpot. But they're not as bad as MSNBC which is probably accusing Putin of racism since that what they do to everyone they disagree with.

 

[Jayjay]

If Putin is to be admired, it for the restraint that he has shown.

The only way that could be considered admirable is if you think that Putin is somehow entitled to nuke Ukraine (or NATO countries). That's just bonkers.

Speaking of nukes, Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for assurances of territorial integrity from Russia. Which Russia has now violated.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Again, you're arguments are so weak they aren't worth responding to. You are grasping at straws. One point of substance that you make is the issue of John Kerry's Senate testimony. I got it from the internet, not from the mainstream media.

Look, nuclear war is a pretty serious prospect, and you want to brush it off as nothing at all. That is crazy.

The more we appease Putin the more likely nuclear war would be.

 

[Will Wiley]

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.

The point may be that the money went from the IMF to their friends in the banks, not to the Ukrainian people who are suffering.
Medicine and Meat Out of Reach Amid Ukrainian Price Shock
Inflation at 20%, their currency has halved, but the foreign banks got their money back. I wouldn't be surprised if some did end up in the wrong hands though as well.

 

[Will Wiley]

Again, you're arguments are so weak they aren't worth responding to. You are grasping at straws. One point of substance that you make is the issue of John Kerry's Senate testimony. I got it from the internet, not from the mainstream media.

Look, nuclear war is a pretty serious prospect, and you want to brush it off as nothing at all. That is crazy.

The more we appease Putin the more likely nuclear war would be.

Unfortunately what we do know is that the United States likes to launch pre-emptive strikes. So Russia must be wondering if the United States is going to launch a pre-emptive strike on them. Which makes the world a more dangerous place

 

[Togo]

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.

The point may be that the money went from the IMF to their friends in the banks, not to the Ukrainian people who are suffering.

Well sure. The purpose of the loan was to help Ukraine meet an estimated $9billion of debt repayment. If that was the point they wanted to make, and it's a fairly good point, then why accuse political leaders of personal theft?

This is why this discussion gets so frustrating. There's plenty wrong with US foreign policy, but the easiest, and most efficient way to make yourself the most dedicated cheerleader the US could ever wish for is to align yourself firmly with Russian propaganda. The accusation of personal theft is silly - there's no evidence, IMF funds would be more closely scrutinised than other kinds, and the cash movements they're referring to are on public record as being unrelated to the accusation they're making. It's not a credible accusation to make.

The reason it is being made, I suspect, is that there were a lot of funds going missing under the previous, Russian-friendly, president. Particularly in central Ukraine, where a broadly supportive oligarchy was being built to mirror the one in Russia. That's not just about corruption - if you're making friends with a country with a lot of oligarchs, then having your own and casting your country as ripe for more of the same attracts inwards investment to your net benefit. It's the same rationale that stops the US pursuing companies and rich people that keep their cash in tax havens - not wanting to chase away the rich.

But obviously, encouraging corruption looks bad, so an obvious target for any loyal propagandist is to throw enough mud about missing funds that observers just shrug, say there's accusations against both regimes, and don't look too hard at it. In other words, it's one of those talking points that gets brought up not in service of the truth, but to obscure and obfuscate. It might be true, it might be false, but that's not why it's there. It's there to serve the Russian state.

The way to avoid media bias is to ask questions. Blindly quoting sources that don't present any evidence is no part of that, even if they contradict sources you dislike.

 

[dystopian]

Again, you're arguments are so weak they aren't worth responding to.

Which is always a convenient thing to say of people who'se arguments are to the contrary of one's own and which one knows one can't adequately address.

One point of substance that you make is the issue of John Kerry's Senate testimony. I got it from the internet, not from the mainstream media.

Except you really didn't, because A) Internet media IS mainstream media nowadays, and B) where the hell do you think those internet sources got it from in the first place?

Look, nuclear war is a pretty serious prospect, and you want to brush it off as nothing at all. That is crazy.

No, I'm just not a coward who starts cheering on the bully he's afraid of.

 

[dystopian]

You're outrage and insults are entirely misplaced.

There is no outrage in my post, nor are there any insults; there's just casual contempt for someone who makes sweeping claims based on ignorance.

I said nothing about the European media except that I didn't follow it. So why are you complaining that I made charges that I never made?

Because you and the rest of the Putin fanboys have repeatedly talked about WESTERN media being nothing but propaganda; and the west is far bigger than the US alone. Don't go crying when you're called out on the things you say. Either restrict your claims to be specifically about US media, or go and educate yourself.

My comments on the media were limited to the mainstream media in the US, and I never made any representations about European media. Instead, I asked you what they were reporting, and now you go off on a tirade.

Hah.

Did you learn from the European media that the Yanukovich government was democratically elected?

Yes.

Did you learn that some of the protestors in the Maidan were armed?

Yes.

Did you learn that some of those protestors were avowed neo-Nazis?

Yes.

Did you hear the protestors being described as a "democracy movement"?

Yes.

If you did hear these statements, then shouldn't the latter two statements raise some cognitive dissonance with respect to the first two?

No, since there is no contradiction between the fact that there is a presence of *some* neo-nazi's in a popular revolt, and the claim that the *majority* of the revolters want more democracy. Just like there's no contradiction in reporting that a revolt movement is a democracy movement even if they're overthrowing a leader who was ostensibly democratically elected; especially not when said leader broke the promises he was elected on and used his power to undo previous democratic reforms in order to strengthen his own base.

Shouldn't the fact that it's so easy to answer your question raise some cognitive dissonance of your own in regards to the validity of your position?

Oh wait, no, you're going to just say my arguments aren't worth responding to, right?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The more we appease Putin the more likely nuclear war would be.

Unfortunately what we do know is that the United States likes to launch pre-emptive strikes. So Russia must be wondering if the United States is going to launch a pre-emptive strike on them. Which makes the world a more dangerous place

Putin perfectly well knows we aren't going to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike on them unless it's a matter of survival.

 

[Frikki]

Scratch a Conservolibertarian and underneath you find a fascist sympathizer. We saw it with Pinochet we see it with Putin.

 

[fromderinside]

Post BS. There is no battle of ideas here. There is just economics and penis envy.

The real problem is that they will win. Russia will not let that happen, and they have the tactical advantage in Ukraine. So then we face the prospect of nuclear war.

yada yada yada

Russia didn't attack when they could back in the day and now they can't because their economy is wrapped up in capitalism to a pretty large extent. Putin has yet to stick a sword in his stomach to prove his intentions. He's not insane.

So I'm pretty sure Russia will ''give up" and join the rest of the world when it becomes clear they they are going to suffer even more than the Iranians, who are actually insane, but who are going to keep negotiating with the west rather than risk more sanctions.

Actually what's gonna happen is that Saudi Arabia and like minded producers who can get black gold out of the ground at less than $20 a barrel are going to keep letting prices fall until Russia - Russia is already losing money in the current economy without western sanctions - and the United States and Canada who need the price to be over $70 a barrel reduce their activities at the well head, agree to regulate prices IAC with OPEC, and sign agreements to keep a cap on their production.

Doing so will be fatal to Russia so the US and Canada will allow some pain here, perhaps some regulation here, to support OPEC's reductions in barrel costs, which together with existing sanctions and more to come soon will break Russia leading to Putin's ouster and a new detente with the west by Russia.

 

[boneyard bill]

Again, you're arguments are so weak they aren't worth responding to. You are grasping at straws. One point of substance that you make is the issue of John Kerry's Senate testimony. I got it from the internet, not from the mainstream media.

Look, nuclear war is a pretty serious prospect, and you want to brush it off as nothing at all. That is crazy.

The more we appease Putin the more likely nuclear war would be.

Appeasement? You think that taking over all of Eastern Europe, waging war against Russia's only ally there, Serbia, putting missile bases in these East European countries, and sponsoring a putsch in Ukraine is some kind of appeasement? We've done nothing but provoke Russia. Now we're proposing to provoke Russia even more. The closer we move to Russia's borders the more provocative we are. Where has Russia moved closer to our borders? If there is any appeasement going on here, it is Putin who's doing it, and he's getting lots of criticism back in Russia for it.

For God's sake, be realistic! All of the objective evidence here shows that NATO is the expansionist force in Europe. It is overwhelming. How can you deny it?