No: RT is becoming more watchable, especially in comparison to the BBC; Sky; ITV and C4
Ukraine
- Thread starter Zabo
- Start date
No: RT is becoming more watchable, especially in comparison to the BBC; Sky; ITV and C4
seventh bullet
sovietwave
Radio Moscow.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
the only people Ive ever referred to here as Russophobic are those whove made openly Russophobic statements that others have pulled them up on , and who openly despise news emanating from Russian media but make no similar noises about British media . A tiny minority of the boards users , a mere handful. Ive never said this forum was Russophobic at any time . So thats even more disingenuousness . Pretty much in every post now .
But you were originally claiming I was making this accusation aginst Ukrainians who wanted to remain within Ukraine, now its the U75 forums ..odd behaviour. So youre all over the place now, shifting all sorts of goalposts rather than simply withdraw your remark gracefully as I suggested .
I don't mind you joining in, but you are taking this out of its context and creating a pointless tangent. The constitution, regardless of who actually recognises it now, effectively forbids secession peacefully. Even if you are of the view the constitution is no longer a credible basis of law, it is a statement of intent of the current Ukrainian government (and possibly the West).
theres been an unconstitutional coup . The constitution is gone . This is why there are secessionist and federalist protests . Its the context in which these things are happening and the context in which those engaged in these protests refuse to accept the juntas legitimacy . Which is the issue at hand unlike mystical Russophilia .
hipipol
Peckham Wry
Spurious bollocks on here re anti Russian sentiment while yer Spetsnaz lead teams of Mother Russia facisti to grab what they can
It is not "Russiaphobe" to notice this is not the right way to behave
Its based on the simple observation that the annexation of the Sudatenland didn't slake an expansionist hard mans thirst a few years back - the Crimea hasn't sorted this shit out either - that the propaganda machine cranks into full power
As for the ignoring the plank in the west eye......any chance, Russiophiles, of some examples of blatant corporately sanctioned lying, as apposed to a personal bias slants by the journos?
It is not "Russiaphobe" to notice this is not the right way to behave
Its based on the simple observation that the annexation of the Sudatenland didn't slake an expansionist hard mans thirst a few years back - the Crimea hasn't sorted this shit out either - that the propaganda machine cranks into full power
As for the ignoring the plank in the west eye......any chance, Russiophiles, of some examples of blatant corporately sanctioned lying, as apposed to a personal bias slants by the journos?
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
Sorry, but can I just check with everyone that we all agree on a few points below:
That the US in conjunction with the EU, working through various NGO's and the like, have been intervening in Ukraines already polarized political system for years.
That the EU consistently refused any three way agreement between Ukraine, the EU and Russia and instead insisted on the zero-sum approach (this while knowing how profoundly divided Ukraine is over this stuff).
Do we all agree that the US's Victoria Nuland discussed installing the current prime minister into power in Ukraine before he came into power, and also boasted about over 5 Billion dollars worth of spend on political activity in the Ukraine.
Are we also all on the same page in understanding that major powers like Russia do not permit local turmoil to threaten important strategic assets like the naval base in Crimea that has been held by Russia for well over the last hundred years.
That no one would expect the US or UK for example to stand idly by were a similar situation to threaten one of their far flung bases around the world among populations who do not identify with the US or UK in any particularly meaningful way (the US invasion of Panama for instance).
That the Crimea was 'given' to Ukraine in the 50's in an act of Sovjet diktat by Kruschev ("this region now belong Ukraine" sort of thing) in any case.
Are we also all agreed that the Crimeans, for the most part, really did seem pretty keen to join Russia?
And that a well observed referendum that conformed to international standards was carried out?
And are we all agreed that the Russians did already have 25k troops in the area legally as per their longstanding agreement with the Ukraine?
Are we all agreed that the regime in Kiev was not democratically elected, and that it took power even though elections were upcoming next year (and despite the former president offering significant concessions to them at that point, including a ceasefire agreement that was immediately reneged upon by the people who now lead the regime in Kiev).
And if we all agree that the regime in Kiev did not take power democratically, then do we all agree that a lot of people in Ukraine orientated toward Russia for various legitimate reason, might not recognize the authority of the regime in Kiev, and actually may genuinely also want the option to choose to join Russia instead, as have the Crimeans?
That the EU consistently refused any three way agreement between Ukraine, the EU and Russia and instead insisted on the zero-sum approach (this while knowing how profoundly divided Ukraine is over this stuff).
Do we all agree that the US's Victoria Nuland discussed installing the current prime minister into power in Ukraine before he came into power, and also boasted about over 5 Billion dollars worth of spend on political activity in the Ukraine.
Are we also all on the same page in understanding that major powers like Russia do not permit local turmoil to threaten important strategic assets like the naval base in Crimea that has been held by Russia for well over the last hundred years.
That no one would expect the US or UK for example to stand idly by were a similar situation to threaten one of their far flung bases around the world among populations who do not identify with the US or UK in any particularly meaningful way (the US invasion of Panama for instance).
That the Crimea was 'given' to Ukraine in the 50's in an act of Sovjet diktat by Kruschev ("this region now belong Ukraine" sort of thing) in any case.
Are we also all agreed that the Crimeans, for the most part, really did seem pretty keen to join Russia?
And that a well observed referendum that conformed to international standards was carried out?
And are we all agreed that the Russians did already have 25k troops in the area legally as per their longstanding agreement with the Ukraine?
Are we all agreed that the regime in Kiev was not democratically elected, and that it took power even though elections were upcoming next year (and despite the former president offering significant concessions to them at that point, including a ceasefire agreement that was immediately reneged upon by the people who now lead the regime in Kiev).
And if we all agree that the regime in Kiev did not take power democratically, then do we all agree that a lot of people in Ukraine orientated toward Russia for various legitimate reason, might not recognize the authority of the regime in Kiev, and actually may genuinely also want the option to choose to join Russia instead, as have the Crimeans?
It occurs to me that a lot of people might not actually agree with the above, it's not always clear because sometimes people don't seem to actually address any of these points because mostly what they say is about condemning Russian actions. Condemning Russian actions is fair enough if you think they're out of order (for instance I condemned the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, even though I agreed that they had been savagely attacked on 9/11. It is legitimate to disagree with or have doubts about a nations specific reaction to something).
For now just looking to establish what it is that people think happened before all this kicked off, till now. Not particularly pro-Russian myself, but if you do agree with the points above I'm interested in how despite all that, it's still possible to see the Russians as the major 'instigators' of this mess, pursuing a master plan to become Czar of All Slavs again, rather than scrambling to react to a messy situation that has been purposefully escalated and intentionally FUBAR'd from afar.
Last edited:
hipipol
Peckham Wry
2 brief points
1 The EU approach to Ukraine has been a lick spittle bending to US policy - a policy that is venal and stupid in that they have sought to encircle Russia with NATO and EU memberships as they are as locked into some twisted idea of a glorious past as Putin. The US essentially defines itself by that which it opposes - when the USSR fell thay had to find new shibboleths - suspect the old shits at Langley and Washington love Putin in some ways
2 The main complaint of the original protestors in Kiev seem to have been aimed directly at the Kleptocracy of the "elected" govt. Its is legitimate for a population to revolt
1 The EU approach to Ukraine has been a lick spittle bending to US policy - a policy that is venal and stupid in that they have sought to encircle Russia with NATO and EU memberships as they are as locked into some twisted idea of a glorious past as Putin. The US essentially defines itself by that which it opposes - when the USSR fell thay had to find new shibboleths - suspect the old shits at Langley and Washington love Putin in some ways
2 The main complaint of the original protestors in Kiev seem to have been aimed directly at the Kleptocracy of the "elected" govt. Its is legitimate for a population to revolt
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
I agree, and with your point 2, usually populations revolt when there is no chance of elections taking place so they can have another go at electing a not-corrupt politician.
If I for one had known you can boot corrupt asshole politicians out outside of the political process then I would have revolted and seized power when that cunt war criminal wanker Tony Fuckface Blair was in charge... or during the Duck House Affair. Britain would have a constitution by now, written by myself and like minded others. Write off the debts! Redistribute the land! *revolutionary fist* I doubt most Britons would have recognized the camouflage-regimes legitimacy though, even though Fuckface Blair is (I think we can all agree) an utter cunt.
Last edited:
Civil war soon? A military operation to retake occupied buildings in the East of Ukraine should be starting any minute now, unless the Kiev authorities were bluffing.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/14/ukraine-deadline-pro-russian-rebels-passes
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/14/ukraine-deadline-pro-russian-rebels-passes
8ball
Decolonise colons!
It's tricky since they can either let these places be taken over or resist and have them taken over with a great deal of bloodshed. I guessed the interim Gov/junta might try selectively surrounding places, cutting supply lines and letting things burn out of their own accord, but with more places being taken over all the time that option doesn't seem open to them.
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
By the way, is this a reference to the idea of a Eurasian Union? Why is this idea twisted and bad and wrong if the EU, ASEAN or MERCASUR for example are not? My understanding is that the EAU or however it would be abbreviated would be a new trading block. The EU can't extend itself all the way to Kazakhstan after all.
I ask this question while bearing in mind that a surprisingly large number of people seem to think that keeping Russia down is the default good position. Reading an article in the Business section of the Evening Standard the other week (I don't know why I do these things) the author remarked on how lower energy costs would be good not just because cheaper energy, but because it would hit Russian income. The assumption being that a richer Russia was obviously a bad thing and a poorer Russia obviously a good thing. The idea that millions of Russians struggle through lives so dirt poor it puts Benefit Street on the same level as Belsize Park seemed not to bother the guy. Bearing in mind that this was during the Snolympics where billions were spent on basic infrastructure in Sochi and employed who-knows how many Russians in all sorts of roles that did not exist before (so boo-hiss Russia for selling energy for money and boo-his Russia for spending money building stuff and employing people seemed to be the mood of the week).
hipipol
Peckham Wry
Whatever you may have looked at, you seem to have seen only that which you sought
IF the EU really has an interest up to or even beyond the Urals, it does require Russian buy-in
The Yanks, via NATO have tried to drag every CEE/CIS member into the club - Russia excluded
This is NOT the way to get a EAU started
Next one:- You know who own the Standard, right?
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
A Russophobe.
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
I wasn't soughting anything... I read another article somewhere (would link to if I could recall where, possibly on Counterpunch, or maybe wsws.org) that the EU and NATO are threatened by the idea that Putin would quite like to build up a regional economic union around the former Sovjet Union. That this intention has been represented as Putin wanting to rebuild the Sovjet Union, which probably isn't a fair view of what he has in mind considering there's even an African Union.
I don't think the EU wants to extend across the Urals, it doesn't even seem to want to absorb Turkey, of course Slavs/Eastern Europeans are christianish white folk too while the Turks aren't apparently, so *shrugs* who knows what the EU really thinks deep down inside of its reptilian brain. In my opinion it ultimately takes its orders from Washington anyway, although it gets to give a bit of back-chat. The point though, was that continental scale trading blocks are all the rage nowadays, why should a trading union of the former CCCP be seen as threatening? Even the neo-liberal rah rah rah brigade can surely see a benefit in a big vast chunk of standardized business practices and property rights across Stanland, Siberia and all that big vast lump of territories before you hit Vladivostock.
The Evening Standard is owned by a Russian billionaire I believe, no indication in that where the guy stands. He doesn't seem to like Putin though because the Standard has the same habit as the rest of Western media in talking about Russia as if it's a big old grumpy bear that needs a good slap on the nose with a rolled up newspaper every now and then to keep it in line.
One impression that makes sense, is that setting the Russians and the likes of the Ukrainians against eachover in conflict and strife is a good way to stomp that whole Eurasian Union idea, after all this fuss Ukraine for instance would be highly unlikely to get on board with any Russia-driven Eurasian Union, which apparently is a major blow to it.
Last edited:
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
but the population plainly did not revolt, only a section of it did, led by the groups funded to the tune of 5 billion dollars by the US . The majority in Ukraine plainly did not vote for them and didnt agree with them .The other part of the population are now revolting against that revolt, after seeing their vote and constitution overturned by a violent coup . Despite there being an election scheduled for 9 months later. And also seeing various oligarchs appointed by the coup to lord it over their regions. But your calling that revolt illegitmate , and comparing it to nazism.
Why is that part of the population not entitled to revolt ?
and why are you putting elected in quotation marks . They plainly were elected .
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
theyre pissed off because Putin wants Russian wealth to be spent in Russia and not in the west . That requires infrastructure, which Russia sorely lacks . So building Russian infrastructure is bad . Russian wealth being spent in Russia is bad . Russia is bad bad bad . Unless of course its run by a drunken bum that lets it go to hell in a handbasket and doesnt get in the wests way, then its good old Boris . He likes a drink ..what a fun guy.
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
RT showed video footage there of a Ukrainian military truck seized by protestors . It was packed to the brim with ammunition for mobile rocket launchers.
Rockets for this thing here basically
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
Casually Red Katyusha?
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
Have to say I agree, certainly a strong impression I get. Loveble old drunk wobbling about agreeing to things Jelcyn versus scarily competent and in excellent physical shape apparently Putin. I remember when Jelcyn had the Russian parliment tank-shelled because they wanted to vote for something he didn't like, our leaders still praised the guy as a democrat. Confuddling.
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
yup, not exactly a precision weapon . The tie muncher used them with wild abandon on civilian areas when he went out to crush a problematic civilian area with pro russian sympathies . So theres form .
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
Have to say I agree, certainly a strong impression I get. Loveble old drunk wobbling about agreeing to things Jelcyn versus scarily competent and in excellent physical shape apparently Putin. I remember when Jelcyn had the Russian parliment tank-shelled because they wanted to vote for something he didn't like, our leaders still praised the guy as a democrat. Confuddling.
well yeah..he was a good democrat seizing for the president, himself, the autocratic powers that the west now calls Putin a dictator for inheriting . And the people he was shelling were very annoyed that their parliamentary powers were being taken away from them and concentrated in the hands of one man . But they were commies, and he was very anti communist as well as a pliable drunken bum that couldnt run a bath . So the west supported it .
worth remembering there were mystery snipers randomly shooting both sides during that one too, just before the shelling began . Justifying it pretty much as Yeltsin was able to claim on the media his opponents were massacring civilian protestors so they had to be crushed.
eta
Putin has since come out and said he agrees pretty much with the shellees position, but disagreed with their methodology .
Last edited:
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
A russian buy in will occur when the west manage to accomplish what theyve spent billions on accomplishing in Ukraine . Installing their guys wholl open the place up to western plunderers . Putin and his goddman popularity with Russians is a bit of a stumbling block in that regard. Hence not very well liked .
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
the yanks are now claiming one of the warships theyve sent to the black sea as part of their military build up , of which theres no doubt but barely mentioned, has been repeatedly buzzed by a Russian jet .
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/russian-fighter-jet-buzzed-u-s-ship-officials-n79971
fuck it lads. Time for another ICBM test I reckon . Actually they should test about half a dozen .
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/russian-fighter-jet-buzzed-u-s-ship-officials-n79971
fuck it lads. Time for another ICBM test I reckon . Actually they should test about half a dozen .
seventh bullet
sovietwave
You mean ordinary Russians were ripped off by Putin's cronies in the overpriced building of shoddy infrastructure. A project that saw not only Russians but thousands of migrant workers from Central Asia and Southeastern Europe labour in appalling conditions for a pittance (if they got paid) and at risk of serious injury and worse (tens of them died).
Not to mention the further abuses in the Caucasus in the name of counter-terrorism.
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
Easy tiger, I for one still hold out hope that people will come to their senses and de-escalate the situation and the US will stop shit-stiring an wagging it's dick around, boasting about how many more jets and ships it's going to throw into the mix this time.
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
without being rude, the US has 'thrown' 18 fighters, one warship, and some tankers into this 'mix'. Russia has kept a mobilised force of around 150,000 men on or near the Ukranian border.
theres one country wagging its dick around, and its Russia.
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
Without being rude, so it's 150,000 now? Thought it was 40,000. How ever many, they are in Russia where they belong. I haven't seen any reports of Putin making loud announcements about how much hardware he's going to move up to the border. The Russians have however offered the Ukraine sight on what's happening on their side of the border apparently. Can't say what the situation is with that now... we get so little factual news of events here in the West (or Earth probably, to be fair, why should power tell you what the fuck's going on).
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
I actually dont think they will. They tend not to . They seem intent on pushing this to the wire and over it.
if you listen to the very strident line theyre taking in the UN today theyre insisting these protests are purely a result of Russian instigation, the work of Russian provocatuers and agents and solely Russias doing. According to them no protest in Ukraine is legitimate and no protestor is legitimate .Theyre firstly deliberately building a diplomatic tower they cant back down from , very deliberately. They wont be retreating from that position because theyre deliberately ensuring they cant beforehand.
Remember the absolute lunatic coming out with this stuff almost assaulted the Russian ambassador to the UN just weeks ago . Shes a fanatic, unhinged . And the foreign policy shes enunciating is drafted by the PNAC lunatics that colonise the US state department, the same people who brought us one disaster after another .
Theyre clearly identifying civilian protestors as their enemy....while sitting alongside a junta staffed by neo nazis that has repeatedly called them terrorists and sworn to launch all out military assaults on them , and indeed has already tried but the people they send out to do it keep resigning and defecting. Theyre sending in the US military assets to reassure the junta as it prepares to launch a maniac ethnic offensive against terrorists . Something they neglected to do with the tie muncher who was left hanging when Putin reacted speedily , decisively and unexpectedly .
Their military back up is a direct and open encouragement for the junta and the fascists to commit a bloodbath, that could start any second . And what they are doing here is very plainly laying the political and diplomatic ground in advance to place the blame for all deaths on Russia, and not their junta puppets. They arent calling for calm on all sides as Ukraine stands on the brink, theyre openly egging the junta on while providing the military and diplomatic back up for the junta to do its worst. Russia will be blamed no matter what, the USA and its allies and all their tame media will see to that.
Thats why Im calling for nuclear tests. Because the only thing likely to bring sense to this situation is scaring the fuck out of people sufficiently to stop their Russia bashing and start calling for immediate de escalation. Because the USA and its allies are plainly in full on confrontation mode here and nobody is saying stop.
Similar threads
