Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Ukraine on the brink of civil war. Mod Warning in OP.
Options
Comments
-
Did you see any of their personnel on the streets of Donetsk, Mariupol, Lugansk? Really where did they get numbers from?
Ah, the age old "when you don't agree with the results, question the organisation"
I've provided solid evidence for my claims. I'm waiting for you to do the same. If you want to dispute the evidence, you'll need to do better then try to undermine Pew.Also was going to ask: if the protests are "against government, not the state", are they eligible to throw molotov's cocktails at police?
If I don't like Enda's government but support Irish integrity as a country, can I go at the street and start throwing petrol bombs at Garda - Will I be considered by international organisations as a peaceful protestor, and will be visited by Victoria Nuland ("f...k the EU")?
Can I avoid prosecution then?
No because they're engaging in violence. But if the government responds to peaceful protest against their policies with excessive force they really can't expect much else of a response.
This is the key difference: the protestors in Maidan wanted a regime change. Rebels in the east want to secede. I'm sure you can see the difference.0 -
-
-
But they were 'engaging in violence', right? So should they be prosecuted, summoned to court?
Very different type of violence. If I punch someone, the guards will arrest me. If me and a group of people start shooting off rifles and throwing petrol bombs, chances are the army will be sent in.0 -
Most of UK citizens back in 1920-s thought that Irish fighters were terrorists and criminals, and that the Ireland should belong to UK. So what?
If you can only nitpick that one point, I'm taking that as a tacit acceptance that you were wrong and basing your claims of eastern support for the rebels on personal opinions rather than evidence.0 -
Advertisement
-
What is the evidence? the words of the ' Research Centre'?Ah, the age old "when you don't agree with the results, question the organisation"
I've provided solid evidence for my claims.
Its much harder to forge the video, than edit the numbers.
Anyway: words of the 'Research Centre' vs exit polls (by different media!)in Crimean referendum - its just a matter of whom you trust more.0 -
Thats a great example: Yanukovish did not send an army againts 'peaceful protestors', while junta did.Very different type of violence. If I punch someone, the guards will arrest me. If me and a group of people start shooting off rifles and throwing petrol bombs, chances are the army will be sent in.0 -
If that's the best you can do, I'm leaving this thread for the time being. Happy to respond if you can back up your claims with actual evidence. Otherwise, I see no need to press my point given your lack of sources.0
-
wait a second, The Pew Research Center's (Location Washington, D.C.) conclusions were not based on personal opinions?you were wrong and basing your claims of eastern support for the rebels on personal opinions rather than evidence.
Again, it can send you tonns of links to 'Research Centers' in Moscow, which show opposite figures.0 -
Like I said, feel free to provide actual evidence for your claims.
If the best you can do is go "but they're in DC!" you're really clutching at straws.0 -
Advertisement
-
Before I provide the evidence, let me ask, what is 'evidence' and what is 'personal opinion'? Are any of these evidences:Like I said, feel free to provide actual evidence for your claims.
.
-The info from Washington
-info from London
-info from Kiev,
-info from Moscow
-info from Crimea?0 -
Before I provide the evidence, let me ask, what is 'evidence' and what is 'personal opinion'? Are any of these evidences:
-The info from Washington
-info from London
-info from Kiev,
-info from Moscow
-info from Crimea?
I don't give a damn what country the source is based in as long as it's an independent and reputable source.
So something like Al-Jazeera: grand, RT or Globalresearch.ca: no.0 -
Before I provide the evidence, let me ask, what is 'evidence' and what is 'personal opinion'? Are any of these evidences:
-The info from Washington
-info from London
-info from Kiev,
-info from Moscow
-info from Crimea?
Depends how credible, impartial and accountable a source is. Also, no source or research center is impervious to mistakes or miscalculations - the key is that they are objective
Certain countries have no free press or low press freedoms, such as China, Burma, and in this case Russia - this has to be taken into account
Not to say all reports would be false - but that many can be tainted by a narrative, distorted to field a certain agenda - CCTV (China), RT (Russia Today) PRESSTV (Iranian) are prime examples of this
Similarly an individual station can have it's own confirmation bias and heavy slant - e.g. Fox News
If Ukrainian jets had been bombing ground targets - there would be many reports of this, likewise if a user submitted video showed Russian tanks in the centre of Odessa - I would be equally skeptical0 -
That's a problem all Russain sources are considered to be non-credible, and on the other hand, most UK's an US sources are 'credible'.Depends how credible, impartial and accountable a source is. Also, no source or research center is impervious to mistakes or miscalculations - the key is that they are objective
Let this alone,
the videos are much harder to edit or forge, especially if we got ten's of new videos every day. It is just impossible to edit all of them and never being caught.
And regarding Crimea and locals support. No country was ever managed to occupy some territory and get hold of it without the full support from locals.
Although very unlikely but you can take a region without a single shot, but it is ablosutely impossible to hold the territory for a long period, if the majority of population hates you.(unless you kill them all of course)
And what we have here is: celebrations & Russian flags on the streets of Crimea(even BBC admits this),
and constant fights on the streets of Eastern Ukraine.0 -
You can also check out famous reports from US journalist Symon Ostrovsky, who was captured there recently (reportedly by rebels), so he can't be blamed for pro-Russian views.
Unlike 'Pew Research' he really spent time there and made several reports - of course there is no guarantee that those are fully independent and credible, but at least none of them are pro-Russian or pro-Rebels.
0 -
OK, do you believe Ukrainian sources?I don't give a damn what country the source is based in as long as it's an independent and reputable source.
So something like Al-Jazeera: grand, RT or Globalresearch.ca: no.
I mean the pro-Kiev sources that blame Putin & Russian for 'invasion', calls rebels 'occupants' etc?
www.unian.net is absolutely and undoubtedly a pro-Ukrainian propaganda site (you can check out English version)
And this is an article, about local police in the town of Kramatorsk (East Ukraine) who supports 'separatists' by wearing their symbols,
It is in Russian, but can be easily translated by google:
http://www.unian.net/politics/907150-v-kramatorske-militsiya-hodit-s-georgievskimi-lentochkami-nastup.html0 -
Thats a great example: Yanukovish did not send an army againts 'peaceful protestors', while junta did.
There's a video posted in the Ukraine thread in After Hours forum about some of these so called peaceful protestors.
2.50 into the video one of these protesters is shown firing a pistol at soldiers from the crowd of supposed "unarmed civilians".
Videos do not give context of what happened before or after they were taken, and events in them can be staged to a degree.0 -
Why you don't beleive own eуes? All newspapers are propaganda.Still relying on your Youtube videos as evidence I see.
Today nazy troops attack Mariuple. They choose city where rebels decide do not use weapon at all. They shooted non-combatants (at least 7 dead and lot of wounded). They attak and seage local police station and finally killed most of police officers (22 killed, not confirmed digit yet ) then burn station.
Do you see that info in CNN?Also, I'm sure you'll be happy to know that your claims that the rebels in Eastern Ukraine have public support has been shown to be utterly false.Very few support secession.
*The vast majority of Ukrainians oppose allowing regions to secede, even in Eastern Ukraine and among Russian Ukrainians
*A slight majority of Crimeans support seceding.
*Most Ukrainians have a negative view of Russia while a plurality think the EU is having a good impact on Ukraine.
*Most Ukrainians think that the Crimean referendum was illegitimate.
*Most Ukrainians don't trust the Kiev government.
*Most Ukrainians think that both Russian and Ukrainian should be the national languages.
It could be truth especially if they choose most respondens in Galicia ;-)
Well I'll try to explain situation in Ukraine. The Ukraine is actually 4 big peaces/areas. People in that areas has different history and culture.
1.Galicia - West part. Ethnically Russian but most time was part of Poland, Österreich-Ungarn etc. Language and culture very mutate and include lot of Polish and German.
Most population support very radical even nazy.
2.Malorossia - Central part include capital Kiev. Most time country style and by lack of education has lot of dialects (or mutation of language) because close border to Galicia.
Lot enaugh people support idea about separated Ukrain nation but not such radical as Galicia
3.Novorossia - recent (in begin of 20 century) transferred from Russia to Ukraine by comunists for balance Galicia separatizm. Very little difference from official Russian language. By agressive Ukraine propaganda I estimate 30-40% there is support Ukrainian nation idea.
4.Crimea - very recent (in 1954 ) transferred to Ukrain. Almoust all population identify themself as russian.
As you see if make poll from whole Ukraine then yes result would be like in your link.
And most important it explains why Crimea quick separate from Ukraine when nazi take rule.
That also explain why only part of Novorossia active wants to separate and by the way not such active as Crimea.0 -
Conmaicne Mara wrote: »There's a video posted in the Ukraine thread in After Hours forum about some of these so called peaceful protestors.
.
Today's video from Mariupol - armed terrorists of all ages and sex attacking peaceful Ukrainian army
(for Lockstep - yes it is Putin's propaganda video filmed in Syria!)
GRAPHIC CONTENT!
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/678n97eBQoI0 -
I'm now asking you to multiquote all your responses towards the same user into single posts.. The thread is becoming increasingly hard to follow given your tendency to respond to short paragraphs in multiple, separate posts. If you need advice on how to do this I'm happy to help out and tell you how to do so but please stop posting multiple times.
QUOTE=na1;90310501]That's a problem all Russain sources are considered to be non-credible, and on the other hand, most UK's an US sources are 'credible'.
Let this alone,
the videos are much harder to edit or forge, especially if we got ten's of new videos every day. It is just impossible to edit all of them and never being caught.[/quote]
Utterly untrue. It doesn't matter what country the source is based in. What matters is the source's reputation for polemics and spin. US sources such as Fox News and WND fall into this category, as do UK sources like the Daily Mail.
Short videos shot by amateurs without context are a poor source. I'm sure you're well aware of how easy it is for videos to mislead while reputable sources are a different story entirely.
Off the top of my head: pretty much every country conquered by the Nazis, Ireland under British rule, Tibet, Northern Ireland. All countries where significant portions of the population opposed the rulers but were kept in check by force.And regarding Crimea and locals support. No country was ever managed to occupy some territory and get hold of it without the full support from locals.
Although very unlikely but you can take a region without a single shot, but it is ablosutely impossible to hold the territory for a long period, if the majority of population hates you.(unless you kill them all of course)
And what we have here is: celebrations & Russian flags on the streets of Crimea(even BBC admits this),
and constant fights on the streets of Eastern Ukraine.
I'm not sure what Ostrovsky is meant to prove, especially when he was being held as a prisoner.You can also check out famous reports from US journalist Symon Ostrovsky, who was captured there recently (reportedly by rebels), so he can't be blamed for pro-Russian views.
Unlike 'Pew Research' he really spent time there and made several reports - of course there is no guarantee that those are fully independent and credible, but at least none of them are pro-Russian or pro-Rebels.
If you really think that Pew's research is doctored, do you not think they'd have found that Ukrainians support the Kiev regime and only want Ukrainian as their official language?
But no, you're so ideological and biased that even in face of solid evidence you're only response is to go "It's based in DC and so must be biased".OK, do you believe Ukrainian sources?
I mean the pro-Kiev sources that blame Putin & Russian for 'invasion', calls rebels 'occupants' etc?
www.unian.net is absolutely and undoubtedly a pro-Ukrainian propaganda site (you can check out English version)
And this is an article, about local police in the town of Kramatorsk (East Ukraine) who supports 'separatists' by wearing their symbols,
It is in Russian, but can be easily translated by google:
http://www.unian.net/politics/907150-v-kramatorske-militsiya-hodit-s-georgievskimi-lentochkami-nastup.html
What is your point here? Honestly? That there are pro-Ukrainian websites?Today's video from Mariupol - armed terrorists of all ages and sex attacking peaceful Ukrainian army
(for Lockstep - yes it is Putin's propaganda video filmed in Syria!)
GRAPHIC CONTENT!
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/678n97eBQoI
That link doesn't work.0 -
Advertisement
-
Because videos are perfectly capable of being managed and staged by those with an agenda. The US coverage of the Saddam statue's toppling being a great example.Why you don't beleive own eуes? All newspapers are propaganda.
The difference being that independent media have reputations to protect. Someone uploading a video is a different matter entirely.
Why yes, yes I did.Today nazy troops attack Mariuple. They choose city where rebels decide do not use weapon at all. They shooted non-combatants (at least 7 dead and lot of wounded). They attak and seage local police station and finally killed most of police officers (22 killed, not confirmed digit yet ) then burn station.
Do you see that info in CNN?
Nice try at hyperbole to describe them as Nazi troops though.It could be truth especially if they choose most respondens in Galicia ;-)
Well I'll try to explain situation in Ukraine. The Ukraine is actually 4 big peaces/areas. People in that areas has different history and culture.
1.Galicia - West part. Ethnically Russian but most time was part of Poland, Österreich-Ungarn etc. Language and culture very mutate and include lot of Polish and German.
Most population support very radical even nazy.
2.Malorossia - Central part include capital Kiev. Most time country style and by lack of education has lot of dialects (or mutation of language) because close border to Galicia.
Lot enaugh people support idea about separated Ukrain nation but not such radical as Galicia
3.Novorossia - recent (in begin of 20 century) transferred from Russia to Ukraine by comunists for balance Galicia separatizm. Very little difference from official Russian language. By agressive Ukraine propaganda I estimate 30-40% there is support Ukrainian nation idea.
4.Crimea - very recent (in 1954 ) transferred to Ukrain. Almoust all population identify themself as russian.
As you see if make poll from whole Ukraine then yes result would be like in your link.
And most important it explains why Crimea quick separate from Ukraine when nazi take rule.
That also explain why only part of Novorossia active wants to separate and by the way not such active as Crimea.
But they weren't conducted in Galicia, they were done across the country.
Thank you for the description but do you have any evidence for your claims? As it stands, you've been unable to refute Pew's findings.0 -
Why do I have a feeling you would not accept the same reasoning visa vi South Vietnam and the US?
Given the control the Comintern had on official parties "requests" meant little with regard to the populations of any given communist government.
I won't bother addressing anything you said about the Winter War. It was a war of aggression EXPLICITLY. You can window dress it however you like, but I think it's pretty obvious the entire "Russia has done nothing aggressive since WW2" was a non starter, true only to people who know absolutely nothing about Russian foreign policy since WW2. Or domestic for that matter.
And the Russians would disagree with you that there is little continuation between them and the USSR. As would international law. As would geography and demographics. And culture... Really just about everything except the name, bureaucracy and ideology, in fact.
Regarding South Vietnam, the only reason South Vietnam even existed was because the US has derailed a referendum on the unification of the country because they were afraid of an evil, unified, Communist mega-Vietnam. Divide and conquer, if you will. Ironically, after a war which led to millions of casualties and mass destruction, this was the outcome in the end.
Regarding the bolded bit, the fact that Russia does indeed have legal continuation from the Soviet Union is irrelevant. We don't blame Katyn, the Holodomor or the Winter War on modern Russia. It is regarded as having the legal personality of the USSR (de jure) but this does not mean it is a de facto continuation of said communist state.
Regarding geography, culture, blah blah- Russia doesn't have the same geography as the USSR, it doesn't have the same culture as the USSR, it doesn't have the Red Army, it has half of the population and a quarter of the economy. Let's not pussyfoot here: it is totally different, let's not try to clutch at straws by trying to blame the Winter War on them in a worthless attempt to gain debate kudos on the Crimea crisis.
Russia didn't exist after WW2, only after the dissolution of the USSR. Blaming Russia on the atrocities committed by a state that was dissolved over 20 years ago is simply folly, especially considering that state had an unusually progressive nationalities policy for the time that resulted in many of its most prominent leaders being non-Russian. Imagine if the British Empire had a Canadian or an Indian Prime Minister.....the USSR also had a population half-composed of non-Russians. Most of the worst atrocities within the USSR were executed by a Georgian and his Georgian minister for security. The transfer of Crimea was done by a part-Ukrainian. The state itself was founded by someone who was part Kalmyk and Swedish.
Certainly, the USSR did many aggressive things in its time after WW2- the imposition of communist regimes in Eastern Europe, the Prague Spring, the Hungarian revolution etc. etc. etc., but to blame these on a metaphysical "Russia" (which was not an individual state at the time) in order to prove a point on a modern crisis is pointless.
Regarding Afghanistan, the Soviet conduct in the invasion was appalling but it wasn't a random act of aggression. The Winter War had a purpose, and aggression with a purpose is an oxymoron.
And a bit more on Afghanistan: I cited to another person in another thread on Crimea the very large American financial support for "democratic advancement" in Ukraine. He tried to justify it by saying that the Ukrainians requested this aid. In Afghanistan, the Soviets were imperialistically meddling in a country on its borders, and the communist regime there was very nasty. However, given the alternative (the situation in Afghanistan since the 1990s), were the Soviets inadvertently morally justified in attempting to prop up the communist government there? It was the same with Finland, in the end, the Soviet "landgrab" prevented Leningrad from falling at the beginning of the Finnish invasion and thus helped the USSR defeat Nazi Germany in the East.
In conclusion, only the chilliest of cold warriors believe that there is an unbroken chain between the USSR and the modern Russian Federation.0 -
Eggy Baby! wrote: »[...]In conclusion, only the chilliest of cold warriors believe that there is an unbroken chain between the USSR and the modern Russian Federation.
not entirely unbroken but certainly far from broken…putin himself being the best example, ex kgb agent and all…and the ww2 victory parades in moscow just days ago…think again, maybe…0 -
Conmaicne Mara wrote: »There's a video posted in the Ukraine thread in After Hours forum about some of these so called peaceful protestors.
2.50 into the video one of these protesters is shown firing a pistol at soldiers from the crowd of supposed "unarmed civilians".
Videos do not give context of what happened before or after they were taken, and events in them can be staged to a degree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur0 -
-
The difference being that independent media have reputations to protect. Someone uploading a video is a different matter entirely.
Nice try at hyperbole to describe them as Nazi troops though.
Not hyperbole at all. It was "National guars" which is basically armed "Right sector". The main parts of "Right sector" are "White hammer" , "Trident" and "OUN/UPA". All 3 are clear nazy.
Nice example of propaganda from CNN:"Avakov, on his Facebook page, said about 60 "terrorists," armed with automatic weapons, had launched an attack on Mariupol's police department."
..."Three "casualties" were reported among the separatists, and some Ukrainian officers were hurt, lawmaker Oleg Lyashko said."
These 2 guys very well known as always liers but CNN takes info from them althow thowsands witneses.
Have you ever seen "independent media"?
It was a joke about only Galicia. In my message I said (maybe not clear) that across all country result would be truth. But if do split by regions results would be as I described.But they weren't conducted in Galicia, they were done across the country.
Thank you for the description but do you have any evidence for your claims? As it stands, you've been unable to refute Pew's findings.
I wouldn't able to explain my description in one or few messages. Take it as personal opinion of person who very well knows that region (Ukraine and Russia) and have lot of friends from Ukraine and friends with relatives in Ukraine.0 -
I can't. Can you please elaborate?This is the key difference: the protestors in Maidan wanted a regime change. Rebels in the east want to secede. I'm sure you can see the difference.
I'm fairly sure that any state would treat attempts at both a coup (ie extra-parliamentary regime change) and secession as treasonous crimes against the state. It's (legally) justified in taking strong actions against both. Sor example, the Treason Act (1939) in Ireland explicitly defines treason as "levying war against the State, on assisting any State or person or inciting or conspiring with any person to levy war against the State, or attempting by force of arms or other violent means to overthrow the organs of government." The Maidan movement could easily be covered by that latter clause.
The only grounds that I can see for elevating secession above a coup would be a nationalist viewpoint that elevates territorial integrity above the integrity of parliamentary structures. And I'm sure that no one here advocates that.
Here's reference to a poll from early April that shows that "80% wanted to see some kind of change in the region’s status and/or its relations with Kiev", with 32% desiring "some form of independence or unity with Russia." Strangely enough we heard less in the West about this one than the Pew numbers*.I've provided solid evidence for my claims. I'm waiting for you to do the same.
But frankly a poll is a poll. Opinion is clearly volatile and divided on the ground. What is clear, from both the polls and the coverage of the voting today, is that there is a widespread rejection of the Kiev government in the east of the country. Whatever about formal secession, there is clearly an appetite for federalism of some sort. Pew (surprisingly) fails to ask that question but there's no doubt that the Kiev government enjoys very little legitimacy in the east. Something the repeated 'anti-terror operations' are unlikely to have helped with.
I mean, really, it's pretty silly to suggest that 'the rebels in Eastern Ukraine have no public support' when all reports from the voting happening as we speak suggest a healthy turn-out. One of the Guardian's journalists summed it up in the above link: "There is huge anti-Kiev and smaller but growing separatist sentiment." The idea that these rebels are isolated or enjoy little/no public support is clearly wrong.
Which is the problem with a lot of the Western narratives here. This has never been about Russia v Ukraine, with the separatists as a proxy for the former. It's about the real divisions in Ukrainian society, with the separatists serving as a lightning rob for general discontent with the Euromaidan coup/revolution.
*Similarly, given the complaining about the legitimacy of the Crimean elections, I'm surprised (or not) that few here have picked up on this Pew observation: "For their part, Crimeans seem content with their annexation by Russia. Overwhelming majorities say the March 16th referendum was free and fair (91%) and that the government in Kyiv ought to recognize the results of the vote (88%)."
I think it's pretty absurd in a post-Iraq War era to claim that Western media are immune from such narratives.Jonny7 wrote:Not to say all reports would be false - but that many can be tainted by a narrative, distorted to field a certain agenda - CCTV (China), RT (Russia Today) PRESSTV (Iranian) are prime examples of this0 -
Wurzelbert wrote: »not entirely unbroken but certainly far from broken…putin himself being the best example, ex kgb agent and all…and the ww2 victory parades in moscow just days ago…think again, maybe…
So what if he's an ex-KGB agent? George H. W. Bush was ex-CIA but nobody cited that whenever they referred to him. Usually when people describe Putin as ex-KGB, they are making a partisan statement and reading from the western media hymn sheet.
Even then, in the USSR, if you wanted to get into politics you either joined the officer corps or the KGB. It was inevitable that the politically well-connected KGB/FSB would play a role in the new Russian state.
Regarding the victory parades, its indeed a Soviet/Russian tradition which has been carried over. It was again inevitable that minor traditions like this would be carried over, but the fact that Putin holds a yearly military parade to celebrate the victory over the Nazis isn't an indicator that the Soviet Union is still alive and well. Its a minor gimmick carried over from the USSR and has no bearing on whether Russia is the rapidly maturing demonbaby of the USSR or not.
Weird coincidence that the disruptions in Ukraine have timed so well with these parades though, isn't it?I think it's pretty absurd in a post-Iraq War era to claim that Western media are immune from such narratives.
Whilst I would take all media with a pinch of salt, western media is certainly more dynamic in its reporting than Russian (state) media. Nevertheless, many high profile western outlets have reported on this crisis with unadulterated anti-Russian/anti-Putin glee. The Guardian, for example. It reported on the crisis with extraordinary anti-Putin partisanship, and when commenters began to point out its biases, its proceeded by tarring them as Kremlin agents in an editorial sanctioned by Chief Hack Luke Harding that read like some MacCarthyite spiel.
For example, before the First Gulf War, Iraq was presented as an evil threat which had to be stopped. False reports about Iraqi troop movements were shown in western media, as were false reports about Iraqi conduct in Kuwait, as were false reports about Iraq's military capability. Just because some media is "free" doesn't mean it always gets it right. Usually it is subject to native biases which distort its reporting. Nevertheless, Russian media is blatantly biased. It describes the interim government as a junta run by fascists. We saw this slant during the South Ossetian war and we are seeing it now, plain and simple.
In contrast, western media have been describing the Russian protestors in the east with a wild spectrum of words. "Militants", "Gunmen", "Rebels", "Saboteurs", "Terrorists" seem to be the most common but I have also seen "Protestors" being used a lot. Western media may be generally quite slanted on this crisis but I'd take it's reporting over RTs any day. It's much more reliable, but then again, it doesn't take much to be more reliable than RT!
But we have to ask: why were the Maidanites described as "Protestors" in western media and shown as plucky, courageous types rebelling against an illegitimate government, but the Russians in the east are described as thugs or agents of Putin; "Gunmen" who use brutish tactics to get what they want.
Its all about language really.0 -
Here's reference to a poll from early April that shows that "80% wanted to see some kind of change in the region’s status and/or its relations with Kiev", with 32% desiring "some form of independence or unity with Russia." Strangely enough we heard less in the West about this one than the Pew numbers*.
Where did the above figures come from?
The poll you reference is from the "Donetsk Institute of Social Research and Policy Analysis" 9th April, yet the link within "The Conversation" piece takes it to an opinion piece on Al Jazeera US
"The unsuccessful coup has shown just how weak radical separatist sentiment is in eastern and southern Ukraine. A public opinion survey conducted by Baltic Surveys and Gallup last month showed that only 4 percent of residents in Ukraine’s east and 2 percent in the south favor Ukraine’s division “into several countries.” "
The actual poll itself is further down the piece here
http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2014/04/9/7021883/
Translated, it contains findings, e.g.
"Most residents of Donetsk - 65.7% - want to live in a united Ukraine, Russia seek to 18.2%"
"In addition, 70% of respondents did not support the establishment of a Russian flag on the administrative buildings in the city."I think it's pretty absurd in a post-Iraq War era to claim that Western media are immune from such narratives.
Didn't claim any such thing. I can't speak for hundreds/thousands of media outlets across something so arbitrary as the "Western media".0 -
Advertisement
-
Eggy Baby! wrote: »Nevertheless, many high profile western outlets have reported on this crisis with unadulterated anti-Russian/anti-Putin glee. The Guardian, for example. It reported on the crisis with extraordinary anti-Putin partisanship, and when commenters began to point out its biases, its proceeded by tarring them as Kremlin agents in an editorial sanctioned by Chief Hack Luke Harding that read like some MacCarthyite spiel.
A MacCarthyite spiel? Not really. The Guardian helpfully supports it's claims of a co-ordinated pro-Putin campaign with actual evidence: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/07/nashi-emails-insight-kremlin-groups-priorities
The Russians aren't exactly alone in this regard. Israel has a similar operation: http://www.timesofisrael.com/pmo-stealthily-recruiting-students-for-online-advocacy/0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement