Claim: 'Kyiv is the mother of all Russian Cities'

stevejazzx

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

A) I am not a feverish anti-Russian, I am a realist, and I realise that having a neo-Nazi dictatorship in charge of the second biggest nuclear power is a bad thing, unlike certain people. Less of the insulting behaviour please (I'd ask for a reasoned defence of your position, except that over the course of this thread it has become obvious that there is no reasoned defence of Putin, it is simply a case of "two legs good, four legs bad").
I don't as a rule go to the Torygraph for my news and analysis, it was always a stranger to truth, but ever since the weirdo feudalist Barclay twins (see what they're trying to do with the Channel Island they live on) they have gotten worse, flying the flag for any right-wing dictator willing to pretend to be interested no matter how odious. And it gets worse, you're sending me to the reality denier Christopher Booker (who if he told you it was raining you'd litterally have to stick your head out the door so often does he lie), who believes among other things that asbestos is good for you and climate change is a myth, going so far as publishing seriously libellous claims against respected scientists which have costed the Torygraph serious money to compensate the victims.

Seriously that article is so bad that if it were on print I wouldn't even wipe my arse with it.

I had no idea of his background tbh so you can attack the man alright but the article holds up.

When the European Commission told a journalist that, between 2004 and 2013, these groups had only been given €31 million, my co-author Richard North was soon reporting on his EU Referendum blog that the true figure, shown on the commission’s own “Financial Transparency” website, was €496 million.

Your idea of Putin as a Neo-Nazi is just wrong and very misguided. No doubt a staunch ex soviet and communist yearning for old Russia but Neo-Nazi? I'd suggest some books on the topic but you seem so sure of yourself already that I get the feeling I'd be wasting my time.

Brown Bomber

recedite wrote: »

^^^ That's an interesting photo, with the fiery fingers poking out of a barn brack.

Ha, good spot; hadn't noticed that. I believe the 3-fingered salute is a reference to one of the neo-Nazi Groups that made up Right Sector, Trident.


In Nazi symbology the lighting bolts goes back to the SS and their own occult influences.

Another occult Nazi logo used by the Ukrainian stormtroopers-cum-police/military is the Wolfsangel.

recedite

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I am not a feverish anti-Russian, I am a realist, and I realise that having a neo-Nazi dictatorship in charge of the second biggest nuclear power is a bad thing

Why do you keep calling Putin a neo-nazi? Is there any indication of it at all?

Plenty of evidence of neo-nazi tendencies has been posted over the last few pages of nazi tendencies among western Ukrainian right wing political parties, and also among the US funded "National Guard" paramilitary force fighting in east Ukraine.

I'm curious, what makes somebody believe the exact opposite of what the evidence shows them?

Brian Shanahan

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I don't as a rule go to the Torygraph for my news and analysis, it was always a stranger to truth, but ever since the weirdo feudalist Barclay twins (see what they're trying to do with the Channel Island they live on) they have gotten worse, flying the flag for any right-wing dictator willing to pretend to be interested no matter how odious. And it gets worse, you're sending me to the reality denier Christopher Booker (who if he told you it was raining you'd litterally have to stick your head out the door so often does he lie), who believes among other things that asbestos is good for you and climate change is a myth, going so far as publishing seriously libellous claims against respected scientists which have costed the Torygraph serious money to compensate the victims.

Seriously that article is so bad that if it were on print I wouldn't even wipe my arse with it.

The situation is actually worse. For the first three days after the crash the Torygraph was quite bullish about sanctioning (and going further) Russia, due to them being ultimately responsible for shooting down the plane (it was their goons, with weapons supplied by their army after all) but suddenly changed their line to "please leave that nice Mr. Putin alone, he's only a freedom fighter saving us from the evillllllll EU".

No doubt this was completely unconnected to the threat from the Russian state owned and operated Rossiyskaya Gazeta to pull the plug on its sponsorship of and provision of content for the "Russia Behind the Headlines" section of the Torygraph website if they didn't reverse their line on Russia, but an independent editorial dec.... Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

Sorry I couldn't go on with that line any farther from the hysterical laughing. Of course the decision was taken by the weirdo Barclay twins because they are too in love with the dictatorship's money being thrown at them.

stevejazzx

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

The situation is actually worse. For the first three days after the crash the Torygraph was quite bullish about sanctioning (and going further) Russia, due to them being ultimately responsible for shooting down the plane (it was their goons, with weapons supplied by their army after all) but suddenly changed their line to "please leave that nice Mr. Putin alone, he's only a freedom fighter saving us from the evillllllll EU".

No doubt this was completely unconnected to the threat from the Russian state owned and operated Rossiyskaya Gazeta to pull the plug on its sponsorship of and provision of content for the "Russia Behind the Headlines" section of the Torygraph website if they didn't reverse their line on Russia, but an independent editorial dec.... Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

Sorry I couldn't go on with that line any farther from the hysterical laughing. Of course the decision was taken by the weirdo Barclay twins because they are too in love with the dictatorship's money being thrown at them.

Hi Brian,

Any answer to myself or Recedites rebuttal that Putin is not a Neo-Nazi?

Here's a piece from the telegraph's un-sponsored section concerning actual Neo-Nazi's - the article is about self professed Neo-Nazi's and the piece has no bias so maybe, you know you may consider it -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11025137/Ukraine-crisis-the-neo-Nazi-brigade-fighting-pro-Russian-separatists.html

Any thoughts or just more mouth foaming indignance.

recedite

stevejazzx wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11025137/Ukraine-crisis-the-neo-Nazi-brigade-fighting-pro-Russian-separatists.html

Azov’s extremist profile and slick English–language pages on social media have even attracted foreign fighters. Mr Biletsky says he has men from Ireland
Italy, Greece and Scandinavia....

:eek:

stevejazzx

recedite wrote: »

Azov’s extremist profile and slick English–language pages on social media have even attracted foreign fighters. Mr Biletsky says he has men from Ireland
Italy, Greece and Scandinavia....
:eek:

I know! - and its extremely disheartening that some posters in this thread act so enlightened in wake of this situation yet completely ignore any conflicting narratives.
This Neo-Nazi angle is a fascinating case of how US propaganda has truly managed to mask apparent realities and bend the truth to suit their own agendas.
The enlightened here tell us that Putin is the Nazi; after all this 'fact' has been confirmed by such intellectual luminaries as Prince Charles and Hilary Clinton who were either politically point scoring or just exercising their respective bad taste.

Below is an alternative viewpoint from a commentator on Washington Online and as someone trying to be fair minded I find it very hard to disagree with. Of course if I were to load up on US fed propaganda in advance and ignore the colossal hypocrisies that abound then I could dismiss it all as tosh.
What a comfortable position that would be.

It's beyond reprehensible, it's morally repugnant to compare any Russian or former Soviet to Hitler. The Russians fought Hitler and Nazism for three years alone, while the US dawdled protecting Britain's colonial interests in north Africa. The Russians lost 26 million people fighting the Nazis, 64 % of the allied deaths; China lost 23% of the
total. The US lost a measly 2% of allied total, less than 300,000 combat deaths. Making a comparison of Holocaust victims to Hitler could not be any more revolting to human decency than these comments by people who have no business whatsoever in the politics of any nation. It is not only offensive to Putin and Russia, but to fair and critical minded people everywhere. I think though, the comparison of these 11 people, to Lance Armstrong is indeed a critical and fair comparison. Liars and cheaters and killers of the dreams of others by
their phony characters, words, and actions.

It's the US who has spent five billion since 1988 to subvert Ukrainian sovereignty. Joining the EU and separatism are just two sides of the same coin, and the EU vote today gives credence to Putin's statements about US intentions in their
perennial and endless menacing around the globe. Shame on all those who spoke these words about Putin, as all of you are not qualified to judge. Bill Clinton is responsible for the deaths of 500,000 innocent Iraqi infants and children, from using economic sanctions as a weapon of mass destruction; and if there were any impartial justice in this world, the Bushes and Clintons both would be in prison for their massive crimes against humanity

oscarBravo

Joining the EU and separatism are just two sides of the same coin...

...what?

robindch

stevejazzx wrote: »

I know! - and its extremely disheartening that some posters in this thread act so enlightened in wake of this situation yet completely ignore any conflicting narratives. This Neo-Nazi angle is a fascinating case of how US propaganda has truly managed to mask apparent realities and bend the truth to suit their own agendas.

Talk of agendas and sheeple-like people following all-pervasive US propaganda -- while ignoring other, far more virulent, sources of propaganda -- is chatter that's perhaps best kept to the conspiracy theory forum.

As I'm sure you're aware, there's plenty of neo-nazi activity in Russia, some sponsored by the Russian government. Some of Russia's neo-nazis have moved into Ukraine to fight what the Russian government and state-controlled media have referred to as the "Nazi Kiev junta" - have you noticed a contradiction here? Have you heard of the puppy-eating neo-nazi from St Petersburg? And Pavel Gubarev, the former DNR leader who was active in neo-Nazi circles in Russia? There are plenty more examples of these kind of goons out there if you care to look. I'm interested to know, though, why you ignore these Russian neo-nazi's?

And even if one were to grant that the entire elected Ukrainian administration were composed solely of Nazi's actively implementing Nazi policies (which it is not - you might recall the widely-publicized letter from prominent Ukrainian jews to Putin which implied that his talk of antisemitism is hypocritical) - why you seem entirely unmoved by the fact that a nuclear power is providing gunmen, military supplies and military support in an undeclared invasion of a formerly-friendly country which has resulted in the deaths of in more than 2,000 men, women and children?

Your concern seems to be only about political optics, and even then, from one side only. You seem uninterested in, and perhaps entirely unaware, of what's actually going on - no doubt as Putin wishes.

robindch

stevejazzx wrote: »

The disproportionate involvement of the US gets worse, or should I say painfully transparent.

I don't quite see the problem here - the US is providing limited resources to the legitimately-elected government of a sovereign country so that it can better protect itself against a predator country next door which is actively working to destabilize a major European country. Are you aware that Canada has provided more than the US has?

You seem far more concerned that the US is providing $19m in cash to the Ukrainian government than, for example, the involvement of Kremlin-backed gunmen multiple reports of torture, kidnap, murder and mass-graves -- issues which, as above, you seem unconcerned about. I really don't understand your perspective at all.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Speaking of foodstuffs, now that the ill conceived EU sanctions against Russia have resulted in tit-for-tat sanctions against Irish exports, I hope Robinch will be increasing his personal consumption of cheese in order to help offset the loss of this multi million euro market to the Irish agricultural sector.

As somebody pointed out recently, the Russian sanctions are smaller than the error-bars on the EU's overall economic stats. The embargo against Irish cheese seemingly amounts to €8m annually, or two euros per resident of Ireland per year, or four cents per citizen per week. If that's the price I have to pay for stability to return and for Putin to stop supplying gunmen and weapons and support, then I'll do my bit in Tesco

On a lighter note, this song's about the feelings of many Russians on Putin's sanctions. I'm just sorry the singer didn't call the song "In Russia, President Sanctions You".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmB9gxNztkA

PopePalpatine

robindch wrote: »

As somebody pointed out recently, the Russian sanctions are smaller than the error-bars on the EU's overall economic stats. The embargo against Irish cheese seemingly amounts to €8m annually, or two euros per resident of Ireland per year, or four cents per citizen per week. If that's the price I have to pay for stability to return and for Putin to stop supplying gunmen and weapons and support, then I'll do my bit in Tesco

Remind me, how much cheese is on a Hawaiian pizza? :pac:

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

Talk of agendas and sheeple-like people following all-pervasive US propaganda -- while ignoring other, far more virulent, sources of propaganda -- is chatter that's perhaps best kept to the conspiracy theory forum.

Conspiracy forums eh?
There's a nice jab.
Nothing quite like some blunt condescension along with the usual flagrant dismissal.
I recently read a very interesting (and long!) article on Timothy McVeigh by Gore Vidal. He outlines how McVeigh started to write to him from Prison. Anyways, as events unfolded Vidal found himself on the wrong side of populist mainstream media opinion on the affair. He had this to say with regard to the term conspiracy (theory) – and seeing how you’ve plucked the words ‘conspiracy theory’ from nowhere here and noting also that on one of our last interchanges in this thread I cautioned against entertaining silly conspiracies re: MH17 – this extract, quoted below, seems especially relevant.

vidal wrote:

TV-watchers have no doubt noted so often that they are no longer aware of how often the interchangeable TV hosts handle anyone who tries to explain why something happened. “Are you suggesting that there was a conspiracy?” A twinkle starts in a pair of bright contact lenses. No matter what the answer, there is a wriggling of the body, followed by a tiny snort and a significant glance into the camera to show that the guest has just been delivered to the studio by flying saucer. This is one way for the public never to understand what actual conspirators—whether in the F.B.I. or on the Supreme Court or toiling for Big Tobacco—are up to. It is also a sure way of keeping information from the public. The function, alas, of Corporate Media.

sheeple-like people

By the by
Sheeple-like people = sheeple

robindch wrote:

I'm interested to know, though, why you ignore these Russian neo-nazi's?

Its utterly incredible how misrepresented ones opinion can become in online, emmm, let’s call it, debating. I have explicitly agreed with your analysis of the feverish home grown nationalism currently on show in many parts of Russia. I actually highlighted the comment on here and commended its analysis or break down or whatever you want to call it.
My point has been the exasperating length you and others have gone to in order to ignore the responsibility of the west in this crisis and in this particular case the hypocrisy of highlighting Russian fascism while playing down the obvious extensive fascistic elements present in Ukraine, elements that were openly supported and spurred on by a war hungry US.
The claim now from you is that I am ignoring Russian fascism, Neo Nazi-ism or feverish nationalism. Clearly I am not otherwise, as I have stated above, I would not have highlighted and commended your previous post on the subject. I don’t know if your intentionally straw manning me or simply can’t (read refuse to) follow the thread of my argument because it disagrees with your loosely woven tale (read fantasy) of US liberation.

robindch wrote:

Why you seem entirely unmoved by the fact that a nuclear power is providing gunmen, military supplies and military support in an undeclared invasion of a formerly-friendly country which has resulted in the deaths of in more than 2,000 men, women and children?

Why do you believe I am completely unmoved? There is not one shred of text in this thread or any other that would attest to such an outlandish statement. You had previously started out with an opponent who was easy to dismiss by purposefully conflating his calls for balance as some kind of veiled support for Russia and now you’ve added some new character traits, total lack of empathy for the deaths of women and children. Truly this is a terrible person but this person exists only in your mind. You’re arguing against yourself, perhaps out of some internal unresolved dialogue or fear or perhaps out of some odd paranoia born from a struggle to understand those that don’t immediately tow the party line. Either way it’s your creation.

With respect of a previously friendly country ask yourself who precipitated this crisis?

Stephen Cohen wrote:

STEPHEN COHEN: Look at it through Moscow’s eyes. Since the Clinton administration in the 1990s, the U.S.-led West has been on a steady march toward post-Soviet Russia, began with the expansion of NATO in the 1990s under Clinton. Bush then further expanded NATO all the way to Russia’s borders. Then came the funding of what are euphemistically called NGOs, but they are political action groups, funded by the West, operating inside Russia. Then came the decision to build missile defense installations along Russia’s borders, allegedly against Iran, a country which has neither nuclear weapons nor any missiles to deliver them with. Then comes American military outpost in the former Soviet republic of Georgia, which led to the war of 2008, and now the West is at the gates of Ukraine. So, that’s the picture as Moscow sees it. And it’s rational. It’s reasonable. It’s hard to deny.
But as for the immediate crisis, let’s ask ourselves this: Who precipitated this crisis? The American media says it was Putin and the very bad, though democratically elected, president of Ukraine, Yanukovych. But it was the European Union, backed by Washington, that said in November to the democratically elected president of a profoundly divided country, Ukraine, "You must choose between Europe and Russia." That was an ultimatum to Yanukovych. Remember—wasn’t reported here—at that moment, what did the much-despised Putin say? He said, "Why? Why does Ukraine have to choose? We are prepared to help Ukraine avoid economic collapse, along with you, the West. Let’s make it a tripartite package to Ukraine." And it was rejected in Washington and in Brussels. That precipitated the protests in the streets.

And since then, the dynamic that any of us who have ever witnessed these kinds of struggles in the streets unfolded, as extremists have taken control of the movement from the so-called moderate Ukrainian leaders. I mean, the moderate Ukrainian leaders, with whom the Western foreign ministers are traveling to Kiev to talk, they’ve lost control of the situation. By the way, people ask—excuse me—is it a revolution? Is it a revolution? A much abused word, but one sign of a revolution is the first victims of revolution are the moderates. And then it becomes a struggle between the extreme forces on either side. And that’s what we’re witnessing.

With the above in mind please stop claiming that Russia started this crisis because they didn’t. There’s no point to even add a proviso here as it’ll be ignored.


In terms of those that have lost their lives – the UN has already condemned Ukraine forces for casually bombing civilian areas in Eastern Ukraine - so I’m not sure what your point is apart from, again, to blindly blame Russia for those in Eastern Ukraine who are now losing their lives? Such a single sided narrative requires supreme compartmentalisation - the kind you often mock religious folk for harboring.




Last bit

robindch wrote:

Your concern seems to be only about political optics, and even then, from one side only. You seem uninterested in…

Fascinating. This paragraph is truly a deserving end to that shameless diatribe. I seem uninterested in what's going on? The opposite is easily quantifiable and in this very thread as it happens; I would point to this as evidence, if it were needed, that you are in fact not following this thread very well but at this stage you're doing a good enough job at demonstrating that with each successive post.

robindch wrote:

….and perhaps entirely unaware, of what's actually going on - no doubt as Putin wishes.

Hmm. Again rather fascinating. Am I to infer form this that you believe Putin through Russian propaganda (I’m gathering you don’t mean Putin personally?….maybe you do…) has blinded me from certain realities going in Ukraine / Russia. I can only equate such a remark as an attempt at some kind of childish point scoring and again the opposite is easily quantifiable in this thread.

Curiously however it has come to my attention on a couple of occasions now that you have indeed been unaware of certain US activities.

One as discussed previously the US’s role in the Georgian conflict.
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/12/geor-d06.html

Two, seeing as you previously inquired, the US’s role in Indonesia.
http://youtu.be/MOhjebTaSSY?t=42m45s

No doubt you will equivocate away into nothingness the validity of link A and the relevance of link b.
That’s ok at this stage I’m not expecting any consensus despite an appeal for balance or facts.

And for someone who has previously marched against a US led war based on known lies disseminated through a controlled and placid media I find it difficult to accept now that

A: You believe the US has changed dramatically in its foreign policy outlook
B: It doesn't matter because Russia is now a rogue state that must be overcome in order to ensure peace in Eastern Europe.

Seeing as both of these propositions are entirely intellectually redundant I submit that so too are your arguments.


Finally – in terms of awareness of what’s going here are two examples in this thread where I have found you wanting

robindch wrote:

Firstly, neither the US nor the EU are heavily involved in this dispute

robindch wrote:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90312427&postcount=434

Quote 1 is statement from earlier in the thread which speaks for itself. You have contradicted it many times since including in your last post.

Quote 2 is you repeating with relish but without any fact checking whatsoever one of the many obvious examples of nonsense propaganda that has disfigured this affair from the off.

recedite

Joining the EU and separatism are just two sides of the same coin..

oscarBravo wrote: »

...what?

Cohen says it best;

Who precipitated this crisis? The American media says it was Putin and the very bad, though democratically elected, president of Ukraine, Yanukovych. But it was the European Union, backed by Washington, that said in November to the democratically elected president of a profoundly divided country, Ukraine, "You must choose between Europe and Russia." That was an ultimatum to Yanukovych. Remember—wasn’t reported here—at that moment, what did the much-despised Putin say? He said, "Why? Why does Ukraine have to choose? We are prepared to help Ukraine avoid economic collapse, along with you, the West. Let’s make it a tripartite package to Ukraine." And it was rejected in Washington and in Brussels.

(^ quoting Cohen from the stevejazzx post above)

If things had worked out differently, a pro-Russian president might have opted to cut all links with the EU and join a Russian customs union. In that case "pro-western separatists" based in Kiev would now be fighting against the Ukrainian army. Also two sides of a coin.
The only way a conflict could have been avoided was to establish some sort of compromise regime which neither opposed nor aligned 100% with either EU or Russia. Possibly, but not necessarily, a federalist state.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Cohen says it best;(^ quoting Cohen from the stevejazzx post above)

I've read several pieces from Cohen and frankly, he has what might politely be described as a troubled relationship with the truth - he writes a mixture of half-truths, outright lies and speculation which ranges from the obvious to the unhinged - stuff which wouldn't go amiss on RT.

If you and stevejazzx accept Cohen's word as final - and based upon what I've read, I wouldn't trust him if he said the sun was shining -- then it's not surprising that your views are what they are.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

As somebody pointed out recently, the Russian sanctions are smaller than the error-bars on the EU's overall economic stats. The embargo against Irish cheese seemingly amounts to €8m annually,

Somebody in Brussels must have told Simon Coveney to tone it down a bit, and to play down the losses, because it was €70M last week.
The margin of error is impossible to calculate. Economists are not known for their ability to make correct predictions :pac:
For example, if all the dairy produce from Ireland is redirected to EU cities, where it is competing against all the dairy produce from Finland that was also redirected, nobody knows what will happen in terms of price, transport costs, storage and spoilage costs etc.
Coveney seems to be factoring in some sort of EU subvention to compensate for these in his revised figures.

Anyway, Ireland will probably not be "massively" affected. Its just another small setback we could do without. And for those of us who don't even see Russia as the cause of Ukraine's problems, a sanctions war is just a stupid waste.

Greece unfortunately will be much harder hit, and it's at a bad time for them too. Traditionally they also have closer religious/cultural links to the eastern slavic world than us. The anti-EU feeling resulting from this unnecessary trade war may well have significant future repercussions among Greek voters.
Russia is Greece's biggest trading partner, bigger than Germany. Something Angela Merkel would do well to remember.

After only one week of sanctions Greek farmers say the embargo has already dealt a devastating blow to the country's agricultural economy.

At least 3.5m kg of peaches alone are said to have rotted in fridge trucks turned back from Russia, and fruit producers have warned of calamity for a sector highly dependent on the market..

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Somebody in Brussels must have told Simon Coveney to tone it down a bit, and to play down the losses, because it was €70M last week.

Told Coveney to tone it down? Uh, no.

The €8m figure was for cheese, as you highlighted, not altogether generously, in this post. Ireland exports more than just cheese to Russia :rolleyes:

recedite wrote: »

After only one week of sanctions Greek farmers say the embargo has already dealt a devastating blow to the country's agricultural economy.

Can't help but wonder if the very public unhappiness is somehow related to the meeting which discussed financial compensation for people influenced by the Russian sanctions.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

Are you aware that Canada has provided more than the US has?

Speaking of "a troubled relationship with the truth" can you elaborate on the above? The link refers to one single shipment of "non-lethal" military aid.
The US has been channeling millions (or billions) of dollars into Kiev for years. We can't know for sure because much of it is covert, but I'm pretty sure it amounts to more than one plane load.

Why don't they send non-military aid to help the civilians who are the real victims? I don't see the US, Canada or the EU doing that, but I see Russia trying to do it.

Russia says the lorries contain only food, water, medical supplies and electricity generators that are urgently needed in Ukraine’s eastern Luhansk and Donetsk regions, where more than 2,000 people have died and hundreds of thousands been displaced in fighting between pro-Moscow rebels and government forces.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

Told Coveney to tone it down? Uh, no.

The €8m figure was for cheese, as you highlighted, not altogether generously, in this post.

No, its supposed to be for total net losses, excluding products already banned because of foot and mouth and other disease risks, and also (and heres the tricky bit) possibly adds back the EU compensation payments to reduce the losses further. Hence the "additional negative value". Its a bit like somebody losing a fiver out of their pocket, and then taking another fiver out of their wallet and putting that in their pocket. And then saying with a smile that they didn't lose any money.

Already, a number of Irish meat, pigmeat and seafood products are not accepted in Russia. Mr Coveney said €136m of exports were unaffected and €91m of produce had effectively been stopped.
Mr Coveney said the "additional negative value of the ban" to Ireland was €8.2m and was confident of alternative markets being found for the produce
- See more at: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/russian-dairy-ban-to-cost-ireland-8m-in-exports-30497684.html#sthash.g1Clu17o.dpuf

BTW "not altogether generously" ?? It was only a bit of humour; don't be offended.

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

I've read several pieces from Cohen and frankly, he has what might politely be described as a troubled relationship with the truth - he writes a mixture of half-truths, outright lies and speculation which ranges from the obvious to the unhinged - stuff which wouldn't go amiss on RT.

You've left no room for the times when he writes the truth. Never?
Come on Robin.
This is like that time when, a few pages ago, you described the entire Russia population thusly

robindch wrote:

Russian ethnic nationalism at home and abroad from within a country filled with large numbers of red-eyed, semi-fascist thugs; it has radicalized the rest of its own population by feeding them a diet of hysterical, predatory propaganda

---

robindch wrote:

If you and stevejazzx accept Cohen's word as final - and based upon what I've read, I wouldn't trust him if he said the sun was shining -- then it's not surprising that your views are what they are.

It's a rather sneaky tactic that has been deployed over and over in this thread. Attack the man rather than what he has to say about the current crisis.
We offer a distinguished American history professor with vast credentials and experience who specializes in American Russian relations, was an adviser to the Whitehorse during the last years of the last cold war, a real specialist on this subject - no good; he didn't condemn Putin over Pussy Riot.

robindch

stevejazzx wrote: »

You've left no room for the times when he writes the truth. Never?

I've no idea whether he's written anything that can be trusted. I've certainly never read anything that could be.

stevejazzx wrote: »

We offer a distinguished American history professor with vast credentials and experience who specializes in American Russian relations, was an adviser to the Whitehorse during the last years of the last cold war, a real specialist on this subject - no good; he didn't condemn Putin over Pussy Riot.

Not quite sure why you're politicizing this by suggesting that I disagree with him because he hasn't complained about Putin's treatment of Pussy Riot (hasn't he?) or some other liberal shibboleth.

Cohen might well have been an an adviser to the "Whitehorse" -- as you say -- but I think you'd be a fool to trust anything substantial he writes. Earlier on, I read two of his Nation articles, and just about every sentence, and certainly every paragraph contained substantial errors of basic fact, lousy presentation, outright spin, supposition pretending to be fact, insinuation as knowledge, half-truth after half-truth, lies and so on.

That's not an "attack" on the man - I've never met him and I'm sure he's a splendid chap. It is, however, a commentary on his prose and whether or not it's worth trusting. And believe me, it's not.

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

Are you aware that Canada has provided more than the US has?

Going to need to see the math here or the funny exception clauses you've thrown in to disqualify certain US 'aid' / 'monies'.

Just going on one single fact that since 1991 the US has spent 5bn in Ukraine and that's just the disclosed figure

politifact wrote:

Since 1992, the US government has spent about $5.1 billion to support democracy-building programs in Ukraine, Thompson said, with money flowing mostly from the Department of State via U.S. Agency for International Development

robindch wrote:

You seem far more concerned that the US is providing $19m in cash to the Ukrainian government than, for example, the involvement of Kremlin-backed gunmen multiple reports of torture, kidnap, murder and mass-graves -- issues which, as above, you seem unconcerned about. I really don't understand your perspective at all.

Well there is a war going on Robin that Russia isn't exclusively responsible for.
You say mass grave(s) - I am aware on one story concerning a mass grave with 20 people and of course such things concern me - like the bombing of eastern Ukraine by the Ukrainian military and the thousands of people left homeless there - or the battalion load of Nazis that were proudly sent into Eastern Ukraine recently and or these horrific crimes carried out by pro-Russian separatists.

So lets get this straight now - in one post I am apathetic to the deaths of women and children (your last swipe at me) and now I am unconcerned about mass graves and what not?
I am a guy with a Ukrainian father in Law, a Russian wife, an Irish/Russian son, many west Ukrainian and Polish friends. etc. etc., who is attempting who see the conflicts from all sides. These attempts to vilify me through wild, mildly hysterical and downright over zealous claims will not work as you'll never find a shred of text or evidence to support them; so please stop.

stevejazzx

robindch wrote:

I've read several pieces from Cohen and frankly, he has what might politely be described as a troubled relationship with the truth - he writes a mixture of half-truths, outright lies and speculation which ranges from the obvious to the unhinged - stuff which wouldn't go amiss on RT.

Robindch wrote:

That's not an "attack" on the man - I've never met him and I'm sure he's a splendid chap. It is, however, a commentary on his prose and whether or not it's worth trusting. And believe me, it's not.

No, it is.

robindch

stevejazzx wrote: »

No, it is.

Not worth arguing about

So, do you trust Cohen and his prose fully?

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

Not worth arguing about

So, do you trust Cohen and his prose fully?

As much as Sky News, CNN, FOX?
Yes absolutely.

I trust his credentials -

Professor Emeritus at New York University
Contributory editor to a number of publications
Former adviser to the the Whitehouse! even directly to the President.
He has an impressive career.
He is obviously too favorable towards Russia but not so much that's he a paid shill.
He describes himself as an American dissenter similar to Chomsky et al. I'd go along with that.

robindch

stevejazzx wrote: »

As much as Sky News, CNN, FOX?

I agree with you about his being as accurate as Fox - he appears to be, say, in something like Hannity's general arena, albeit with a higher standard of prose.

stevejazzx wrote: »

I trust his credentials

I'm sure his credentials are exactly what he says they are.

I am telling you that what I have read of what he has written about Ukraine in The Nation cannot be trusted for the reasons I've outlined above.

This, btw, is one of the things that irritates me about this conflict. For a range of reasons, I've gone to a fairly substantial degree of personal effort since more or less day one to figure out who's doing what to who. This is not always easy, given the thousand-foot wall of native and non-native-language propaganda put out by just about everybody involved in it. But I do find people like Cohen especially unhelpful - he has, presumably, enough experience and information to contribute positively and wisely to the debate, but for whatever reason, he's contributing to the haze instead. And that, as I said, I find disappointing indeed - what's wrong with being honest?

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

This, btw, is one of the things that irritates me about this conflict. For a range of reasons, I've gone to a fairly substantial degree of personal effort since more or less day one to figure out who's doing what to who. This is not always easy, given the thousand-foot wall of native and non-native-language propaganda put out by just about everybody involved in it. But I do find people like Cohen especially unhelpful - he has, presumably, enough experience and information to contribute positively and wisely to the debate, but for whatever reason, he's contributing to the haze instead. And that, as I said, I find disappointing indeed - what's wrong with being honest?

That seems reasonable.
I can only say that while you find it entirely unhelpful others find it, or least part of it, refreshing. I can't state with absolute authority that the items I agree with him on are correct and as you say 'given the thousand-foot wall of native and non-native-language propaganda ' it is difficult to really know.

But I see plenty of form here from the US and I am surprised you don't - their (covert) policies of foreign interference are now well documented, the record on this is clear and available to anyone who wants to bother.
And you're surprised, maybe even shocked that I appear to be defending interests in the Kremlin - I'm not; if anything my position is that of an impartial observer. I treat Putin with great suspicion but the US also.
It's not a ploy to secretly back Russia, it's a position derived from studying American Foreign of the last 80 years. Recently that policy had enabled them to get control of middle eastern oil fields. That policy has enabled them to create the largest wealth gap ever in history within their own country.
The country is also involved in the largest ever attack on the privacy of the own citizens through the NSA. It is an escalating police state which now equals and even surpasses that of some fringe countries. Only today police in Ferguson Missouri are arresting reporters and preventing protest - this after shooting an unarmed black male.
This year alone there have been unprecedented reports of human rights abuses including frequent SWAT raids on homes suspected of possessing class b drugs. They have turned their prison system into a business with more than 1% of their population locked up - no society in history has imprisoned more of its inhabitants and it uses these inhabitants as a cheap labor force to complete with third world labor rates.
Half their states have anti-homosexuality laws similar to Russia's. They have one the highest rates of violent crime deaths of any developed country....
I could go on but I'd bore everyone even more than I have been doing. What's the point of all this - it should be obvious - the US is the leading critic of Russia and spends an inordinate amount of money on war and propaganda.

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

What exactly do you mean? These judgments have been in the works for years and were, I believe, scheduled to appear around now.

Are you suggesting that the US has compromised the judicial independence of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the European Court of Human Rights?

Unrelated to the specific judgements against Russia that I don't believe were related to western pressure - it would however seem more than conceivable that the US has the power to compromise the Court

article linked below wrote:

But another former official from the ICC prosecutor's office who dealt with the Palestinian declaration strongly disagreed. "They are trying to hiding behind legal jargon to disguise what is a political decision, to rule out competence and not get involved," the official said.
Dugard said Bensouda was under heavy pressure from the US and its European allies. "For her it's a hard choice and she's not prepared to make it," he argued. "But this affects the credibility of the ICC. Africans complain that she doesn't hesitate to open an investigation on their continent."
Moreno Ocampo took three years to make a decision on the status of the 2009 Palestinian request for an investigation, during which time he was lobbied by the US and Israel to keep away. According to a book on the ICC published this year, American officials warned the prosecutor that the future of the court was in the balance.
According to the book, Rough Justice: the International Criminal Court in a World of Power Politics, by David Bosco, the Americans suggested that a Palestine investigation "might be too much political weight for the institution to bear. They made clear that proceeding with the case would be a major blow to the institution."
Although the US does not provide funding for the ICC, "Washington's enormous diplomatic, economic and military power can be a huge boon for the court when it periodically deployed in support of the court's work," writes Bosco, an assistant professor of international politics at American University.

From
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/aug/18/hague-court-western-pressure-gaza-inquiry

stevejazzx

Some very confusing updates for those still following this affair -

Aug 14th - Putin says he does not want confrontation with west

Aug 16th - Kiev Military claim to destroy Russian armed military convoy (supposedly disguised as aid convoy)

Aug 15th - Nato confirm this

Aug 16th US says it cannot confirm this; why the US and NATO can't agree on this is a mystery

Aug 18th - Kiev forces take Luhansk

Aug 18th - Luhansk refugee convoy hit by rockets, many killed

Aug 18th - Pro Russian Separatists blamed on attack

Questions -

1. How can NATO confirm something and the US not?
2. Why would Putin make such a strong statement to the world press in Crimea about not wanting conflict with Ukraine and then send a military convoy in secretly on the same day?
3. Why is Russia calling the military convoy a 'phantom' when exacting and definitive evidence to contrary would be so easy to demonstrate.
4. Why is Russia calling the military convoy a 'phantom' if their pan was (as is being speculated by the west) to use the destruction of a convoy as an excuse to send in further peacekeeping trucks/troops?
4. If the Russian convoy was meant as an act of war why was it so utterly ineffective?
5. Why is Russia not defending eastern Ukraine if its prepared to send in Armored convoys?

Thoughts -

All the headlines coming from Ukraine Kiev press suggest that they are repressing and killing Russian forces daily, importantly while denying absolutely that they are not killing, shelling civilian locations and or targets - this is contrary to OSCE and HRW monitors reports and so a lot of these claims are turning out be to half truths, if that. The constant message from the western press is that Russia is agitating Ukraine towards war - however Russia is claiming the complete opposite and so far the US has not confirmed in Press statements at the Whitehouse any of these claims, yet it fuels the opposite message through the media.
The Ukraine and the western press made a claim for many days that the aid convoy was a disguise for arms and troop support (some western journalists photographed empty trucks and claimed this was some kind of Russian plan) and delayed it for as much as 7 days - such claims have been shown to be without foundation as the convoy has since been cleared by the international agencies and today by Ukraine itself.

At this stage I think the Ukraine Kiev forces along with the US could

- Release recordings of MH17 communications from Ukrainian air traffic control and US could release precise full resolution satellite pictures to back up the claim (that seems to be dwindling daily) that Russian separatists carried out this attack - and in light of this recent Russian armored convoy release the photography of the remains.

- Stop releasing headlines that it cannot confirm even months later like this one

I genuinely hope that the Ukraine's and US's claim that Russian separatists were behind the downing of MH17 is vindicated in black box reports due out in September (why no communications from air traffic control tough I will never know) and that this Military convoy that they've destroyed is confirmed by some or at least any evidence; if not a picture of the Ukraine and US attempting to poke Russia into a proxy US / Nato land war will become clear. Such provocations could be an attempt to completely discredit Russia on the worldstage so a rebuilding program and control Ukrainian resources can being by the US after the mess is finished.

recedite

If the Russian aid convoy gets through, I would assume that rebel soldiers and their friends and families would be among the main beneficicieries of the supplies of food, water clothing etc. Also Putin would get good PR value from it. Similar to the PR value that Cameron and Obama milked from their "air drops" of supplies to the yazidi refugees in Iraq. Apparently most of the people had left the mountain by the time the aid arrived, and a lot of it burst open and was lost anyway on hitting the ground. Still good PR though.

I'd say this is the reason some of the trucks are not carrying their full load, rather than any plot to smuggle in weapons. The convoy looks more impressive with more lorries, even if they are not full. Some of the lorries are old Kamaz 5320's which only carry 8 tonnes, but others look bigger and could probably fit more in.

Regarding the phantom Russian military convoy which Rasmussen claims he saw, and Kiev claims was largely destroyed, and Washington has "no proof of", it seems to be part of the ongoing "innuendo" war. Its similar to the statements they made that the airliner was shot down by a "Russian-made" missile, followed up by a later (and much lower key) statement their there was "no evidence of direct Russian involvement".
What the western public saw was the newspaper headline "Putin's Missile".

So all this builds up a picture of Russian aggression which must be stopped, and we must pay a price to stop it. I heard a guy on RTE radio this morning representing dairy farmers talking about the damage that will be done to Irish agri-exports (which he bemoaned) but yet he seemed quite happy to suffer the losses. As he said himself "as soon as that plane was shot down, we knew there would have to be consequences".

So the PR war for hearts and minds is quite important.