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

robindch wrote: »

As I mentioned above somewhere, you set a low bar indeed for public discourse if it's no higher than "Well, hey, look! Nobody was murdered" (which is not true either, but let's not go there).While I've little interest in taking up this conversation again, I really do have to respond to this comment.

As with much of your input to this thread, I fail to understand what you mean here since Phillips' cock-eyed, "shove a video camera in front of angry people" style of media output would be laughable, were it not apparently treated as serious commentary by many. I'm sure you're fully aware that Phillips does not criticize, in any meaningful sense, the hand that feeds him. And as I lack the time and the interest in lacerating his vile output (as for example, Max Seddon has done; btw, Seddon's report was published before Phillips published some weeks ago videos of the corpses of naked, elderly men and women which I will not link to) all I've time to do here is dip into what he's done recently and see if we can get a flavour and -- lo! -- here's one from yesterday in which he shouts "UKROP!" (an insult used by pro-Russians to describe Ukrainian troops) while shooting a gun. Does he really appear to you as a reliable source of unbiased information?

And just scanning the feeds, briefly, I see that Alexander Zakharchenko, the self-appointed leader of the DPR explained today that he intends to restart the war again with a view to capturing Slavyansk, Kramatorsk and especially Mariupol which would give Putin the land bridge he needs to occupied Crimea. If this happens, I trust the Russian media, and no doubt Phillips, will describe Zakharchenko as a brave man fighting against Nazis in Kiev, rather than as the homicidal war criminal he is.

I can certainly accept these criticisms of Phillips as outlined.
However I have seen very little evidence to dispute his reporting from Crimea and polls suggests that the vast majority of Crimean people are happy with rejoining Russia.
Importantly the OP of this thread set out, it appears to me, to state that the Crimean people had a right to self determination. Despite the outrageous propaganda from the Kiev and the West Russia's intervention in Crimea was a peaceful one - its almost impossible to dispute this now.
Meanwhile in Eastern Ukraine the Kiev military have been using cluster bombs on their own people. People described by western media as separatists, terrorists or simply Russian or pro Russian in a feeble attempt to dehumanize the people it intends to bombs.
The fact of the matter is, and this is not up for discussion, that Ukraine is undergoing a civil war in the East. Ukrainians are fighting Ukrainians - the other uncomfortable fact is that Eastern Ukraine happens to be composed of a largely pro Russian people and indeed people of Russian ethnicity. The fact that Russians are involved or indeed even Putin is hardly surprising. What is surprising is the immense twisted view put out by the west that Russia started this (which just like the Georgian affair they didn't) and how people have lined up behind it despite constant contradictions and obvious undeclared (although nevertheless transparent) conflicts of interest in the region. Indeed propaganda works both ways but just a year ago Putin was writing OP Eds in the NYT and his face was on the cover of Time Magazine (in all Continents except the US) - Americans essentially were united against the Syrian war despite Obama's pleading and unsubstantiated chemical weapons reports that were too similar to the WMD plea. A year later and the US is liberating another Arab country and Putin is Hitler. I would very kindly suggest anyone who believes this narrative should grow up.

robindch wrote: »

Some are. Many are not. But the happiness of some does not excuse invasion,

90+% are
If we're dealing in democracies then that's ok with me.

robindch wrote:

fake referendums, theft, then the destabilization,

In what way fake when it aligns with every poll in the aftermath? Fake as in not believable but in line with what Crimeans had already expressed in the 1991 vote or expressed afterwards in polls.
Destabilization? How? The Russian army brought with it peace in the region of Crimea. Again I reiterate no one was killed in this so called 'invasion' from troops who mostly were already stationed in country.

robindch wrote:

war, torture and death [/B]that followed from it.

This is where I lose you.
War torture and death were already in play from Kiev. Crimea was a direct knock on effect of a western backed revolt in Kiev.
In my opinion its incredibly disingenuous or simply uninformed to believe otherwise.
Also war torture and death never happened in Crimea so using it invoke the entire affair is putting the cart before the horse quite emphatically.

robindch wrote:

I can't help but wonder how you'd feel if somebody valuable to you were kidnapped and some people justified the kidnap saying that "hey, look, but the person kidnapped is happy".

You believe the Crimeans are suffering from a collective country wide bout of Stockholm syndrome then, is that it? How do you explain the 1991 vote?
Robin I've been to Crimea many times - in what reality do you make these statements? As I have already pointed out to you a large number of Crimean people are ethnically Russian - you disagreed at the time if I recall and that was well, unfortunate. Now you believe Russians have Kidnapped Russians and are superficially happy among other Russians?
That is I must say an unusual take on the affair.

robindch wrote:

There are larger things at stake here than the superficial happiness of a number of propagandized people.

And presumably this large number of propagandized people is Crimea and somehow excludes the blinking masses in the west?
I don't know how to deal with such broad sweeping generalizations made without the consideration of any opposing narratives like there are none. Breathtaking.

Robindch wrote:

I'm happy to hear that you accept my criticisms of Phillips vile propaganda.

What I was accepting was his apparent bias. The article form buzzfeed seemed more of a general character assignation and smear campaign so I didn't read it. As for his vile propaganda I would've preferred it if you had of simply linked a distinct and isolated example and showed it rebuked in context just like I did with Sirkorsky now on two occasions. It is of far more concern to me when someone like Sikorsky makes outlandish and downright false claims about Putin on the possible brink of all out war than it is the affairs of an ex blogger in Amsterdam.

robindch wrote: »

There was no conflict in Crimea, or indeed in Ukraine, before Russia invaded Crimea directly, then indirectly in East Ukraine.

Pfft -
A period of relative calm in the anti-government demonstrations ended abruptly on 18 February 2014, when protesters and police clashed. At least 82 people were killed over the following few days, including 13 policemen; more than 1,100 people were injured

As to Crimea there were numerous skirmishes that were controlled by the Russian army. There a lots of testimony to this and that their presence prevented civil war there also. Hard to argue with now.

robindch wrote:

I've debunked most of the remainder of your post on previous occasions including the "western backed revolt" nonsense so no point in debunking it again.

As you no doubt know, I was there and I saw it, so I trust you'll forgive me if I trust the evidence of my own eyes and ears above your thoroughly inaccurate second or third-hand pseudo-information which, frankly, fits better over in the paranoid conspiracy forum - or indeed, on mainstream Russian telly :rolleyes:

The fact that you believe that as one lone Irish man in the midst of this complex international dispute and revolution that you absorbed the climate and inner workings of the entire affair to such an extent that you can now claim some kind of monopoly on its reality is testament enough to your delusion. I would never dare - if anything the lone voice of he who knows the truth is more suited to the CT world than that which implores understanding.

robindch wrote: »

Yes, I happened to see it myself and remember it reasonably well - stone throwing, rubber bullets, flash grenades, heavy explosions, molotov cocktails, gunmen on both sides, badly wounded men and women.

As for the date when Putin and his army got involved, well, perhaps best leave that up to the commemorative "Return of Crimea" medal he stamped and handed out - stamped 20th February.

You can't be serious.
Is this how you wish to maintain your last argument that there was no violence in Ukraine before troops landed in Crimea?
- nothing happened in Crimea until around 24th February after Yanukovych had fled.

On 21 February 2014 President Viktor Yanukovych fled Kiev, the capital. The Ukrainian parliament deposed him the next day, and the next week appointed an interim President, Oleksandr Turchynov, and formed an interim government. The new government was recognized by the United States and European Union. Russia and a few other countries condemned the Turchynov government as illegitimate and the result of a coup d'etat. Russia accused the United States and EU of funding and directing the ouster of Yanukovych, maintaining he was illegally impeached and remained the president of Ukraine. Beginning on February 26, pro-Russian forces began to gradually take control of the Crimean peninsula. Media sources reported that military personnel in Russian-made uniform without insignia, and former members of the Ukraine military were involved.[40][41][42] While these troops were in Crimea, the Crimean parliament voted to dismiss the Crimean government, replace its Prime Minister, and call a referendum on Crimea's autonomy.[43][44][45]

robindch wrote:

Steve, you can perhaps understand when you reread sentences like this, why I've no further interest in discussing this topic with you.
(a) because you appear to have great difficulty in processing what I write - in this case, I did not claim to be "one lone Irish man" with absolute knowledge

So stop using the 'I was there' line as some kind of argument closer like you have been doing. If that's not what you are doing and it's just that you don't value my input then just say that as you are, whether you mean it or not, giving the impression that you have a monopoly on the reality of this situation.

robindch wrote:

(actually, I said that I trusted my own first-hand information more then your second-hand etc pseudo-information;

The information that I have presented throughout the entire thread has been backed up (I am willing to wager I have a higher post link quota than anyone else here) and rarely if ever have I used a link from a site known to be sympathetic to the Russian viewpoint.

robindch wrote:

FWIW, there are also a number of Irish people whom I know personally who are directly involved in this ongoing disaster who have vastly more experience and knowledge of it than I do)

Well why not get them to illustrate what you are having trouble doing.
For example I see that Kiev experts are saying that the recent HWR reports of cluster bomb use by the Ukrainian army on its own people are incorrect.
I see international experts cited by HWR saying that they are correct and noting that cluster bombs are illegal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/21/world/ukraine-used-cluster-bombs-report-charges.html?_r=0

robindch wrote:

(b) because you seem unable to discuss this without lobbing personal slurs around the place.

Hmm.
You called my input 'pseudo information' and said I'd be better off in the CT forum (this is your second time saying that by the way) and dismissed everything I wrote saying you had already debunked it all.
So lets be honest when we discuss personal slurs - I might even suggest in this most recent round that 'you started it'.:)


By the way on the topic of conspiracy theories I think the mysterious Crimean medal qualifies. You can add it to Putins remarks about taking Kiev in a week, Sikorskys lie about him wanting to carve up Ukraine with Tusk, the Russian defense ministrys wesbites accidental leaking of the real referendum results in Crimea and Patriarch Krills Su-27.

Most of the above, now utterly debunked, were linked by you.




.

robindch wrote: »

The most interesting report is from a range of people, all with first-hand experience of what's been happening in Ukraine over the last year, which documents Russia's propaganda war against Ukraine and the West. There's a video here and a corresponding written report which anybody with an interest in political propaganda will find fascinating.

It's impossible to know where this will end up as the man who's running it all appears to be fully delusional with little or no recourse to law, logic or common sense. All the Ukrainians I've spoken with over the last few weeks believe it's going to turn into full-blown Russian-Ukrainian war. And while I think that's unlikely, I do certainly feel it's more likely to get worse in the short term, than get better.

While I disagreed intensely with majority of your post above the link to the Legatum Institute and its accompanying video were the ‘proverbial straw’.
In its defence it does state upfront that it is conducted in cooperation with the Atlantic Council and the US Department of State (which obviously renders it immediately biased and somewhat inconsequential and irrelevant) - nonetheless let’s examine their claims.

There were innumerable clangers throughout this painful 45 minute back patting session so the following are just the ones I can recall offhand.

Michael Weiss wrote:

1/3 of Russian GDP is fritted away by bribery?

No source (he claims an independent monitor) Hmmm let’s see…*googles*
Here’s that independent monitor: Christian Science Monitor (I’ll have a tough time taking them seriously)
Here’s what they've.. ahem.. 'monitored': it’s a quote based on an estimate.

We estimate that businesses must add up to 40 percent to their production costs,” due to the toll of bribery, official extortion and economic crime,”

Now I obviously don't claim there’s no bribery in Russia but with reporting like this how could anyone take this panel seriously and Michael was introduced as our ‘go to’ guy on the Ukraine…oh dear.

He goes on to state that journalists should endeavour to

Michael Weiss wrote:

Dig up dirt on Putin’s wealth

...and that libel laws should be eased to allow them to do so. Conversely he goes on to state that it is ‘white shoe law firms’ who are preventing a lot of good stories from making it onto the printing presses. Surely he doesn't mean Russian White shoe law Firms?

After this he touches on an interesting point - the proliferation of Russian espionage and how it has really reached new heights. Well perhaps this is true but could anything even come close to or eclipse what we now know re: the NSA bugging of French, Italian and German Diplomats? It has been shown that at the very highest levels internationally the USA has been bugging its diplomatic counterweights in the most outrageous display of subterfuge and hostility towards supposed partner countries ever recorded. The allegations and indeed hard evidence of this scandal as everyone is now aware extend right across the globe, its scope incomparable to any other spy activity we have ever seen. And yet here sits with the most brazen audacity five neo-con, right wing, new millennium tink tankers who claim that they are only trying to protect us from Russian subterfuge with not even one mention of their own sides embarrassing and shameful record – Pomerantsev even reckons that Western powers should be able moderate the news with their own custom crafted stamp of media transparency. Incredible.

Speaking of Pomerantsev, he claims that RT put out a story claiming that the bodies from MH17 were already dead. I googled this and couldn't verify that RT put out this story first? I can find the Daily Mail reporting and citing a Russian rebel website and our good friend, the much quoted, Mr. Strelkov Girkin who of course while speaking directly on behalf of the Kremlin made sure to note his joy at downing a western airplane filled with innocent civilians. It strikes me as odd that Mr. Girkin is laughed out of town one minute for claiming the bodies were already decomposed but then taken very seriously when he makes the even more outstanding claim that of the whole eastern conflict is on him. Something is not quite right here – early on there was much speculation regarding this mans real identify and ultimate affiliations - either way Pomerantsevs claim is totally inaccurate.
Pomerantsev also reckons there should be public information campaigns in the Baltics to educate people as to the dangers Russian propaganda – thereby directly and openly suggesting to cure one type of propaganda with another type again without the merest hint of hypocrisy. Incredible.

Pomerantsev is also the only panellist to use a Russian word - Дезинформаци – in an apparent attempt to make himself appear more credible. The spoken word being so close to its English pronunciation – disinformation – that the opposite effect was rendered. I got the distinct impression that I was listening to bunch of ardent amateurs rather the any type of academic, intellectual, specialist or regional expert. It was quite depressing actually.

This brings us onto Oleksander Scherba – who was about as eloquent and as clear as a wounded ape. He has apparently seen Christopher Nolan’s great movie…. ‘Perception??’. He then goes on to describe the word ‘inception’ without managing to remind himself of the actual name of the movie and or its central theme. Now I don’t know if he was just nervous, (after all he is the team’s poster boy for Ukrainian crisis and Applebaum is evidently uneasy while he is speaking) or if he was just reading prescribed notes from his ipad and really didn’t know what he was doing or saying. Regardless his dire contribution continues informing us that the horrors of Russian propaganda climaxes somewhere around the idea of intimating Ukrainians by telling them everyone in the EU is either gay or a gay sympathiser. Despite his dismal testimony he does however reveal the real reason for Moscow’s intense effort at combating Western propaganda when sometime around 35.55 mark he says – “The Russians are deeply convinced that the outside is so sinister that they can’t accept any rules” This is as close as anyone on the panel comes to telling the truth. Unfortunately Scerba goes on to make the totally unsubstantiated claim that 90% of all Russian people state that what was great about the Soviet Union was it capacity to be feared? Em… Source please??? Or has this freakish roadshow just descended into the ‘I’m gonna pull some stuff from the ether and present it as fact similar to the kind of strained monologues that we are so used to hearing form our religious scientist friends? Well…apparently so.

Pyatt doesn’t spend long talking but with what little time he does use up he makes sure that it’s not only contentious but, as is the fashion at this event, astronomically hypocritical. None so more than when he claims that the US and EU share the same ‘strategic concerns’ regarding the Ukraine. Perhaps Pyatt had simply forgot his Washington colleague’s now infamous and colourful remark regarding the EU at the height of the crisis? Or perhaps he is being a diplomat and well, bending the truth a little to cover over the well ingrained tracks left behind after the US had to, as is nearly always the case, steamroll through its objectives regarding the Ukraine crisis in precisely the same manner it made France retract its ‘Mistral’ sale to Russia or leaned on Merkel over sanctions.
Pyatts claims that the story of US mercenary troops in Ukraine essentially started with RT (The Blackwater story) and then filtered down to other news agencies is also hard to substantiate. Again after a quick google I find the story first reported by the Daily Mail citing YouTube videos, incidentally the evidence of American Mercenaries in Ukraine is considerable and certainly can’t be airily dismissed.
More claims now – that all west Ukrainian media (tv & radio) content is off the air in Eastern Ukraine? From asking a few friends this does not appear to be the case. At this point I give up – even ignoring the huge elephant in the room and trying to take these people at face value proves impossible. The fact that Applebaum and her estranged husband are most likely entwined in US intelligence and are openly self-professed militant ‘anti Puintites’ doesn’t help. We may as well hear from God as to why Satan is bad. A quite ridiculous sham of a video if I have ever seen one.

The putinbots put up an impressive showing for a while, but ultimately withdrew.

RobertJR wrote: »

What's the latest here 3 years later..?
The nutshell version, not the I'll be reading for a week version...
Thanks

I apolgoise ↑

Opposing Putin's kleptocracy is far from being a Russophobe.

Depressing seeing some of the absolute bilge posted on this topic by people who really really should have known better. I hope they now all feel suitably ashamed of themselves.

Surely if there is a God who let this war start, why would praying to him now make him stop it?

If I was in Ukraine now, I wouldn't be wasting my time praying, I'd be getting out of there.