‘It’s a huge embarrassment for the West to ignore Ukraine’s neo-Nazis’

[BelgianMadCow]

The West has been turning a blind eye to all these neo-Nazis operating in Kiev, just like they were saying that there were no jihadists among Syrian opposition, Dmitry Babich, political analyst at the Voice of Russia, told RT.

The Ukrainian protesters clashed with police in Kiev after nearly 10,000 people took part in an anti-government demonstration at Maidan, or Independence Square, on January 18-19. What started as a peaceful demonstration turned into violent clashes with the police later Sunday. The most aggressive group of protesters, known as nationalists from Oleg Tyahnybok’s party, started throwing stones, debris and Molotov cocktails directly at the police, and using bats to beat the policemen.

Important. Op-Ed at RT. Belgian media did speak about them (obliquely) today.

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. Thanks for the view from Russia's state sponsored TV "news" outlet. No agenda there, right?

"The West"?

[dipsydoodle]

3. A leader of the opposition, Vitali Klitschoko, stated similar elsewhere

and that was in the Guardian which to the very best of my knowledge isn't Russian.

[Igel]

22. That was here.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/19/ukrainian-protesters-clash-riot-police-kiev

And it's not nearly as bad as RT said.

Tyahnybok is far right. He has more support in the west, which wasn't as Sovietized as the rest and retains more of a pro-Ukraine as opposed to what RT wants, a pro-Russian bent--note all of the Nazi imagery and broad-brush generalizations intended, in the original, to play on the "we whupped the fascists' asses!" rhetoric that, oddly, the far right in Russia feeds on.

Lvov, whence Tyahnybok's family, was pro-Hitler. They rounded up Jews, etc., but saw Hitler as the lesser of two evils when faced with Stalin. Tough call, who was worse.

[dipsydoodle]

25. That's not what I referred too

"The leaders of the opposition, including former heavyweight boxer Vitali Klitschko, dismissed the violence as the work of "provocateurs" and were due to hold negotiations with the government later on Monday."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/20/ukraine-anti-government-protests-street-battles

[BelgianMadCow]

5. It's equally suspicious as the propaganda from the other side

so take both with a grain of salt.

[Tarheel_Dem]

53. This says all I need to know about your admiration for Putin's "Russia Today"!

[BelgianMadCow]

54. I have no such thing

I just like to keep my sources widely varied, and I do like specific RT programs.

[Tarheel_Dem]

59. Anyone associated with RT is a charlatan, and that includes Thom Hartmann. nt

[sabrina 1]

73. Amy Goodman is a 'charlatan'?? Really? Wow!

[Tarheel_Dem]

83. Of the highest order!

[sabrina 1]

111. Well, at least there are no more pretenses. Good luck with whatever you decide to

do with your life.

RT, one of the best and most watched, worldwide news organizations where we get to see actual LIBERALS banned from the US Corporate Media, free to express their opinions on RT.

Fyi, Amy Goodman is one of the best journalists we have. Too bad the Right Wing Corporate Media has managed to silence great journalists like Goodman.

But, thankfully we can see them on RT.

[Rex]

190. Funny, Amy Goodman is a great journalist...guess she had to go under the bus.

Oh and look! You must have hit a nerve with that one! Check out his hidden post!

[snooper2]

214. I see no reason why post #116 should have been hidden...guess did hit a nerve

[Ken Burch]

165. So, basically, you can't tolerate any dissent from the U.S. foreign policy "line".

Want people to start signing loyalty oaths again too?

It's absurd to say that ANYBODY who works with RT is "charlatan", especially Amy Goodman, the most honest and uncorrupted broadcast journalist in the country. RT isn't PRAVDA in 1947, for God' sakes. It's perfectly possible to work with them and be an independent journalist of unimpeachable integrity....which you basically can't be on U.S. television these days.

[Rex]

191. The authoritarians on this site are getting desperate imo.

Throwing Amy Goodman under the bus would/should make most rational people stop and pause about the intent of said poster.

[geek tragedy]

216. Goodman has a good heart, but in what year did she ask her most recent

tough question?

People go on her show knowing that she's going to let them say whatever they want and that she won't challenge/disagree with any of it.

[Jamastiene]

186. zOMG, I'm surprised there is anyone who doesn't like her.

[frwrfpos]

74. Thom Hartmann has good pieces.

very progressive and informative. You think Thom is a "charlatan" ? Really? wtf

[dlwickham]

77. but he works for the Putin propoganda channel

how progressive can anyone be who works for a fascist

[frwrfpos]

79. the only fascist propaganda comes from the American media

The American media is for the most part very right wing and comes close to fascism in terms of propaganda.

RT is an internationally rated and acclaimed news source that actually brings news. It has won awards for reporting.

I truly hope your post was sarcasm because everyone knows that fascism is right wing. Extreme right wing is fascism.

[uppityperson]

86. The "only" fascist propaganda comes from American media? No other countries in the world?

seriously?

[frwrfpos]

87. have you paid attention to US media?

American media is largely right wing propaganda. Its disturbing that a reputable international and widely read news source such as RT actually reports actual news. Its even more disturbing that this outlet is pissed on and shamed on a regular basis

[uppityperson]

88. Try again. Is the only fascist propaganda in the world American media?

Is there no other fascist propaganda in the world beyond American media?

You said "the only fascist propaganda comes from the American media". Are you seriously saying there is no other source in the world?

[sabrina 1]

94. You mean this is news to you? Seriously? The MSM is owned by six Right Wing Corps

and is controlled by Right Wing Corporations. Which is why you will NEVER see Liberal voices on the MSM.

I will go with anything that leans even slightly to the Left ANY DAY rather than contribute to right wing propaganda.

RT is left leaning where we get to hear all those Liberals who have essentially been banned from the Corporate Media. I'll take Left over Right any day.

But then I'm a Democrat.

[uppityperson]

95. You missed the point of what I said. Is the only fascist propaganda in the world American media?

Are there no other fascist propaganda in the world beyond American media?

They said "the only fascist propaganda comes from the American media".

I question the statement that there is no other source in the world that is fascist propaganda.

And you can hold your "leftier than thou" snark as it doesn't impress me.

[sabrina 1]

100. What do you think of the US MSM Right Wing owned Corporate media? Do you rely

on them for news, or are you more likely to look for news media with a Liberal Bias? I didn't miss the point at all, but okay if you want to divert from the topic, no, the MSM is far from the only right wing news outlet. Reporters Without Borders has a whole list every year if you want to find others. RT isn't one of them but our MSM has made the list.

So now that we cleared that up, what is your objection to a 'left leaning' News organization keeping in mind that the Left is generally far more likely to be truthful regarding our phony Wars and invasions and on Wall St corruption etc. Unless of course you disagree and view Corporate media as more trustworthy?

[uppityperson]

101. I think among all those assumptions, assertions, and borderline insults you may have answered

"no, the MSM is far from the only right wing news outlet". Thank you for writing that as that was my only point.

Have a good evening.

[uppityperson]

92. Here is a link for you about Russia Today

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RT

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian 24/7 English-language news channel that launched in December 2005. The network aims to present the world with a Russian point of view to "to become Russia's version of the BBC."[1] The results come across more like a state-sponsored Fox News, prone to coverage slanted against "the West" (and the US in particular) and giving way too much air to conspiracy theories and other fringe beliefs.
(clip)
Political bias

Russian sociologist and political commentator Boris Kagarlitsky described RT as a "continuation of the old Soviet propaganda services."[4] The channel is also accused of having close ties with the Russian state authorities[7][8] and of helping the Kremlin to project an overly positive image of Russia by refraining from criticizing the government, particularly Vladimir Putin.[8]
Other criticism includes claims that RT is deliberately and incessantly engaging in US/NATO/EU-bashing through "interviews" in which only Russian ultra-nationalists or highly critical, anti-Western "experts" are interviewed -- without any probing questions or challenges by the RT reporters, and without even bothering to hear opposing points of view.[4] The following RT's "news" titles may provide some examples of this:
Chossudovsky: US will start WW3 by attacking Iran
Jacques Fresco: US has never been a democracy

[frwrfpos]

97. rationalwiki?

lol..more right wing american propaganda

Did I mention that The American media is right wing propaganda. Foxnews is Right wing propaganda. Cnn is right wing propaganda. The NYT i right with propaganda.

No one is fooled anymore

[uppityperson]

99. So nothing written in the USA is valid? Have you even looked at that site? And you still didn't answ

answer. Is there no other fascist propaganda in the world beyond American media, like you had said?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page

Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:
Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.
We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue.

[frwrfpos]

102. i have examined the site and its purpose is to spread right wing propaganda

i will answer your question. the us is not the only country to spread right wing propaganda. Saudia Arabia comes to mind.

[stevil]

129. You have examined the site.

Right Wing propaganda. Sure. I would really like some examples. Rationalwiki are critical of us all. You are less credible than they are. Unless you can prove different, which you won't.

[snooper2]

215. I think you are trying too hard

Just FYI!


You got to slow down a little, take it easy...merge in with the traffic dude/dudette!

[dlwickham]

196. Putin is what then?

left wing?

[Ken Burch]

205. No, not left-wing, just not worth obsessing about. He's irrelevant.

The only reason to keep focusing on Russia at all is nostalgia for the Cold War. Russia is simply another country now, and not especially worse(sadly) than most of the world's leaders.

Putin is not going to take over the damn world. It doesn't even look like he wants to.
And it's impossible to be fixated on Putin without having right-wing militarist intent. It CAN'T be progressive in any sense to keep screaming "Russia is horrible...Russia is horrible...Russia is horrible".

What matters is the world as a whole and the people of the world as a whole...not one particular country. To keep focusing on Russia much at all is to want the "old days" back...to want the rivalry back...to want the perpetually-being-on-the-brink-of-nuclear Armageddon-thing back...nothing can be worth that.

It's YOU that's sixty years behind the times, "d". It's hopelessly behind the times to single out Russia at all.

[dlwickham]

213. he's the head of one of the largest countries in the world

he's not "irrelevant" by any stretch

he's pretty damn dangerous and either you refuse to see that or you choose to be an apologist

[Ken Burch]

218. You want the Cold War back.

A person can't want a confrontational policy towards Russia and still hold any progressive views. Your arguments can only be used for an increased war budget, and ANY increase in war spending makes any progressive change in this country IMPOSSIBLE.

Putin just wants to run Russia. He's not TRYING to take over the world. He should be treated exactly the same way as any OTHER bad leader...the size of his country doesn't matter.

It's either peace or ultraconservativism. There's no other option.

[Ken Burch]

166. Unfortunately, there's nowhere else for an honest journalist to work for in this country.

How progressive can you be and work for any U.S. television network that colluded in the Red Scare, the blacklist, and the cold war?

[dlwickham]

197. I think you're about 60 years or so behind the times

[Ken Burch]

204. There's maybe four monthly magazines-

that is about enough to keep thirty or forty independent journalists barely working in the whole damn country.

And, other than Democracy Now!(which is great, but which barely survives financially day-to-day) the broadcast media is totally controlled by corporate power(MSNBC is watered-down center-left at best).

So, in terms of getting on the air, which is the only way to connect with anyone outside "the choir", there's RT, there's Al-Jazeera English...and there's truly nothing else.

And, while there are bad things going on in Russia, does covering them really matter more than covering things here? We can't actually change anything in Russia, and we all know it.

So those who denounce independent journalists for working on RT are basically asking those journalists to give up the only chance they have to do their work. And you know it. It's useless to just stay in print media.

[Ken Burch]

208. Why are you trying to revive McCarthyism?

If Hartmann quit working there, where the hell else COULD he work?

There IS no network news channel that isn't propaganda. ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN are just as much U.S. propaganda(if not more so)than RT is Russian propaganda.

Are you saying that Hartmann should starve to death in the name of "purity"?

What would YOU do in his place?

And how can a supporter of the most conservative person we could possibly nominate in 2016 possibly feel entitled to lecture others about what is and is not "progressive"? HRC STILL hasn't given up on bombing Iran, for God's sakes...and we both know that everything else she did as president would have to be right-wing after she did that.

[Tarheel_Dem]

85. Indeed I do, and I wish he'd show some of the integrity he calls on others to show. Fuck RT!

[Ken Burch]

206. She cut him off, gently, because they were talking about Manning

Last edited Tue Jan 21, 2014, 09:49 PM - Edit history (1)

And she SAID they'd talk about Putin's hate laws later. And she let the guy go on ranting for TWO MINUTES before that.

There was no reason to bring up the antigay measures(measures we've ALL denounced here, btw)when they were talking about Manning. There wasn't time in that segment. He'd have been cut off on that on any Western news network as well.

And the guy was being rude(he later admitted that he just went on to "fuck with the Russians&quot ...it wasn't the presenter's fault that Putin forced those measures through, and it wasn't the time or place for this right-wing jerk to go "kitchen debate" on RT's ass. And he didn't show any courage at all...the worst that could have happened to him would have been to have his mic cut...they weren't going to send the dude to the Lubyanka Prison, for Christ's sakes.

What mattered at the moment was the fate of Chelsea Manning(a person who is LGBTQ and who has been treated far worse by our government, even though she committed no real crime, than Putin has treated gays.) RT had been covering the Manning story for years before Putin proposed his laws. The sentence in the Manning case was about to be announced and it wasn't the moment for melodramatic grandstanding about something that nobody in the studio could have done anything about.

And, when this guy wrote a piece earlier calling for Chelsea Manning's EXECUTION, he forever lost the right to claim to support ANYONE'S human rights. If you support human rights, you have a moral obligation to oppose the death penalty.

Can you please get out of the Cold War already? There's no reason for us to be making a bigger deal about Russia's gay policies than about the ones just passed by Uganda(a country where gays will probably be given the death penalty in a few years). Bad policies aren't worse just because it's Russia implementing them...it's equally bad when any OTHER country does so, too.

Obsessing about Russia is a right-wing thing. Most of those who do obsess about it do so because they want our country to have more nukes and a bigger war budget, neither of which could ever have any positive effects . Time to move on from that already. Russia should be treated as just another country now...why is that so hard for you?

[arely staircase]

170. cut his mike! nt

[sabrina 1]

7. Do you know what is going on in the Ukraine? And why?

[sabrina 1]

10. Why don't you correct the record for us then.

What is incorrect eg, in the article? Being a consumer of news from all over the world, this seems to be a fairly accurate assessment of the situation in the Ukraine coming from many credible sources. But you may have some other information that contradicts the article?

[G_j]

55. I doubt it nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

60. Why don't we send the Kooch, he's from "The West", & he's "hugely popular in Europe". Remember that?

[sabrina 1]

68. I'm sorry, what is the 'Kooch'? Are you speaking about a Democrat or a Republican?

[Tarheel_Dem]

81. !!!!

[sabrina 1]

98. Are you trashing a Democrat or a Republican?

What is a 'kooch' is it a Democrat or a Republican?

[Tarheel_Dem]

107. You should know, you said he was "hugely popular in Europe". Selective memory?

[sabrina 1]

110. Are you trashing a Democrat on a Democratic forum? What is a 'kooch'? We don't

trash Democrats here so I assume the derogatory term refers to a Republican?

[Tarheel_Dem]

115. Sending Kooch to Ukraine is "trashing"? But you said he was "hugely popular" there.

[sabrina 1]

183. Sid has answered the question for you. You ARE trashing Democrats on a democratic forum.

And one of the best at that.

Dennis Kucinich, who stood up to Bush causing him to be hated by Bush Supporters, receiving threats, called names, targeted in each election for removal simply for telling the truth about Bush.

Why are you trashing Democrats here??

[Ken Burch]

210. You're acting like a drunken night club heckler. Cut it out.

Nobody here deserves this kind of abuse from you...and neither does Dennis Kucinich(not everybody would know that "the Kooch" is your derisive nickname for the man).

Why are you being so vicious here?

And if you hate progressives so much, why don't you just join the Right and be done with it? You can't bash the Left this relentlessly and still disagree with the Right on anything that matters.

You probably sneer at the heroes who stage "Moral Mondays" in your state.

[SidDithers]

174. ...

You've participated in dozens of threads where Kucinich is called Kooch.

Your feigned ignorance here is pretty hilarious.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

181. Kucinich is a Democrat. I presume everyone here knows this is a Democratic

forum where we do not trash Democrats. Kucinich is one of the Democratic Party's best representatives of the people.

Kucinich, a democrat who actually fought for the people:

So it WAS a Democrat being insulted here. Not a Republican. Thanks for pointing that out.

[SidDithers]

182. "I'm sorry, what is the 'Kooch'?"...

Sid

[sabrina 1]

184. Dennis Kucinich, one of the best when it came to standing up to Bush.

We need him in the Senate and I hope he runs. A real progressive Democrat.

Is there something about his politics you believe is deserving of childish name calling?

What issues do you disagree with him about? I've never heard much from you on actual issues.

This seems like a good time to tell us what political issues you and Dennis don't agree on.

[Rex]

192. Issues? The standard reply is usually this

so I wouldn't expect too much out of that particular brain trust.

[sabrina 1]

193. Yes, lots of trashing of Progressives, elected, journalists etc on DU these days. I just wanted to

be clear. I thought that at one time trashing Democrats was not acceptable here.

[Rex]

194. NO the rule has always been trashing Left leaning Democrats is acceptable here.

Remember how many supposed Democrats here trashed Dean after Foxnews/CNN made fun of him for showing some emotion? I do. I know pathetic, but since day one if it is from the Left it gets trashed along with the black helicopter left, the professional left and all the other names authoritarians come up with.

It has never been against the rules for control freaks to trash the left.

[sabrina 1]

199. That's too bad. I guess I noticed it more over the past few years.

The fear of progressives seems to be intense for some reason.

[Rex]

201. I think some here relate progressive and liberal to change and reform

and by now I think you know how some of these 'moderates' feel about holding onto the status quo for dear life.

[Ken Burch]

207. Kucinich has nothing to do with this.

Why are you on such a venomous roll in this thread?

And why does it sound like you want the Cold War back?

If you read any American corporate newspaper or watch anything on tv "news", you're getting even more propaganda than RT. There isn't ANY news source with any wide exposure that is "pure".

Can you please join the Republicans? If you're THIS obsessed with Russia, you can't be progressive on anything.

[Ken Burch]

211. Why are you bashing Kucinich?

Why do you regard it as silly to say that Kucinich is popular in Europe? The same thing was said about Obama in 2008, as far as that goes. Is it intrinsically embarrassing for U.S. politician to be popular in Europe? If so, why?

And what's so terrible about referring to "The West"? It's no like the U.S. and NATO have stopped being confrontational with Russia. It was a totally unjust provocation to insist, for example, on putting countries on Russia's borders into NATO.

And stop with the wave smilie, already. Nobody here deserves a "kiss-off" from you.

[joshcryer]

123. The comment section is priceless.

[arely staircase]

2. well if you can't trust Russian state tv to give you the straight up truth about Ukraine

who can you trust in this crazy world?

[dipsydoodle]

8. How about the Guardian then ?

That ok with you - its easy enough to find.

[arely staircase]

9. oh I thought the OP was posting to a link to Russian state media

I didn't know RT stands for The Guardian.

My bad.

[sabrina 1]

18. RT is one of the most watched International News sources in the world

right now, even winning a prestigious news award in its first two years of operation. So, if you think they are not credible it would help for you to point out where they are wrong so the rest of us who do watch all news sources that are available, can strike it off the list of credible news sources.

Since the news the OP is referring to has been corroborated by several other credible news sources, you are not convincing anyone to not watch RT, if that is what you want to do.

If you don't want to discredit them, that's fine too.

[BelgianMadCow]

24. RT carries Thom Hartmann. I always thought he was Mike Malloy's saner brother.

or was it Randi Rhodes he sometimes substituted for?

[sabrina 1]

71. RT is watched now by over 50 million US households. It is the ANTI-FOX network.

Which is why I have serious questions about those who are attempting to discredit and still claiming to be 'liberals'.

[Adrahil]

91. It's funded directly by the Russian Federal Government.

It's the very definition of a propaganda outlet.

[sabrina 1]

96. Al Jazeera is funded by a dictatorship. The US Media is funded by Right Wing Corporations.

RT is one of the best International News media which you would know if you actually watched it.

Explain why you think it is a 'propaganda' outlet. What have you seen on RT that prompts you to say that? I'm open to something that proves that assertion.

I KNOW eg, that the US MSM is a Corporate Propaganda outlet because I watched it for over a decade before finally accepting that it would always support Right Wing voices like Breitbart and James O'Keefe while blocking voices actual reporters like Greg Palast and Thom Hartmann, Amy Goodman all of whom I found on RT.

IF RT could be criticized for anything it would be that it is VERY US Liberal, left leaning. I like that, I don't like Right leaning. I am a Democrat and when I choose news sources I prefer that 'liberal bias' which I found on RT but NEVER on the US Corporate media.

So I'm interested in some examples from RT that you consider to be 'propaganda'.

[Adrahil]

103. So, somehow, Putin is better than those? Pull the other one!

It's what I HAVEN'T seen that's telling, like pretty much anything critical of Putin.

Also, ask yourself, why would RT be interested in undermining the Ukrainian protests? Possibly to serve the interests of its masters, the Russian Federal government, and Comrade Putin more directly?

I advocate getting information from a variety of sources, including RT, but be aware of their biases. RT is CLEARLY a bought and paid for mouthpiece of Putin, and if you are in denial of that, you are being foolish.

[sabrina 1]

104. Do you know what is going in the Ukraine? Putin has been trashed on RT, so I doubt he is

anymore fond of them than you are. But that is not the point, you appear to be supporting the 'protesters' in the Ukraine. Can you explain why?

[Adrahil]

105. Yes, because they oppose the Ukraine returning to it's position

as a satellite state of Russia. Putin wants to reconstitute the old Soviet empire, and he's willing to make threats to make it happen. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if he was prepared to South Ossetia them if it comes to that, ya know, assisting his friends int he Ukraine and "protecting ethnic Russians." I support those in the Ukraine who want to turn their eyes west, to the EU, and away from the mass of corruption that is the Russian Federal Government and Vladimir Putin.

[sabrina 1]

109. Wrong, the Ukraine did not want to join the EU. And the Capitalists who control the EU

Goldman Sachs et al who CRASHED the economies of Ireland, Spain, Greece etc, cannot accept the sovereign right of any country to make the decision not to join their Corporate Controlled 'alliances'. Ireland eg, had refused to join the EU for years, then finally did so. Now see what happened to that country which has lost its sovereignty to the World Bank and the IMF like Greece and Spain and Portugal.

The Ukraine would have been among the victims of the predatory capitalism that has destroyed Europe's economy, as they move their draconian, Austerity programs from the Third World to the First World.

[Adrahil]

112. Where did I say they wanted to join the EU?

So, you seem to be advocating that the Ukraine submit to Comrade Putin. Care to elaborate on why?

[Ken Burch]

220. There's no reason for any progressive to back the "protesters" in the Ukraine.

The "protesters" have no positive, progressive wishes for their country. They just want it to be a Western colony.

None of them are leftists...none are workers...I doubt any are Greens.

They're just right-wing privatization fetishists.

They didn't even ask anything progressive of the Western countries who are backing them.

The fate of Ukraine shouldn't be tied to geopolitics at all, for God's sakes.

[uppityperson]

114. What do you think of this review? I am curious to know your opinion of it.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RT

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian 24/7 English-language news channel that launched in December 2005. The network aims to present the world with a Russian point of view to "to become Russia's version of the BBC." The results come across more like a state-sponsored Fox News, prone to coverage slanted against "the West" (and the US in particular) and giving way too much air to conspiracy theories and other fringe beliefs.
(clip)
Political bias

Russian sociologist and political commentator Boris Kagarlitsky described RT as a "continuation of the old Soviet propaganda services." The channel is also accused of having close ties with the Russian state authorities and of helping the Kremlin to project an overly positive image of Russia by refraining from criticizing the government, particularly Vladimir Putin.
Other criticism includes claims that RT is deliberately and incessantly engaging in US/NATO/EU-bashing through "interviews" in which only Russian ultra-nationalists or highly critical, anti-Western "experts" are interviewed -- without any probing questions or challenges by the RT reporters, and without even bothering to hear opposing points of view. The following RT's "news" titles may provide some examples of this:
Chossudovsky: US will start WW3 by attacking Iran
Jacques Fresco: US has never been a democracy

[sabrina 1]

125. I couldn't say. We don't see what they see in Russia. The RT that is on US lineups

is RT America. It has a bureau in DC and has several American journalists, as well as British, French etc.

Its discussion shows include Thom Hartmann, Larry King, Max Keiser and one of its best programs imo, is Cross Talk which brings guests from various parts of the world including here and a changing panel with views from the right, left and everything in between. At least one DUer has appeared on Cross Talk and has stated he has never been told what he can say or not.

I have seen Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, Anti War activitists, Pro War advocates, US Veterans, people like Henry Kissenger as well as Christ Hedges, Noam Chomsky etc. Leaders of countries all over the world in wide ranging interviews with various points of view in their own words.

What they see in Russia I have no idea, I imagine they see the equivalent of what we see here on CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, Fox, mostly pro Russia. RT America has only one Russian News broadcast which is about 30 minutes and provides news of elections, disasters etc that are mostly of interest to people living there, except for some coverage, as we see here re our leaders, of what their politicians are doing abroad.

I have seen dozens of people well known to liberals in the US but rarely invited to the MSM here which is a breath of fresh air. Eg, CNN regularly interviewed the likes of Breitbart and O'Keefe rarely challenging them on their anti Democratic views. But rarely invite people from the Left to counter their right wing bias. On RT they would be rigorously challenged which is probably why we haven't seen them yet there.

Their International news roundup is always worth watching, much like Al Jazeera with news reporters in each country on the ground. I wish we had a few reporters somewhere other than behind their desks.

Their documentaries are very interesting, mostly about parts of the world most of us here know little about.

And there are some very intelligent, young female interviewers, some of whom are American who seem to know HOW to prepare for and conduct an interview without interrupting the guest every few seconds.


I use many sources for news which we can now access. RT is just one of them and is no more 'biased' than any others including Al Jazeera which had its own biases re Qatar eg.

The 'outrage' over sources of news, the calls for censorship here are appalling. We are ADULTS and perfectly capable of discerning and cross checking what are facts and what are not. And frankly the sudden attacks here on sources other than the questionable MSM 'news' programming, only alienates people and certainly won't stop anyone from choosing what to watch and what not to watch.

I want to hear ALL SIDES of every story. And we certainly won't get that from our Corporate Media.

CCT is another channel we can now get here in the US, also worth watching at times.

Americans were so insulated from the rest of the world dependent only on their own media. But that is changing and like Europe eg, young Americans are far more informed about other parts of the world because of their access to foreign media.

I am thrilled at the availability of sources from all over the world and am impressed with the interest of young people in world events and with the knowledge they now have due to this.

It's sad to see the reactionary 'horror' coming from a few who appear to be living in the past regarding the changing times. They sound like people who have lived in a tiny village all their lives and are scared to death of 'outsiders' to the point of paranoia. They should relax, knowledge is power and the more we can gather, the better.

[Tarheel_Dem]

131. "knowledge is power"!

And anytime you want to cite your source for that "50 million households" number, me & the other poster will be ever so grateful.

[uppityperson]

132. you couldn't say an opinion on that link, but write over a dozen paragraphs otherwise?

huh

[sabrina 1]

135. No I have never seen what is referred to in that link. We DON'T receive that channel here.

I don't live in Russia, I live here, in the US. Is that clear enough for you?

I don't comment on things I know nothing about.

Are you at all familiar with the subject? Have you watched RT America or do you make a habit of commenting on something you have no knowledge of?

[uppityperson]

136. You don't comment, yet you did. Odd.

RT is one of the best International News media which you would know if you actually watched it.

Now you say you've not seen it and can not comment on it. Huh.

IF RT could be criticized for anything it would be that it is VERY US Liberal, left leaning. I like that, I don't like Right leaning. I am a Democrat and when I choose news sources I prefer that 'liberal bias' which I found on RT but NEVER on the US Corporate media.

Again, odd. You "don't comment on things I know nothing about" and refuse to consider a review that is contrary to your ateongly held opinion. Gotcha! Thanks for clarifying.

[sabrina 1]

140. You are confused.

I am familiar with RT America, which I can and have commented on. I have never seen the channel which is available only for Russian audiences presumably IN Russian. Therefore, no, I cannot comment on it.

I hope that is clear enough for you ...

[stevil]

134. You want to see all sides.

You just justified giving the FOX news point of view a voice. Or are they not as valid as RT. You know what? Forget about it. You don't answer anyway.

[sabrina 1]

138. Did you really just say that?

Are you promoting censorship here on a Democratic forum? I would defend the right of anyone to have a voice no matter how much I disagreed with their pov.

Are you familiar with the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution?

Are you saying that this government should ban certain viewpoints from the airwaves?

Had you stopped at 'justified Fox' which is hilarious considering how well known my views are of right wingers in general, I would probably have laughed. It is the implication that some people have no right to a point of view that got me.

If this government ever tried to ban Fox, CNN or any other 'point of view' you can be sure that every one who cares about preserving this democracy, no matter how they may despise either of them, would strenuously oppose such an action.

[stevil]

142. I didn't say that.

You did.

I have the right to criticize news sources, just as you have the right to defend them. And I guess the 1st amendment applies to RT? Certainly your right to defend them but not my right to critique them?

[snooper2]

217. This will explain it to you, Via VIDEO! they admit it LOL

[stevil]

117. 50 million households watch RT?

Really? Citation? Or just 50 million who have access. RT is not the ANTI-FOX network. It is its equivalent.
just as untrustworthy as FOX.

[Tarheel_Dem]

119. And sponsored by the Kremlin. If they were to question Putin, they'd be yanked...

in a heartbeat. Like you, I'm waiting for a credible source for that number. Wiki says they have access to 85 million homes. I have searched high & low, and I can't find anything citing the number she quoted.

[stevil]

121. Its crap.

I'm all for alternative viewpoints. RT looks slick, nice looking teasers and all that. Not a huge fan of propaganda.

[Tarheel_Dem]

127. +1. And I wouldn't hold your breath for backup of that ludicrous number she quoted.

Sadly, Fox remains the highest rated cable news show in the country, with MSNBC coming in at #2. I've been searching, and I can't even tell if the ratings agencies monitor RT viewership.

[sabrina 1]

145. Never watched it have you? 'If they were to question Putin they'd be yanked'.

Lol, I love when people condemn things they clearly know nothing about. It makes it easy to dismiss their views and saves a lot of time.

Did you know that Thom Hartmann is into 'woo' btw?

[sabrina 1]

133. Lol, welcome to DU. RT IS the ANTI FOX channel. And yes, it is now on

most tv lineups and available to tens of millions of US viewers . Several politicians have acknowledged that we are 'losing the message' to the new media, and specifically mentioned RT admitting that they are more popular now than the MSM. And that was several years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

RT presents round-the-clock news bulletins, documentaries, talk shows, and debates, as well as sports news and cultural programs on Russia aimed at the overseas news market.[6] The network's signal is carried by 22 satellites and over 230 operators, which allows some 630 million people to watch the channel in more than 100 countries.[7] RT America is available to 85 million people in the United States.[8] In 2011 it was the second most-watched foreign news channel in the U.S. after BBC World News,[9] and the number one foreign station in five major U.S. urban areas in 2012.[10] In 2013 RT has become the first TV news channel in history to reach 1 billion views on YouTube. According to the Broadcasters' Audience Research Board between 2.25-2.5 million Britons tuned their televisions to RT during the second half of 2012, making it the third-most watched rolling news channel in Britain, behind BBC News and Sky News

Lol, still laughing at your notion that 'commie' RT is in any way 'equivalent' to the far right wing Fox. Fox hates RT partly due to some of its criticism of Fox. That really WAS funny. Critics, who can't make up their minds between using the old, now historical cold war epithet 'commie' or the polar opposite epithet, and yes it is an epithet Fox and become so confused they can't tell the difference after a while.

What none of those here critical of the news source have done, is to actually provide some critique on its regular content. Hilarious.

[stevil]

137. Nice Wiki selection

Since its foundation in 2005, RT has attracted wide criticism in the West, mostly denouncing it as, what they call, a tool for Russian state propaganda. In an interview with Voice of America, the Russian-Israeli blogger Anton Nosik (ru) said the creation of Russia Today "smacks of Soviet-style propaganda campaigns."[132] A representative of Reporters Without Borders called the newly announced network "another step of the state to control information."[133] In 2009, Luke Harding in The Guardian described Russia Today's advertising campaign in the United Kingdom as an "ambitious attempt to create a new post-Soviet global propaganda empire.

You can pick and choose what you like. I can too. And I won't even mention support of Gay Rights. And mention of Commies? Where did I say that? And when did I defend FOX? Get real.

[stevenleser]

139. That does not support your assertion that "50 million households watch RT."

First to 1 billion views on YouTube sounds impressive but divided by all the videos the have up it is perhaps less so. Most videos each have under 10,000 views.

I've been looking for a long time for verifiable stats on how many people tune in to a given RT program each week to try to compare with viewership of the regular network news programs in the US or the cable news programs.

My sense is that RT's viewership is much smaller. A given program on FNC for instance generally has between 1 million and 5 million viewers. Only 2.5 million Britons watched RT in all of the second half of 2012 for instance. O'Reilly gets double that from one episode.

If anyone has any verifiable stats similar to Neilsen ratings for RT, I would be very interested in them. They do not seem to exist. Talk to the average American on the street and they don't even know who RT is.

I also doubt that FNC hates RT. From what I have seen, they barely notice them. They don't consider them a threat at all.

[sabrina 1]

141. Well your 'sense' of things isn't very persuavive. Those numbers probably have increased

by now actually, that was from 2011. Whatever the actual numbers are RT is now available on most tv lineups in the US. Corps don't include channels that no one is likely to watch. And if Hillary Clinton was worried about people watching RT, I assume she knows that enough people were watching even back then, to cause her to name them as a reason for the Corporate Media 'losing the message'. On odd turn of phrase btw, since the news media is not supposed to be about 'messaging'. But it was revealing.

[stevenleser]

144. My "sense" of things is that I am there and hear those folks talking off camera.

RT never comes up. FNC pays about as much attention to RT as a major league baseball team pays to the single A affiliate of a rival team.

Yes, corps do include channels that no one is likely to watch. Hundreds of them.

No, it wasn't revealing that Hillary said that. She is not a media expert.

[sabrina 1]

146. You are not the only one who is 'there'. I see a lot of 'mention' of RT here and on right wing

forums. Why all the 'angst' from those quarters AND from Hillary who was asking for media funding at the time, if they are not widely viewed?

Hilarious. Since they are of no consequence, I guess we won't be hearing about them on DU anymore.

Did you know that Thom Hartmann is 'into woo' btw? Oh, he has a talk show on RT! Coincidence, no?

Everyone I know from Ca to NY watches RT, progressives that is. Righties hate it naturally.

[stevenleser]

171. Your information is second hand. Mine is first hand.

RT is not on FNC's radar screen at all.

[sabrina 1]

187. You know nothing about me but I like your confidence when stating 'facts' you are not in possession

of.

RT is on the radar of those who try to control the message here. Fox apparently is okay with them though.

'We are losing control of the message'. Fox isn't mentioned, RT and Al Jazeera but not Fox. I guess Fox is doing its job regarding the 'message'.

The news is not a 'message' or should not be. That is why I am thrilled by all the new media which makes it more possible to sort out what is just messaging and what is actual news. And the reason why young people are more informed today then they have been for a very long time.

[stevenleser]

188. If you had first hand knowledge you would have said so. You didn't and don't. nt

[sabrina 1]

189. Really? Okay, if you say so.

[muriel_volestrangler]

168. Viewing figures for UK news channels

http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing/weekly-total-viewing-summary

for Jan 6th-12th 2014:
[div style="font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"]
Average daily reach 000s % Average weekly reach 000s % Average weekly viewing hh:mm
BBC News 3,681 6.3 10,082 17.2 0:17
Sky News 2,044 3.5 5,707 9.8 0:11
AlJazeera English 228 0.4 872 1.5 0:01
RT 128 0.2 581 1.0 *
Fox News 61 0.1 253 0.4 *
Euronews 60 0.1 303 0.5 *


The top 4 are all on 'Freeview', the digital broadcast free-to-view system. Fox News and Euronews are only on satellite and cable; I'm not sure if you have to buy a particular package to get them or not.

[stevenleser]

172. Good to have. Again, that does not support the "50 million viewers" meme. nt

[stevil]

149. Welcome to Du

Been a lot longer on here, RT commenters just called MLK a terrorist. ON MY TV!!!!!

[sabrina 1]

156. The US Government viewed MLK as a terrorist. And he was murdered right here

in the US. Please do not try to use MLK for this purpose. The man was a hero and doesn't deserve to be used in the way you are attempting to use him. It is despicable, frankly.

RIP MLK, a nation owes you a debt of gratitude and an apology that could never be enough.

[dipsydoodle]

180. 85 million have access in the US.

RT America is available to 85 million people in the United States.[8] In 2011 it was the second most-watched foreign news channel in the U.S. after BBC World News,[9] and the number one foreign station in five major U.S. urban areas in 2012.[10] In 2013 RT has become the first TV news channel in history to reach 1 billion views on YouTube. According to the Broadcasters' Audience Research Board between 2.25-2.5 million Britons tuned their televisions to RT during the second half of 2012, making it the third-most watched rolling news channel in Britain, behind BBC News and Sky News.[11][12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_%28TV_network%29

In the UK its a Freeview channel which more or less means everyone has got it even without cable or satellite.

[Tarheel_Dem]

118. Where does that number come from? Not that I have any reason to disbelieve you.

[Captain Stern]

299. 50 million...are you sure? That seems high.

Fox,MSNBC,and CNN combined have less than 10 million viewers. The BCS national championship 'only' had 27 million viewers, and it was the most watched program of the week.

[arely staircase]

48. a lot of people watch fox news too

there are a lot of gullible people in the world

[sabrina 1]

61. Lol, are you kidding me? Fox is a joke around the world. They have a very

miniscule audience confined mainly to a small, ignorant, right wing audience mostly of the Rush Limbaugh persuasion.

RT otoh has a global audience which consists of the exact opposite of the Faux audience, RT has that liberal bias' we used to talk about and is HATED by the Reich Wing for obvious reasons.

Very interesting to see the reaction to a news org that has a 'liberal bias' on a Democratic forum though.

[arely staircase]

65. they are both tools of their respective nationalist masters nt

[sabrina 1]

67. Really, could you be more specific? I personally like to see Liberal Voices given a platform

to promote Liberal Values. I get that on RT. I'm confused, do you object to people like Amy
Goodman eg, having access to widely viewed medium? And if so, why?

[arely staircase]

78. they have no interest in promoting liberal values in Russia

When Soviet totalitatians criticized segregation in America they were being self serving, not liberal. So when the relatvely less vile authoritarians tell RT to give shows to critics of American militarism it is not because thet are liberal it is because are being self serving.

[sabrina 1]

11. Since several other sources seem to corroborate this article, can you say what they got wrong?

[arely staircase]

12. I am responding to the OP. nt

[sabrina 1]

14. Actually you just responded to me, but you didn't address my question. What did the

article get wrong?

[arely staircase]

16. I am clarifying to you that my comment regards the OP

not any other work of journalism not referenced in the OP.

[sabrina 1]

20. The OP is about the Ukraine and what is going on there. You did not comment

on the content of the OP, you commented on one of the links implying that the OP was wrong. I asked you to explain why, you have chosen not to, which is fine. RT is reporting on a story that news sources around the world are reporting on and seems to have done a fairly accurate job. I think DUers are smart enough to determine fact from fiction.

[arely staircase]

50. you do realize RT isn't allowed as a source in LBN, right?

why do you think that is?

[sabrina 1]

62. You do realize that the totally discredited Corporate Media, otherwise known as the MSM

IS 'allowed' in LBN, the reason why I do not frequent LBN anymore.

I trashed that forum as I don't subscribe to our propaganda machine.

[arely staircase]

66. so why do you think skinner allows say, CNN or the NYT but not RT?

Really. What do you reckon is his reason?

[sabrina 1]

69. I cannot answer that but I do know that many Progressives are no longer here on DU

due mainly to the fact that the MSM is STILL considered to be 'credible sources'.

What do YOU think of the Corporate Media? I'm assuming you think for yourself and are not unduly influenced by other people's opinions.

I have found RT to be among the best International News sources. I am also thrilled to be able to finally see people like Amy Goodman, Thom Hartmann, Greg Palast among other Liberal Voices on RT while apparently banned from the MSM.

So are you saying that you trust the MSM simply because a blog allows them as 'reliable sources'? I'm not following you at all ... I generally make up my own about issues, sources etc and am NEVER influenced by anyone else. I am a Liberal Democrat and so far, RT presents me with the opportunity to hear Liberal Democratic Viewpoints which I know I will NEVER see on the Corporate Media. Do you make your decisions based on what a blog tells you or on your own experiences?

[arely staircase]

75. wow. just wow.

Do I trust Harper's, the New Yorker, Vanity Fair, over Putin's propaganda organ? That would be a resounding yes. Despite their flaws throw in the NYT, CNN, NBC, CBS (yes even with the recent 60 minutes fiasco), ABC,. Yes I would trust any of those over a pile of steaming propaganda that suggests western democracies should somehow be embarrased because there are skinheads in Ukraine.

That is an easy one.

[Adrahil]

113. Throw off your chains, Comrade!!!!

[G_j]

56. why?

because you have no interest in discussing the actual story?

[arely staircase]

57. there are no other links posted in this whole thread other than one in Dutch

holy jesus

[G_j]

58. # 22

has a Guardian story.

"At a peaceful rally earlier in the day many of the protesters booed the opposition, who revealed a plan to gradually organize an alternative government, parliament and elect a "people's mayor" of Kiev.

"After what our leaders said from the stage, such a large number of people will not come next time," a 26-year-old lawyer Oleksandr Honchar from Kiev told the Guardian. "We need the more active but of course peaceful actions," he added.

A politically active group of car drivers, the so-called Automaidan, rushed to picket the parliament building until politicians rescinded the new laws.

The Automaidan said they had nothing to do with the radicals who fought the police. "I condemn the violence which has happened now. It wasn't our plan," said Arseniy Yatseniuk, leader of the opposition Batkivshchyna party, speaking from Kiev's main Independence Square.

Hundreds of metres from the clashes dozens of men in helmets formed a line in order to defend the camp on Independence Square, which they feared could be stormed by the police.

"What are they doing?! They are storming the empty parliament, which makes no sense," one of them, Taras, told the Guardian. "Our rally doesn't need this.""

[arely staircase]

63. good that was a very good article completely free of the propaganda in the OP

the rise of neo fascists in Europe is a subject I have always been interested in. RT however is a propaganda organ of the Russian government.

[arely staircase]

76. the rise of the far right in europe is very interesting

Suggestions that western democracies should somehow be embarrased by the existance of skinheads in Kiev is fucking not worthy of discussion.

[BelgianMadCow]

13. Here's a link from belgian MSM

which I mentioned in my OP. http://www.demorgen.be/dm/nl/990/Buitenland/article/detail/1777789/2014/01/20/Demonstranten-in-Kiev-zijn-geen-vriendelijke-jongens-maar-mannen-met-SS-helmen.dhtml

[arely staircase]

15. thanks this is helpful

because I totally read the fuck out of Dutch.

[BelgianMadCow]

17. sorry about that

that's the angle I saw it from, earlier, which made me post the RT link. I don't see it at the Guardian at the moment.

[muriel_volestrangler]

82. While that says there are protesters with SS helmets, it also says Tiahnybok was booed

along with anyone else who stood up to address the crowd. I think that shows the RT commentator's line - "these so-called peaceful protesters have been for months putting up with nasty slogans that these ultranationalists from Western Ukraine brought to Kiev", "Vitaly Klichko is ready to use them. He doesn’t condemn them" is not what that Belgian report says. If you just read RT, it sounds like the neonazis are fully integrated into the protesters.

[joshcryer]

148. The Nazi protesters are agents provocateurs.

[BelgianMadCow]

158. ^this^

possibility is the only thing I wanted to point out with my OP. Which kind of worked out differently, but that has been instructive as well.

[joshcryer]

161. Did you see the video of the van full of "protesters" being loaded up?

In front of the police station?

If Russia wants to slander the protesters as neo-Nazi's it makes sense to throw agents in there to push that narrative.

[BelgianMadCow]

163. I didn't see that

but I'm not surprised. We have seen provocateurs in many protests now. I think if nothing else, this thread has highlighted the different factions and angles in the Ukraine protest.

[frwrfpos]

4. thank you for the good article

Recommend this

[dipsydoodle]

6. Might be an idea for you to crosspost your Guardian article from earlier

to help prevent "shooting the messenger"

[BelgianMadCow]

29. Barn. Horse. Door.

Bolted From. Plus I didn't see the "radical right" angle in the Guardian's pieces. I have seen it in the German media earlier.

[dipsydoodle]

31. I meant the reference to provocateurs.

I've posted it now : see reply #25.

[SidDithers]

19. RT. LOL...nt

Sid

[BelgianMadCow]

21. Belgian MSM daily. ROFL

which you forgot

Not my problem if someone can't read dutch. See the SS-helmen (helmets) in the link? Article not needed.

[SidDithers]

26. Does the Belgian story claim that Ukrainian neo-nazis are an embarrassment to the West?...

Or is it simply reporting on the actions of the Ukrainian neo-nazis?

RT is taking an editorial position that your Dutch MSM isn't taking.

Apples and oranges.

Sid

[BelgianMadCow]

32. MSM is saying "protesters aren't friendly, but neonazis"

so the angle is the same; the degree isn't, indeed.

[SidDithers]

37. ROFL. No...

RT is using neo-nazis in Ukraine as way to disparage "the West", of which Belgium is a part.

The RT story is only partially about Ukraine. It's really another avenue for RT to take a potshot at "the West" for Syria.

It's typical bashing from RT.

Sid

[joshcryer]

151. Not just the west, but anti-Russian trade deal protesters.

Russia desperately needs the protesters to be silenced because they are a risk of ruining Russia's trade deals.

So slandering them as Nazi is one way to go about it. Load up a van full of fake protesters, it works wonders.

[frwrfpos]

23. rt is a much more acclaimed and reputable news source

Than american media propaganda..its too bad this country has very little in the way of real news. Ameri an media is almost exvlusively right wing propaganda

[SidDithers]

27. Welcome to DU...

you're going to fit right in.



Sid

[frwrfpos]

34. thank you for the welcome

[arely staircase]

52. that was funny nt

[dipsydoodle]

28. There is a background to antipathy toward RT here

which has got sweet fuck all to do with the Ukraine. I won't bore you with details.

[frwrfpos]

35. i find rt to be very informative

A lot more truthful that foxnews or any of the other alphabet channels. Im curious why U.S. news propaganda is supposed to be believed over any other news source

[Pretzel_Warrior]

40. U.S. journalists aren't typically being hustled off to jail or shot dead in their own apartment

buildings like outspoken critics of Putin were. To even remotely compare the environment for journalists here in the U.S. vs. in Russia is ludicrous.

[frwrfpos]

42. why would journalists here be shot or hauled off to jail

The vast majority of jounalists work for right wing media companies and gladly spew the right wing propaganda they are told to. Like i said our media is bought and paid for..no need to shoot the people who gladly spew what they are paid to do

[Pretzel_Warrior]

43. not all are. Many independent media figures are a real channel for truth. they aren't being killed

either.

[Jesus Malverde]

173. Who..thanks..nt

[Adrahil]

120. And RT is quite openly bought and paid for by Putin's government...

... And you don't have a problem with that? Cognitive dissonance much?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

39. you mean other than the fact that it is Russian propaganda? Let's quote some People's Daily too

while we're at it!

[joshcryer]

128. DUers rightly reconize RT as a propaganda outlet.

[MattSh]

150. Well, aren't all news sources propaganda?

RT just gives you a different source of propaganda than the 24-7 American propaganda sources.

Some find that refreshing, and yes, more accurate too.

[joshcryer]

152. The news wire is least propagandistic.

But RT goes really far out of its way to slander the Ukrainian protesters as having a significant Nazi element.

[BelgianMadCow]

159. I've seen the rightwing / neonazi angle in german press since close to the start

so it's not just RT.

[joshcryer]

160. I'm not saying it doesn't exist.

I'm saying it's overblown.

[Ken Burch]

224. The difference between Nazi and right-wing nationalist is trivial at best.

Both are driven by hatred and bigotry. Both are against anything positive in their countries or in life. Both are incapable of ever developing humane or democratic values.

The "Pro-Western" faction act like Stalin is still in power in Moscow.

I don't like Putin, but he's just like most of the dictators the U.S. backs. And "totalitarianism" was always a meaningless and right-wing concept. There are just dictators...and all dictators are basically the same.

Embracing the whole "totalitarianism" meme meant shutting off critical thinking and accepting that, on U.S. foreign policy, dissent was no longer acceptable. It meant abandoning the fight for any real alternative to the status quo and accepting that the Western capitalist status quo was "the best of all possible worlds". Those on the Left that embraced it reduced themselves to the level of the Dissent magazine crowd...a group that long ago gave up on making life different in an meaningful way at all.

The point isn't to say that Russia is ok...it's a dreadful place...just that there's no reason to obsess on Russia again as we used to obsess on the USSR. Just treat it as one bad country among a whole bunch of other bad countries. That's more than enough attention to give to it.

Otherwise, we're back in the Fifties for the rest of eternity. Who wants life to stop like that again?

[joshcryer]

227. so we shouldn't criticize bad practices?

"Just treat it as one bad country among a whole bunch of other bad countries. That's more than enough attention to give to it."

[Ken Burch]

229. Criticize them, yes. But not EVER in Cold War language.

Bad practices are bad practices. It doesn't matter which nation carries them out. They all need to be criticized equally when they carry them out.

And really, there's an obvious solution. Split Ukraine into western and eastern sides. All Eastern Ukrainians are right-wing pro-Putinists...all Western ones are right-wing "pro-Westerners". Splitting the place would solve the problem.

It's impossible to keep Ukraine together as a unified nation with the permanent split on which part of the world each wants to ally with.

[joshcryer]

232. You can't split Ukraine.

The urban areas that are pro-Russia are surrounded by rural areas that are anti-Russia. Nevermind that the pro-Russians are only about 20% of the population.

The easiest solution is a trilateral agreement between Russia-EU-Ukraine. Such a situation is unlikely because the US is pressuring the EU to not take it, Russia has too much to lose, and Ukraine is effectively split on the issue (58/42; and to be sure, the 42 for it are for the cheaper gas than they are pro-Russia).

Other than that Russia is the one who has been giving Ukraine the shaft all these years over gas imports, in fact Russia has frozen Ukrainians out over it in the past.

[Ken Burch]

238. Yet the "pro-Russian" party won the last election, IIRC.

The "anti-Russians" don't seem to even care about actually trying to win over the cities...perhaps they think they can just be subdued somehow.

How can you back the "anti-Russians" when you know that basically the whole thing is about the maintenance of the corporate austerity agenda imported from the West? What difference does it make which empire Ukraine is aligned with. All empires are the same. Europe was no better for the British and French empires defeating the Germans and Austro-Hungarians, after all. and there was no real difference between the Tsar and the Kaiser(their titles were essentially the same word..."Caesar"...translated into either German or Russian.

If the "pro-Western" types win this, it just means that everything gets frozen in place there forever. It's just one status quo defeating another status quo. No liberation happens(just as none happened when the "Orange Revolution" occurred).

[joshcryer]

239. I only back people against totalitarianism.

If you think modern EU is worse than modern Russia you have to be kidding me. There's no debate. It's also amusing how you are literally arguing that Ukrainians are mostly ultra-nationalist but that they voted pro-Russia. That's absurd.

Viktor Yanukovych even ran on a fucking platform that was pro-EU!

The tanks are coming Ken Burch:

It will not be pretty.

[Ken Burch]

242. The tanks aren't coming.

And if they were, there'd be no way to stop them without fighting viciously enough that we'd lose our humanity forever.

War is always the worst outcome. There's no hope once war starts and no future. And nothing good ever comes from the kind of rhetoric that pushes for war.

The protesters and their party are out of power because they had nothing to offer the voters. Supporting them encourages them not ever to change on that.

You're starting to sound like Christopher Hitchens in 2002.

[joshcryer]

245. Yes they are, watch the video.

They're loading them up to take to Kiev. Here's a translation: http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/1vwlon/video_of_tanks_coming_to_kiev_soldiers_saying/cewl9ks

And you know, your revisionism on Ukrainian politics is cute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_parliamentary_election,_2012

The pro-EU anti-corruption reformers gained 40%.

It's no wonder that Russia is fighting back so hard. By 2015 there will be no Russian ties left.

[Ken Burch]

248. You're being paranoid and you're baying for war.

Besides which, it's not as though Putin would fall if the "protesters" won. It wouldn't affect him at all.

Some of us don't want a nuclear confrontation with Moscow. You, apparently, think its no big deal.

Just admit you've become a neoconservative and be done with it.

You can't be ranting about Putin like this, demanding war, and STILL care about workers and the poor, or the environmental crisis we're in. The Cold Warriors all ended up abandoning every progressive view they'd ever held by the Eighties.

[joshcryer]

249. No I'm not.

You're being dismissive that tanks are being fucking loaded up for Kiev. When they show up there don't fucking say I was the one rooting for it. Be ashamed that you thought it was no big deal.

Calling me a neoconservative because I'm tired of totalitarians and their supporters.

[Ken Burch]

252. if they were coming, a trade deal with the Ukraine couldn't stop them

they'd show up and do their worst anyway. And then, the West would intervene militarily on the side of the Western corporations(nothing the West did there would be for the good of the workers, the Jews or the Roma...armies never fight for anyone but the rich anymore. They aren't allowed to).

It's right-wing to protest FOR an EU trade deal anyway. Who'd do that other than a lackey of the rich?

And if Svoboda is in the protests, that means Svoboda would get a share of power in any post-protest government. Doesn't THAT bother you? Remember, when parties like Svoboda get in, they NEVER fall.

[joshcryer]

254. I doubt the west would intervene.

They need to de-legitimize Russia once and for all. The west would prefer Kiev be razed.

It's not right wing to be for an alliance with the more left wing country. Why you think it is is preposterous Orwellian nonsense. You already argued that only the right wing would be against Russia (which is a decidedly right wing ultra nationalist country that is getting worse every year; the majority of Russians already want a scorched earth policy for terrorists).

It's going to probably be a Sarajevo type hold out for months if the protesters can hang on.

[Ken Burch]

257. The Ukraine isn't to the left of Russia.

There isn't even a minority left in Ukraine.

If there is a gay community in Ukraine, its in hiding and none of us can help it.

And the presence of Svoboda in the protests means that no one can be a progressive and take part in them.

Its governing party is pretty much the same as Putin's on the major issues(and we both know that the EU wouldn't do a damn thing if Ukrainian gays were repressed by a "pro-Western" government there...since it has never intervened for gays in any right-wing European country anywhere).

Ukraine and Russia both have horrible politics. I want both to have different governments. But no one in the West can play a meaningful part in that...and no trade deal can ever produce human liberation. Anything that increases corporate profits is going to play a purely ultraconservative role in all aspects of life. There is no such thing as "progressive capitalism" in the EU.

The only moral position is to stay out of it, since its dishonorable to ally with either side in a fight between equally reactionary and bigoted nations.

It's a fight of oligarch against oligarch, capitalist against capitalist, bigot against bigot, hater against hater. No one in those protests is there with the dream of a better world in her or his heart. You can't want a beautiful world in the future and be part of an ugly fight in the present.

[joshcryer]

260. But it could BECOME left with EU influence.

It won't happen for a long time if Russia gets its way. Eventually Ukraine demographics will move toward EU integration, the elections prove that.

Sooner rather than later, that's all this is about at this point.

Hell one might even make a diabolical argument that if Kiev gets razed it happens even sooner... but I am not so sinister and I weep for the people fighting against their own states totalitarianism.

Did you know that the majority of the protesters are protesting against the totalitarian law?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/rbth/society/10522793/divided-ukraine-russia-eu.html

Yevhan Magda, a political analyst in Kiev, argued that many of the anti-government protesters “speak not for European integration, but against violations of their civil rights by the authorities and security forces.”

An opinion poll on December 2 by the Gorshenin Institute found a similar picture. Some 56pc of those surveyed were at Maidan to demand the resignation of the president and the government. Only 28pc were there specifically to support the Association Agreement with the EU.

[Ken Burch]

265. Nobody's going to raise Kiev...you're being hysterical.

What exactly do you want anyone outside to do?

It's out of our hands.

And, if being in the EU hasn't moved any OTHER EU country to the left...why the hell would it happen in Ukraine?

The only parties that have grown in the EU are parties of the extreme right. If it was like that there, we can assume it would be like that in Ukraine...therefore, we can assume that only Svoboda would benefit.

None of the EU's leaders want a Ukraine with humane or progressive values...and they would call the tune there just as rigidly as Putin does.

Controlling a country's economic system is just as much imperialism as having your troops there. And Europe in the 19th Century used even more harsh tactics than Putin uses at home to crush the workers and democrats there. The "liberal" face of the EU is a myth.

[joshcryer]

269. I didn't say it would be.

Please stop putting words in my mouth.

I already said I didn't say anything should be done, just recognize what is happening. You seem to be putting your head in the sand and skirting around the issue.

Also, the EU has absolutely been trending left: http://www.clarita.it/2009/05/21/la-tua-posizione-in-europa-prova-eu-profiler/

So not only do you make up completely unsubstantiated BS, you actually believe I am going to buy it without batting an eye. Hint, I fact check whenever people make some BS claim. I started doing that with creationists and climate change deniers. They use the same arguments. Make shit up, hope no one looks at the data.

[Ken Burch]

273. The EU's been trending left? How do you figure? that link doesn't really show anything.

The Christian Democrats nearly got a majority in Germany. The far right has gained in all countries. The social democrats are bleeding votes everywhere.

Labour in Britain is just barely ahead of the Tories(and only because a further right party, the UKIP, has split the right-wing vote).

It's possible that the effectively right-wing(pro-austerity equals right-wing)Fine Gael/"Labour" coalition will be re-elected in Ireland.

The Socialists in Spain have abandoned anything even vaguely socialist, and are STILL doing badly in the polls.

Small socialist parties to the social democrats' left are just barely holding their ground. Greens are generally getting hozed.

It's not even a sure thing that the social democrats will win the next Swedish election...and Sweden's one place where it SHOULD be.

The most popular political leaders in Europe now are the anti-immigrant, ethnic-nationalist, verging-on-fascist whackjobs like the Pym Fortuyn List in Holland and the anti-Walloon bigot Bert De Wever in Belgium.

Other than France, where has the left done well at all in the last few years in Europe?

There's a lot of activism in the streets for Left causes there, but it isn't influencing the timid European "center-left" at all.

And, really, isn't it a big Kiplingesque to be pinning your hopes for Ukraine on "the civilizing mission" of Europe?

As Seinfeld would say:

REALLY?...REALLY?

[joshcryer]

274. Every state you listed is high GDP.

Of course the petulant people in wealthy states are going to go right wing after a time, they always do, it's always a back and forth. I linked a page showing the political alignment of votes in the EU. Look at how many are on the left vs the right.

You should provide data to make your case as opposed to just spouting silliness.

[Ken Burch]

280. All that link showed was the placement of various parties on the four-way political spectrum

It didn't show levels of electoral support, so it doesn't actually support your argument that the Left is growing in the EU at all.

[Ken Burch]

259. "de-legitimize Russia once and for all"? Not just Putin, but "Russia"?

Are you saying its illegitimate for Russia to exist in ANY form? Under ANY government...even a progressive democracy of some sort?...how the hell would you even DO that?

And how could you do that without war? Without some kind of massive nuclear exchange that would vaporize all of us?

And who is the United States and "the West" to do that anyway?

Our economic model, according to Amartya Sen, has killed 100 million people.

If capitalism has done that, and capitalism is identified(as our leaders insist on identifying it)with "the superior West&quot what right does "the West" have to delegitimize anyone?

How could "the West" do such a thing without setting up, not only an economic empire in the Slavic world(as we've done in much of it, btw)but a political one as well? And how could we administer such an empire without, God help us, using the same tactics that Stalin and the tsars used to preserve it?

And how, might I ask, can that lead to anything BETTER than the status quo in Russia and the Ukraine? neither place is Disneyland(other than in the police state aspect of life there), but your rhetoric on this is a recipe for creating the greatest reign of misery the world has ever known.

The United States has got to learn how to STOP de-legitimizing, destabilizing, overthrowing and subjugating other countries. If its wrong when Russia does it, its just as wrong when we do. And just as likely to lead to a nightmare of unintended consequences.

We can't just make Russia not exist as a country, for God's sakes.

[joshcryer]

262. Russia is run by oligarchs.

Putin is their patsy.

You are just trying to score pointless internet points at this point, it's no longer worth engaging you if you go so far out of your way to suggest I think Russia should be destroyed.

[Ken Burch]

266. You said Russia should be "de-legitimized".

You didn't say "Putin"...you said "Russia".

There's no non-bloodthirsty way to do that.

And there's no way to fight Russia's "oligarchs" without becoming a right-wing extremist. You can't use force against them and still be a humane person, because you'll never kill the, only innocent bystanders on the street.

It's impossible to start a revolution in Russia from "The West". And nothing the EU does can ever be revolutionary.

They way they treated Eastern Europe after 1989 proves that.

[joshcryer]

270. Um, that is just economic and social de-ligitimzation.

Not some scorched earth policy. Really, you're just being insulting to my intelligence at this point.

The Revolutions of 1989 were violent because Russia wouldn't let go. But we do see scenarios such as the Velvet Revolution where Russia was unable to actually cause violent conflict, though it tried its damnedest.

[Ken Burch]

276. Gorbachev never tried to sabotage the Velvet Revolution.

In face, he essentially enabled the anti-Stalinist revolts in the Warsaw Pact by making it clear that he wouldn't send the Red Army in to save the old dinosaur regimes. For this, he got no thanks at all from the West, even though the man was under heavy pressure from his opponents in the Kremlin to soak the streets of Prague, Warsaw, Budapest and East Berlin with blood.

Later, Gorbachev invited Alexander Dubcek to Moscow, where he praised his courage and had him received as a hero.

Russia DID let go in 1989, and did so voluntarily. Gorbachev was almost overthrown for this in 1991(the Western press gave total undeserved credit to that old drunk Boris Yeltsin for doing meaningless photo opportunities on his little tank, while Gorbachev was the real hero, refusing to hand over power to the Stalinist diehards even when they threatened to murder his entire family, and taking this stand while being held captive by said Stalinists).

Yeltsin, even though he had nothing to offer, ended up being put in power as president, where he did nothing of value, spent almost all of his time drunk, and simply handed over the state's assets, assets that rightfully belonged to all the a to Western moneygrubbers and their allies...and it was that fire-sale privatization that created the "oligarchs" you keep going on about. Then, realizing that he'd been played and his country shamed, Yeltsin hand-picked Putin as his successors. It wasn't the oligarchs that put Putin in power...it was overweening Western arrogance and massive Western greed.

You are simply locked into the notion that NO Russian leader can ever be legitimate or positive...even Gorbachev, who did everything he could to end Stalinism, did all the West demanded, and got nothing but grief for his troubles.

[joshcryer]

277. Why all the violence in the other countries?

[Ken Burch]

279. The regimes had larger armies

And they had already broken with Gorbachev, or weren't aligned with him in the first place(he can't be blamed for what went down in Romania, for example).

[joshcryer]

282. Sure. Just underscores a cultural dominance.

Far be it for people have self-determination. Had the anti-protest law not been passed in Ukraine they'd still be protesting without any violence, but, far be it for that to happen.

Here's where you remind me Canada and France passed similar anti-protesting laws, and how the UK passed said laws in the past. I don't have to agree with them either. People in the west are fat and happy and subdued so they just let totalitarian laws pass. That's why I expect if such laws were passed here we'd sit idly by and do nothing.

[Ken Burch]

284. OK...I'm against anti-protest laws. But that isn't what this whole thing is about.

If tanks were on the way to Kiev, the lack of an anti-protest law wouldn't stop them.

Putin would send the tanks anyway.

There wasn't an anti-protest law in Prague in 1968, and the tanks showed up anyway.

[joshcryer]

285. The violence is 100% because of the law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Hrushevskoho_Street_riots

The dynamics of the protest changed as soon as the law went up.

Or are you not paying attention?

The fat and happy EuroMajdan politicians sat around and finally the youth decided enough was enough.

[Ken Burch]

290. The youth, though, aren't fighting for democracy.

they're simply right-wing Ukrainian nationalists. And there's no moral difference between Ukrainian nationalism and Russian nationalism. Ask any surviving Ukrainian Jews...most of whose relatives were killed with the assistance of the Ukrainian nationalists who allied themselves with Hitler.

It's naïve to think that it matters which nationalism wins.

So...down with the anti-protest law...but don't pretend that more protests would bring anything better.

[joshcryer]

292. They're against a totalitarian law.

I don't care what they believe, they are right when they correctly fight against such totalitarianism.

It will lead to the radicalization of their ideology, because they will see what this sort of nationalism begets. A state that thinks it can get away with ultra totalitarianism under the auspices of "nationalism."

So, "down with the anti-protest law..." "but don't protest it."

[Ken Burch]

293. I didn't say "don't protest it"...I just said keep great power politics/Cold War rhetoric out of it.

And don't get into insane things like trying to overthrow Putin. No Westerner has the moral authority to advocate that. It would cause too much bloodshed to try to get him taken out in a coup. Millions might die.

[joshcryer]

294. "don't pretend protests would bring anything better"

Your words.

I don't give one shit about Putin. I would insult him in ways that would offend some here, but I will choose not to, because he's so irrelevant to global politics it's not even worth my time, on an internet forum.

Yes, if they protest, if they're right wing, if they're nationalist, they will have the self-determination going forward to be against the nationalist totalitarian policies the state represents. There's no coming back from that.

I was at Seattle '99. I protested. I got hit by rubber bullets. We got hit by gas. It was unpleasant. From that point forward I had no regard for the police, full stop. It changes you. I didn't consider myself an anarchist until then. Yeah, sure, I voted for Gore, Obama, whatever, lesser of evils, but I've concluded that the police state is unsustainable and not something I should ever support.

[Ken Burch]

295. I didn't SAY support a police state.

I was talking about not being naïve.

And about not sounding like the Cold War.

The Cold War was pretty much the worst era in modern human history. All the "anticommunists" did everything they could to stop any real positive change in this country at all. And they kept us in Vietnam for years even though they knew it was a dead loss from the start.

[joshcryer]

296. Nah, just turn a blind eye to the police state.

Really, that's your position. You're more concerned about defending Russia's involvement than you are criticizing Ukraine's new totalitarian laws. You keep trying to make this about Cold War paranoia, when in reality we haven't seen this level of totalitarianism in recent years. And then, it has only happened in states that have been subdued western states that just accept it as a way of life, and they're too cowardly or apathetic to fight back (UK, France, Canada).

The fact is that the totalitarian laws wouldn't have (illegally) passed were it not for Russia. And it would have never escalated to the level it has now.

Hey, it might warm your heart (actually, it might disappoint you), that the protesters have now regained the square and pushed back the brutal Ukrainian police state. Firewalls. They work. The police are now at their original position. No gains. A few dozen protesters arrested. But no gains. Good luck supporting the totalitarian Ukrainian Russia supported police state.

[Ken Burch]

297. I don't support the state.

I don't have to support a bunch of right-wing Ukrainian nationalists(once you become a right-wing nationalist, you can never change) to prove that.

They have the right to protest.

I have the right to reject the idea that Putin is anything but a small-time, irrelevant dictator, and to oppose anything that could ever lead to a bigger war budget.

[joshcryer]

298. "you can never change" BULLSHIT

Bullfucking shit. You have no credibility now.

Protest is the single most effective thing to change a racist, a right winger, a nationalist, against the totalitarianism concepts those ideologies espouse. Nothing else is more powerful to change the minds of those people. Nothing. They have to realize, from the start, that their authoritarian ideology is unproductive and hurts themselves as well as those they're around until they experience it first hand. Once that happens, then you are idiotic to think that they would continue supporting it.

I've come to the conclusion that you have not once fucking participated in mass protest where the state has been violent toward you. It changes you immeasurably. I don't fucking care what your background is.

[Ken Burch]

300. OK, i haven't. I never said I had,

I get it that it changed you and I respect that.

I just don't want World War III. If the U.S. and Russia ended up in a direct military conflict(and we can assume that an attempt by either to "de-legitimize" the other, we'd all be vaporized and nothing positive could ever happen after it.

It goes without saying that such a conflict could never lead to victory for the best values of anarchism.

My concern is in NOT having a war that would forever destroy all human hope. In peace, hope exists. During war, nothing exists but the effort to not get killed. Ideals no longer exist once war has started. Dreams vanish. Life simply becomes respiration. Joy, laughter, music, are simply not heard.

[joshcryer]

287. Would USAians take a city to protest such a law?

Doubt it.

[Ken Burch]

289. If Occupy had reached the level of mass strength where it could have toppled the U.S. regime

You can assume the streets would be soaked with their blood by the authorities.

I'm against the anti-protest law-that wasn't the point I was making.

It's just that I reject the idea that it matters who "wins" between the pro-EU people and the pro-Russia people.

I'm FOR those who want real, genuine democracy...but THAT wasn't what the EU treaty was ever about. The fact that the guy who is now suppressing the protesters came close to signing it shows that the issue involved wasn't democracy, but bringing in Western corporations. And Western capitalists and Putin's "oligarchs" are the same. That's my point. OK?

[joshcryer]

291. Occupy would have were it not for liberal internal divisions.

Occupy was post-left. Sadly liberals (classical liberals) had to fragment it (lest we forget the moral panic over the isolated incidents of flag burning).

[Are_grits_groceries]

47. Really?

This meme of neo-Nazis is a huge oversimplification of the protests and an attempt to paint the entire movement in a bad light. It is much more complicated.

I have read some RT stories on other subjects that have seemed more balanced. This story is a propaganda hit piece to discredit the very real issues that several groups of protesters want addressed. They are not advocating violence.

[frwrfpos]

70. yes really

its neo-nazis(the real ones) and other assorted violent right wing groups that have a violent bent to push their agenda. Its classic violent right wing extremists, the difference being the Ukranian doesnt put up with that shit and neither should Russia.

There are plenty that still see commie ghosts in their closets and are afraid of being exposed as the right wing stooges that they are

[Adrahil]

122. Wow... You've really swallowed all of the Kremlin's BS. NT

[sabrina 1]

64. Absolutely, welcome to DU btw.

The MSM, the US Corporate Media has so discredited itself around the world that it is no wonder their ratings are so low. RT otoh, has that liberal bias we used to long for, so it's always interesting and instructive to see WHO opposed the Liberal Bias and who doesn't.

[frwrfpos]

72. thank you for the welcome

[laundry_queen]

179. I find it informative as well

I get there are those who think that liberal media should be nothing but truthful and facts and all that, but sadly, that doesn't get viewers nor does it provide a valid counter to the Fox-crazy. To counter the right wing US media there needs to be an equivalent to Fox. I've said it before and I'll say it again - the way to drag American to the left isn't to talk about issues and solutions on the center-left...it's to talk about issues and solutions on the FAR FAR left. Then center left becomes your compromise. Why does the right wing always seem to win? They propose ridiculous psycho right wing views and stances, which is parroted by Fox, and then Dems 'settle' somewhere on the less-crazy side of the right. The left in the US is going about this all wrong. When I see 'we don't accept RT's stance' I see, "we don't want the FAR left to get their message out because the right might attack it!" So? Then it shifts the narrative. Then they are talking about OUR issues, instead of theirs. It makes me think some on the left would rather lose fighting by the rules. That is why the right always wins - they care about winning, not about the rules.

BTW, I never really understood how pervasive American exceptionlism was until I came to DU. It's odd to see Americans rage against a media outlet 'controlled' by a country (supposedly) but completely accept the bias from corporate controlled media in the US, as if it was somehow more benevolent because, well, it's American propaganda. The CBC here in Canada is funded by the gov't but I don't think anyone here would call them an 'arm' of gov't propaganda and when I post CBC links I don't hear, "OMG, that's a HARPER RUN propaganda channel!" So why the same with RT? Some people seem to accept only those opposing views that are approved by 'murika. God forbid we look at other sources around the world, from possibly unfriendly countries. Might challenge our thinking too much. It wasn't too long ago Al Jazeera was viewed as pure propaganda. Some still say it is. I get all of those channels - Fox, CNN, CBC, RT, Al Jazeera etc. Out of all of them, only Fox is really horrible with regards to making up facts. Some DUers need to get out of their bubble more.

[sabrina 1]

185. I know, I love these discussions actually because they highlight the problems we have in this

country which we used to think were only on the right. CBC and the BCC and several of our 'independent' media are funded by governments.

Why RT? Because they report news that is often inconvenient for some who mostly btw, have never watched it.

If RT had been around here during the Bush years, DU would linking to it every day.

That is why I love these discussions because I learn so much about my own misconceptions about the left and the right in this country.

And the Corporate Media is not funded by those who control this government? Interesting no?

DUers in general are not conned by any of it. So don't let the few who rail against anything that isn't part of the approved 'message' lead you to believe that they speak for most DUers. They don't. Most DUers just don't bother wasing their time.

[Tarheel_Dem]

89. "Acclaimed and reputable news source". Where? In the Ecuadoran Embassy in London?

[frwrfpos]

90. as opposed to foxnews and cnn and abc and the nyt?

do you support right wing propaganda fake news here is the US?
American journalism is largely controlled by the 1%. Do you support the 1%? Do you support the news delivered by the likes of foxnews and cnn?

[Tarheel_Dem]

108. I respect Fox News as much as I respect RT. Neither of which is "news".

But you keep peddling, maybe someone will buy it.

[uppityperson]

93. No, it is not. Read this for more info...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RT

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian 24/7 English-language news channel that launched in December 2005. The network aims to present the world with a Russian point of view to "to become Russia's version of the BBC."[1] The results come across more like a state-sponsored Fox News, prone to coverage slanted against "the West" (and the US in particular) and giving way too much air to conspiracy theories and other fringe beliefs.
(clip)
Political bias

Russian sociologist and political commentator Boris Kagarlitsky described RT as a "continuation of the old Soviet propaganda services."[4] The channel is also accused of having close ties with the Russian state authorities[7][8] and of helping the Kremlin to project an overly positive image of Russia by refraining from criticizing the government, particularly Vladimir Putin.[8]
Other criticism includes claims that RT is deliberately and incessantly engaging in US/NATO/EU-bashing through "interviews" in which only Russian ultra-nationalists or highly critical, anti-Western "experts" are interviewed -- without any probing questions or challenges by the RT reporters, and without even bothering to hear opposing points of view.[4] The following RT's "news" titles may provide some examples of this:
Chossudovsky: US will start WW3 by attacking Iran
Jacques Fresco: US has never been a democracy

[stonecutter357]

301. .

[RainDog]

30. k&r to find

[Are_grits_groceries]

33. Hogwash! It is not just a neo-Nazi protest.

Putin and the Ukrainian President want people to believe it is strictly a neo-Nazi protest. They believe that getting this meme out will reduce any criticism as they crack down.

There are several groups involved in the protests. One is led by Vitali Klitschko who was the WBC Heavyweight boxing champion. He is a charismatic leader of the pro-European group and out on the front lines. He is part of the party of Tymenshenko who has been imprisoned for a while now.

There are also right wing thugs who are part of the nationalists Tyahnyboks party. They were the ones attacking the police and trying to provoke a severe response. Klitschko was physically trying to restrain some of them from beating on the police.

It's a very complicated situation. One group wants the Ukraine to align itself with the European Union. However, the old guard wants to stay aligned with Russia. The RW thugs just want to beat the shite out of everybody and incite violence and chaos.

The Ukraine has strong ties to Russia and depends on them for a lot of aid. Russia also holds a lot of their debt.

Other countries better find out what the hell is really going on before jumping in with statements and condemnations.

[BelgianMadCow]

36. No it isn't, but it's rather important to know who is inciting violence,

don't you agree?

Also, please try to make the analogue of the US under-secretary of state handing out food at the protest front lines of a group that wants to overthrow government.

[Are_grits_groceries]

44. Yes it is important to understand who is inciting the violence.

All you read in a lot of the MSM lumps all protesters together.

I have followed this for weeks. The demonstrations were peaceful for the most part and the police were restrained. However, these latest clashes have a far more sinister feel. After the government passed strict laws about protesting, it has taken an ominous turn.

The government has been bussing in police from cities further out who are not so aligned with a pro-European group. At the same time, the RW nationalist neo-Nazis have gone on the attack against the police. However, a large group of people do not want the violence and have been trying to prevent it in a piecemeal fashion. The neo-Nazis just want chaos to try to further their cause.

The violence gets all the headlines with no discernment between the groups who are operating under entirely different philosophies. It is a mistake to denounce it as neo-Nazi when it's much more complicated.

[BelgianMadCow]

45. thank you

for the addition & your considered reply.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

51. good post

[joshcryer]

126. Good post.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

38. YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS!!! THe Neo-Nazis have been trying to shut down actual protesters

and take over student protests around Ukraine to advance their own fascist right wing cause and party affiliations.

You would do well to study the matter more before falsely labeling the Ukraine revolution in the way Russia would like to see.

http://revolution-news.com/neo-nazis-attack-union-members-ukrainian-activists-kyiv/

[BelgianMadCow]

41. I had better used a different source

If I had seen it elsewhere in english-speaking media. I don't discourage any protesters from occupying a city square, peacefully.

[dipsydoodle]

46. That's from early December.

Not two days ago.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

49. so what? that's how long this thing has been going on.

and it would certainly explain how neo-nazis are involved. Kind of like the vast majority of unions, students, etc. protesting free trade but it is the violent anarchists who are held up by the media to malign the whole movement. Same thing going on here. It is kind of dumbfounding so many here are taken in by it.

WHY THE LOVE AND BELIEF OF PUTIN!? that one just blows me away.

[Fumesucker]

80. What's not to love? Virile Vlad from Leningrad

Just your everyday KGB Colonel who was a bit of a self promoter.

So to speak.

[sabrina 1]

106. You know that the Ukraine did not want to succumb to pressure to join the EU, but

are being pressured to do so. At the same time that other nations, Ireland eg, are regretting their membership which they blame for the collapse of their economy.

Just why is the EU pressuring countries they have never cared about to join the EU which has so totally destroyed the economies of Spain, Portugal, France, Ireland, Greece, et al who are now no better than second or even third world economies?

Do you even know anything about what has been going on in that part of the world? Countries are trying to get OUT OF the EU and the Ukraine decided not to join, good for them. But the Capitalists won't accept any small country not subjecting their economies to Wall St control so they are throwing a temper tantrum in order to get their way.

I hope the Ukraine succeeds in keeping its economy OUT of the hands of the EU. And I hope that Ireland succeeds in withdrawing from the EU among others.

Ireland was one of the last to join the EU. Too bad they changed their minds when they held out for years. NOW they are under the IMF and the World Bank. It is a tragedy. Ireland has lost the sovereignty it fought for, for hundreds of years because it subjected its economy to the Wall St controlled EU.

[mathematic]

286. Your knowledge of the EU is abysmal. You should try non-RT sources.

I mean, "Ireland was one of the last to join the EU"??? Ireland was one of the first! They've been a member of proto-EU since the 70s and they were an initial member in the eurozone. Ireland is one of the wealthiest nations in the world. You've presented a completely fabricated history of Ireland and the EU.

And calling France, the ninth largest economy in the world, no better than "second or third world" is utterly laughable.

Also, Ukraine is not a small country. They have around 50 million people and, geographically, they're the largest country in Europe.

[ancianita]

84. What's also embarrassing is how damned muddled the info has been on this. Not citizens' fault.

I can't get a clear context for all this from the NYT, which has pissed me off.

[joshcryer]

124. Basically young educated Ukrainians want more EU integration.

And want to move away from Russia's over-powering influence.

There are small groups of Nazi's but they don't represent the protesters at all and in fact the Nazi's could even be contelpro.

This is the best place to find info about it I think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan

[ancianita]

212. Thanks! I usually go there but completely forgot over this event.

[LeftyMom]

130. Russian state media isn't exactly a reliable source on this one.

Come on, use common sense.

[Starry Messenger]

143. Geeze, I thought the Ukraine connection to Neo-Nazism was well known here

Embarrassing to see the attacking of the source here. Bandera followers are ultra-rightists. DUers might hate Communism, but pulling down a Lenin statue in a Eastern Europe is rarely a harbinger of so called liberalism.

[joshcryer]

147. Neo-Nazi's are provoking Euromaidan protesters and are no more than agents provocateurs.

They literally haven't been around until the police cracked down and then suddenly they show up?

One might be against Ukrainian integration with the EU but we should recognize it is a popular movement and that the Neo-Nazi's are a small group comparatively.

You can read this comprehensive article about the Neo-Nazi's here: http://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/anton-shekhovtsov/provoking-euromaidan

It remains true that Putin has been trying to slander the Ukranian prosters as a Neo-Nazi movement as another poster said.

[MattSh]

153. Wrong.

Svoboda is one of the main organizers of the protests. They are not people just arriving now. They've been the heart and soul of the protests from the very beginning. And yes, Svoboda has strong neo-nazi influences and history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svoboda_(political_party)

[joshcryer]

154. Svoboda doesn't represent the whole protest movement.

Nor are they the 'soul' of said protest movement.

Please provide links to prove that.

[MattSh]

155. I live here.

I've been living here for over 8 years. I can hear these protests some nights. I could walk there in 10 minutes.

So I think I know a bit about this place. I talk to people who live here. That's my links.

[joshcryer]

157. Were you for the anti-protest law?

Which was passed illegally?

[MattSh]

169. My take...

Well, luckily for me and you, I don't have time to address each and every particular point of the recently passed laws. However, I will point you to the following link and comment on a couple of the things there. Most, if not everything at that link is posted by foreigners who live in Ukraine. Read the whole thread if you have time. Exactly quite informative, though it does stray off-topic at times.

http://www.expatua.com/forum/index.php?topic=12896.0

Go to reply number three on page 1 which briefly lists a good number of the new laws recently passed. When you take a look at them as a whole, it looks horrible. However, when you start to look at them individually you will understand that at good number of these laws, maybe half of them, are very common in the USA and in Western Europe. Now, I am not of the notion that because Ukraine is not a full-fledged member of the American Empire, that they need to have laws that allow protesting to the easier. I don't believe that. If anything, the easiest place to protest should be the USA, if you believe all of their rhetoric about freedom and democracy. Ukraine at no point has ever pretended to be a paragon of freedom or democracy. At least not to the extent that the USA pretends to be.

So, go through this list. Oh, and sorry for the very imprecise translation. As of now, this is the only translation I have seen. Go to reply number three. Look at points 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15; these laws are in force just about everywhere in the USA. And if just about everywhere in the USA regulates these activities, I do not see why Ukraine shouldn't have to allow them either. They are, the last time I looked, a sovereign country. Though the EU, the USA, and Russia, seemingly prefer that that would not be the case.

A few of the others I must pass on because I’m not actually sure what they're saying. And the rest go well beyond what is officially permitted in most Western countries including the USA. But note, I said officially permitted. The ones that would be the most problematic are 16, 18, 22, 24, 26, and 27.

Now, on page 3 of this link, go to reply number 37. While I am not the person who posted number 37, in general I agree with most of what he said.

As for my feeling about the protests, go to reply number 19 on page 2 of the same thread.

[sabrina 1]

195. Thank you for your first hand impressions. The US doesn't get much actual news

about these stories but that doesn't prevent a few from offering their opinions anyhow.

Stay safe, it looks pretty bad from what we can see.

[Ken Burch]

219. Even if it isn't, there aren't any workers or leftists in the protest movement.

They're all just middle-class moneygrubbers and right-wing nationalists(as are the "pro-Russian" side, as well). No one in the "protest movement" there shares ANY values progressives here share. None want economic equality, none oppose privatization and corporate greed. We can assume most, if not all, hate Jews and Roma as well.

All the "pro-Western" forces in Ukraine want is capitalism and inequality.

No one gets "liberated" if the "pro-Western" forces win. And no positive change can happen.

Democracy is just a code for "sell everything to Wall Street cheap".

There's no way to be "pro-Western" in Ukraine without having right-wing intent, because no leader in the West WANTS anything good for Ukraine. They just want Western corporations to get to fleece the place.

That's all "free market economics" mean...theft. That's all capitalism has ever meant.

[joshcryer]

221. so we side with the totalitarians?

you think Russia gives one shit about leftist values?

at least the EU respects LGBT rights

I never said the west wants what is best, but between the EU and Russia I'd choose the EU bar none

Russia has it's own interests too and the minority leftists in Kiev are anti Russia

[Ken Burch]

222. Both sides in Ukraine are "totalitarian". Neither has any liberal or democratic values.

And it's right-wing to get into fights with Russia. You can't do that without turning into Nixon in the "kitchen debate".

It can't matter who wins between the "pro-Western" and "pro-Russian" sides in Ukraine.

When both sides are permanently reactionary, it's dishonorable to care who wins.

A right-wing nationalist is a right-wing nationalist.

All are exactly the same. When you start thinking that there's a difference, you get into useless bloodshed campaigns like World War One, where we fought for the Tsar against the Kaiser...as if there was ANY difference between the Russian Empire and the German and Austro-Hungarian ones(or between either and the British ones).

And its immoral to ever do anything that even looks like the Cold War...a dead zone in world history and a conflict in which neither side fought for anything decent.

Russia is just another country. Leave it at that.

[joshcryer]

226. Russia is imperialist

to say fighting Russia is right wing is truly Orwellian

[Ken Burch]

228. We're citizens of an imperialist country.

We have no moral authority to talk about it anywhere else until we've stopped it here first.

You just want the Cold War back.

Some of us don't want to return to a forty year-zone-of-hopelessness.

It makes no difference whether a country of right-wing nationalists is independent or not.

[joshcryer]

230. Russia criticizes US imperialism.

We can't criticize Russian imperialism?

Or should they be the only ones being critical?

In fact Russia's FM has already blamed the US/west for what's going on in Ukraine.

[Ken Burch]

234. That would be a valid point if it was ONLY Russia criticizing U.S. imperialism.

The U.S. helped create Putin and Russian popular support for his mindset by treating them as an inferior country and a beaten country in the Nineties. We made it worse by backing the expansion of NATO(the western empire)to Russia's borders, something we had no right to do.

Russia acts as it does because it has been repeatedly invaded from the West(and never for any justified reason). 1812...1919...1939. All unprovoked invasions. And all when Russia had never done anything comparable to "the West".

A sensible U.S. foreign policy would involve an pledge that the West will NEVER send troops into Russia again, for any reason.

But no Western leader will ever promise that.

So Russia acts as it does, seeking buffer states, out of (not entirely unjustified)paranoia about the West's intents.

How about studying THAT history?

How about learning from it?

We could have had a peaceful and stable relationship with Russia starting with Gorbachev, but all our leaders on this side of the divide ever did was humiliate Gorby and then do the same to Yeltsin. We never treated that nation with dignity and respect. This is why Putin, a leader whose ideas would have had NO support in Russia in 1989, was able to come to power.

Things like the situation in Ukraine occurred because of that history.

And your response is simply to wag a finger and try to bring the 1949-1989 era back.

Some of us are old enough to remember those times. They were hell for most of the world.

[joshcryer]

237. The oligarchs created Putin.

NATO's expansion was a result of Russia's occupation of the Eastern Bloc, it was likely seen as a necessary deterrent from Russia's expansionist and invading mindset (which they're doing here in Ukraine, imperialistically).

Russia did set up a totalitarian "buffer zone" with the Eastern Bloc (good old Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact). But that is just totalitarian to the core, using other human beings in other states as a buffer from a perceived enemy. It is truly diabolical to think that this is a good thing, a necessary thing, or even a sustainable practice.

The Russia oligarchs will fall. It is only a matter of time.

BTW, I'm not the one trying to bring the "cold war era back." You are, with your ignorant idea that Russia needs a buffer zone. Holy crap, I can't think of anything more sinister. Reach out diplomatically and stop screwing around and using economic imperialism to get your way. Oh, and drop the anti-American shit because it's a crappy Emmanuel Goldstein and the US doesn't matter who the fuck you are, the US will do business with you.

[Ken Burch]

241. I'm not defending Russia at all...just explaining.

The West essentially created the argument for "buffer states" in the Russian mind with all of the unprovoked Western invasions of Russia(you will agree that those invasions should all be condemned, won't you?)

If we hadn't humiliated Gorbachev and insisted that Russia be seen as the vanquished nation after 1989, it's much less likely that they'd want buffer states now. A person could fairly ask the question: after that, why SHOULD Russia trust the West's good intentions? You know, the good intentions we've never had towards them?

Yes the oligarchs will fall...that's why all your hysteria about Putin is unneeded...and that's why we need to stay out of it. It's not liberation if they fall because the West intervened in any way. Once WE get into it, all hope for anything good stops(as it stopped in Eastern Europe...I supported the people's revolts against Stalinism there, btw...one the West insisted on calling the tune there). The corporate dominance of our economic and foreign policies makes it impossible for American actions in the world to be genuinely humane and altruistic. Not saying our leaders are evil, but they are pretty much helpless in the face of this at the moment.

It's the West that needs to take the "advice" you gave to Russia in that post:

"Reach out diplomatically and stop screwing around and using economic imperialism to get your way."

Russia DID reach out diplomatically under Gorbachev, and all they got was humiliation. Why couldn't OUR side be diplomatic then? Why couldn't OUR side refrain from "screwing around and using economic imperialism to get our way"?

You appear to be an adherent of the "it's OK when WE do it" school of geopolitics and diplomacy. Grow up. American motives and actions in the world are not automatically higher-minded and more decently-motivated than any OTHER country. As a nation, we have no moral authority anywhere. We're wretched sinners like the rest and we have to change that before we can lecture "the enemy".

[joshcryer]

243. The oligarchs won't go out without a fight.

And that's precisely what we're seeing in Kiev. Russia and its oligarchs have far more to lose by the Ukrainian President stepping down and EU getting the trade deal.

Russia DID reach out diplomatically under Gorbachev, and all they got was humiliation. Why couldn't OUR side be diplomatic then? Why couldn't OUR side refrain from "screwing around and using economic imperialism to get our way"?

You live in the past. When "duck and cover" was still taught to school children and regular air raid siren tests were done. And you expect a more diplomatic response? Silly.

I'm talking about now. It is not OK when we do it or have done it in the past. That doesn't give Russia or the oligarchs a pass to do it now. Who cares. It's uncontroversial. Russia has shown it can be diplomatic, look at Syria. So they need to reach out. And don't do the bullshit lying that they did so and the EU refused to come to the table. Russia has too much to lose here. More than the EU (the EU will get the gas regardless), more than the US (the US doesn't really have much to gain except to reduce Russia's influence). Russia's oligarchs loses a state that can be influenced by EU social policy, and things like, you know, LGBT, equality, stuff like that, gets to be brought up in Ukraine through cultural exchange.

[Ken Burch]

247. Taking sides in the Ukraine doesn't do anything to the oligarchs.

And nothing that involves any Western involvement in Russia or Ukraine can produce anything positive there. It damn sure can't lead to liberation or anything resembling freedom. Freedom can only be won by the people themselves.

And if Russia needs to "reach out&quot and yes, they do)threats from the West are the worst possible way to GET them to do that.

You want a war in Ukraine with American troops. Iraq proved that nothing good can come from that. So does Afghanistan. So did Vietnam.

Nothing that even gets us close to war with Russia over this can lead to anything good for anyone who loves their children.

I'm interested in building the new world. You just want to go back to the old battles. And no good can come from ever fighting a country we've fought in the past.

You don't give a damn about the people of Ukraine...you just want to fight "the enemy". That's the worst manifestation of the American collective personality.

I don't hate America...but I do hate most of our wars.

I hate anything that leads to anyone's son or daughter being buried at Arlington.

I hate any belief that war can ever be for the greater good. It can be for the defense of our own territory, but it can never be moral for our country to do it to any other country on their soil ever again.

And we can never be in any war for good ends ever again. Our nation's soul is too corrupted.

Work for life. Not death.

War is always a failure.

[joshcryer]

250. EU trade aboslutely hurts the oligarchs.

[Ken Burch]

251. No, it doesn't.

And since it means more wage cuts and layoffs for Ukrainians, THEY end up losing more than the oligarchs ever would.

Nothing that leads to greater hardship among working people is ever moral.

[joshcryer]

253. Straight out of Pravda.

Literally.

[Ken Burch]

255. I don't read Pravda. It's straight out of me.

And even if the oligarchs around Putin were hurt by the EU trade deal, the western corporate oligarchs who'd end up running Ukraine instead would be exactly the same. You know I'm right about that.

All corporate heavyweights are the same. They're all against the people.

Why pretend it matters who wins here?

Trade deals never liberate anyone. Never have anywhere. Ask any Mexican if you don't believe me.

You've convinced yourself that an alliance with the corporate right and the nationalist right(remember, ALL Slavic nationalists are right-wing bigots) can somehow be justified on grounds of expediency.

Even though you know the results either way are just going to be a government of permanent reactionary repression.

There's no moral difference between Putin and Yulia Timoshenko. BOTH are right-wing crooks.

[joshcryer]

256. The EU wants to invigorate Ukraine's agriculture.

This will lead to a net increase in productivity.

But hell, I agree, it doesn't really matter who wins in the long run (plutocrats and oligarchs are unsustainable and in the long run will be destroyed).

But to the already 2 dead in Kiev I think it matters. To the thousands who are going to be arrested and jailed for years, I think it matters. To be against a totalitarian law, I think, is morally superior. To be against police blockades, and massive police brutality, I think is morally superior.

So hey, side with nobody, watch from the sidelines as protesters are beaten, some killed, and many thousands are jailed. All because Russia got a deal that it wasn't going to get. A deal against 58% of the Ukrainian population.

[Ken Burch]

258. There's nothing anyone outside could do, and you know it.

What do you want?

Trade deals can never stop wars. And no capitalist organization can bring anything good to Ukraine. The only hope the place has is a clean break with greed and nationalism. That can't come of anything you're saying in this exchange.

You can't get into an ugly fight and retain your humanity. A tiny difference of degree can't be worth lives.

Do you really think that, if the trade deal went through, Putin WOULDN'T send in tanks? What would stop him?

[joshcryer]

263. Where did I suggest anything be done?

I merely want people to recognize the facts and stop pretending Russia is the better option.

[Ken Burch]

267. That's just it...nobody IS pretending that "Russia is the better option".

What we're saying is there isn't ANY good option.

That it doesn't make a difference.

There's nothing that can happen in this that can ever be good for anyone but a few rich people...either on Wall Street or in Moscow.

It's impossible to get a progressive ending in this...or even a good one, since neither side in the dispute has any positive values.

It was useless to be "anticommunist" in the 1949-1989 era, and it's equally useless to be shrilly "anti-Putin" now. There was nothing good that could happen in either situation.

[joshcryer]

271. If you think EU = Russia, then fine.

I don't. And I'm done responding to this particular issue.

[Ken Burch]

275. The only thing worth caring about would be letting Ukraine control its OWN destiny.

It's equally certain that neither the EU or Russia will ever tolerate that.

And, if a handful of EU states have shown tiny increases in support for left-wing parties(none showed a large gain), why assume that would influence Ukraine? No election results in any Western European country ever influenced any in an Eastern one.

You seem to set a lot of stock in the notion that the EU can "civilize" Ukraine. What you don't seem to get is how imperialist your argument sounds.

You sound like a Social Democrats, U.S.A. member in the 1970's arguing that it's somehow "socialist" to support a big defense budget and more nuclear missiles in Europe(and continued U.S. involvement in Vietnam as well, though that's somewhat off the geographic area we're discussing here).

[joshcryer]

278. Why do you think Ukraine did when it voted for the pro-EU guy?

Who suddenly flip flopped because of Russian bribery?

I do agree that cultural influence can be "imperialistic." In so much that a young woman in an islamist state seeing other young women not covering themselves chooses under their own violation to not do the same. such cultural change is progressive though some xenophobes / racists call that "cultural imperialism." I consider it cultural exchange.

You sound like someone who just keeps insulting someone on the internet because somehow you think it helps the discussion.

[Ken Burch]

281. They voted for the guy they thought would get them the better deal.

The EU screwed it up and caused this whole situation by NOT giving him a better deal.
If he'd taken what was on offer, he'd have betrayed the Ukrainian people and had nothing to show for it.
It would have been a hardship for most Ukrainians.
But the EU didn't care.
They just wanted to save some money in the short term-that mattered more to them then NOT having this thing happen.

You should be calling out the EU for that.

[joshcryer]

283. Putin didn't give the better deal as I established.

But even if it's true, there would be no mass protest, no? Assuming it was only about a deal... we can't forget that they're also protesting an illegally passed anti-protest law... hell we should support those protesters for that alone.

[Ken Burch]

261. It's likely that the EU's notion of "invigorating" Ukraine's agriculture

would be the same as the IMF/World Bank's historic model of "invigorating" agriculture in the "developing world".

That is...they'd make them replace crops grown to feed the locals with crops designed for export.

This always led to mass hunger in Africa and Asia...it would do the same in Ukraine.

That is the "free market" notion of "invigorating" agriculture.

[joshcryer]

264. Ukraine's agriculture is underdeveloped.

It's more about going after resources that are ripe for the picking.

[Ken Burch]

268. Right...by turning it over to American agribusiness corporations at fire-sale prices.

Like that ever helped in Africa or Asia.

The EU doesn't care about whether people in Ukraine eat or not...it just wants more profits out of the place. Once profit comes into it, all other values vanish...pretty much forever.

[joshcryer]

272. The EU cares about profit.

So does Russia.

Russia is a state trending right wing.

EU is a bunch of states trending left wing.

Pick or choose or pick none at all.

Picking none is definitely the easiest position.

[Ken Burch]

223. There's no way leftists in Kiev would care who wins that one.

They'd have to know that a victory for the "pro-Western" side doesn't help them, because most "pro-Westerners" are permanent right-wing extremists. Ukraine is just a fascist hate zone now-so why care? Nobody in the protest camp cares about workers or opposes discrimination against Jews and Roma. None care about the environment. You CAN'T care about any of those things and want Western corporations there.

And of course Russia has its own interests...but that doesn't matter. This fight is the Tsar vs the Kaiser.

"The West" made this fight meaningless by insisting on privatization and Western corporate takeovers. Once that happen, history was over in Ukraine. Just look at Eastern Europe, where the left is permanently dead everywhere. I'm glad the Stalinists are gone, but it's just going to be exactly the same in all Eastern European countries for the rest of eternity now. Nobody is fighting for anything good in any of those places. It was all stolen in 1989...all the chances of anything good were killed.

Just getting bourgeois elections between right-wing parties isn't anything.

[joshcryer]

225. anti Russia doesn't mean pro EU

[Ken Burch]

231. It means wanting to be subservient to Western corporations.

It means being an unquestioning supporter of the last "pro-Western" government in Ukraine, a government that did nothing but obey Western corporations.

It doesn't mean being a socialist or an opponent of bigotry...nobody in Ukraine is, unfortunately. The place is permanently right-wing and ugly. And there's no good reason to ever get into a fight between ugly factions.

A true "Left" position would regard this dispute as pointless.

It simply doesn't matter who wins between the U.S. and Russia in geopolitics. There's no victory for anything positive either way. Both are reactionary empires.

[joshcryer]

233. It means not wanting to be subservient to oligarchs.

It does not mean that they support the west in any way.

[Ken Burch]

235. They aren't subservient to oligarchs now.

Ukraine is an independent country. The current leadership of it was freely elected(I wouldn't have voted for them, but they were obviously the people's choice, sadly enough).

It's not subservience to oligarchy that the pro-Western yuppies didn't get the party THEY wanted in power.

The EU could have prevented much of this by giving up the demands for privatization and austerity. Those demands are the main reason people in the eastern part of Ukraine don't want what YOU want them to want. They support the current government because they know that, with its flaws, they'd face nothing but misery if it fell.

Get the EU to back off on austerity and you might see something different. As it is, no one in eastern Ukraine has any reason to see anything to positive in throwing in with "the West". They remember 1989 and see that, while the old regimes fell, nothing but ugliness replaced them. There was no real liberation at all...just money for the few.

The West sabotages democracy by insisting on tying it to inequality. People will chose repression with a full stomach over "freedom" and hunger, because they know that, when economic security is lost, nothing good replaces it, and that "elections" where every party(even the "former Communists" is forced by the West to pledge to continue austerity no matter what)have nothing to offer them. This is how democracy is denied the chance to take root.

And "opposition" Ukrainian politicians like Yulia Timoshenko don't support anything BUT austerity and inequality. They don't offer anything else. The "protesters" are pretty much made up of their partisans. You'd be hard-pressed to find a single Ukrainian socialist of any sort who'd think it matters who wins this donnybrook. I defy you to name one. Just one.

[joshcryer]

240. God, you're getting talking points right from RT.

The "EU austerity" talking point is the fact that Ukraine, after Russia started meddling, demanded "financial compensation" under the trade deal and the EU wouldn't have it.

Here's what happened:

The reduced price Ukraine pays to Gazprom is still so out of kilter that it is about $30 cheaper to buy gas the EU has imported and transport it back across the border. This re-importing had started to happen on a very small scale from Poland and Hungary. And on Dec. 9, Slovakia's gas transit company Eustream agreed on terms to reverse the flow in one of its big transit pipes.

With the necessary Slovak capacity, Ukraine might have been able to fulfill the deal it has to buy 10 bcm of gas annually from Germany's RWE AG. That would represent about a third of Ukraine's current imports from Russia, which had already fallen substantially because of Ukraine's declining gas consumption, due to a collapsing economy, coal substitution and efficiency improvements, according to Pirani.

Faced by competition from EU re-suppliers, Gazprom would in any case have had to choose: risk losing as much as another one third of its gas sales to Ukraine and associated political leverage, or else reduce its price by a third to make EU re-imports uncompetitive.

In sum, it's clear that the $268.50 discount offered to Yanukovych wasn't as generous as it sounds. Putin in essence agreed to stop extorting money from Ukraine and charge the market price.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-30/putin-s-deal-is-no-gift-to-gas-junkie-ukraine.html

It's a ponzi scheme, right out of Russia's oligarch playbook. And the President of Ukraine is all for it, even if means razing Kiev.

[Ken Burch]

244. They should just have given them the financial compensation.

And why assume it was "Russian meddling"? Are you really working under the impression that Ukrainians would have been just fine with a massive and unjustified increase in gas prices, an increase that would cause a recession Ukraine would likely never emerge from?

I have no use for Putin. But I have no use for anything that sounds like the Cold War.

And "totalitarianism" is just dictatorship. All dictatorships are the same. None of them allow people private space and all demand total obedience. Yulia Timoshenko wasn't any democratic saint herself, as far as that goes. The Orange Revolution wasn't about democracy...it was solely right-wing nationalism and never supported any humane values.

The West only backed the Orange "Revolution&quot I put the word in quotes because a process that puts a right-wing government in power can't be called a revolution by any serious-minded person, given that the whole point of the term "revolution" is a radical and positive reshaping of life, something that can't happen under right-wing nationalism) because the wanted to stick it to Putin. Otherwise, they wouldn't have care

[joshcryer]

246. "Financial compenstion" for *what*?

The "financial compensation" for Russia no longer extorting them? Because you know what happens, right, once the trade deal goes through with the EU? The EU gets to re-import gas into Ukraine on paper, and then Russia can't extort anymore. That's why Russia was so desperate and bribed the Ukrainian President (who was originally pro-EU) with $15 billion.

[BelgianMadCow]

162. Svoboda being one of the man organizers is also what's reported in German news

and indeed, they have been present for a long time. Thanks for chiming in.

[Starry Messenger]

176. "Far-right group at heart of Ukraine protests meet US senator"

http://www.channel4.com/news/ukraine-mccain-far-right-svoboda-anti-semitic-protests

"Ukraine's pro-EU protests show no sign of stopping – US Senator John McCain dined with opposition leaders this weekend, including the extreme far-right Svoboda party.

During his trip the former US presidential candidate met with government and opposition figures, but gave his endorsement to the pro-Europe protesters.

Senator McCain later waved to protesters from the stage in Independence Square during a mass rally in Kiev, standing with Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the anti-Semitic Svoboda party.

Growing far-right

Svoboda, meaning freedom, has been enjoying a boom in success in recent years winning their first parliamentary seats in 2010, taking just over 10 per cent of the vote to become Ukraine’s fourth biggest party with 36 seats out of 450.

The ultra-nationalist group is aligned with other European far-right parties including the BNP, but their radical stance has made them a central force in the ongoing street protests."

[DevonRex]

198. This is the ONLY

correct assessment of the situation. And anybody who believes Russia and Putin are some wonderful examples of what Socialism and Socialists look and behave like are just totally blind.

I mean really? Spending Billions on the Sochi Olympics with corrupt practices. Outlawing freedom of speech for LGBTs. Arresting and beating them. Some have died. Many have fled. So have science teachers and sociologists. Putin has brought the church into government. HIS government is nationalist. Russia for Russians they say. Russia has a HUGE Neo-Nazi problem. We talked about it for months here. They were beating up LGBTs and leaving them for dead.

This Neo-Nazi meme RT is spreading is Putin propaganda. Yawn.

[Starry Messenger]

202. Just for the record, I'm not someone who thinks contemporary Russia is Socialist.

I don't know if you meant that for me, since my reply started this subthread. I hate what is going on in their country today and their Communist Party is on my shitlist too, for voting with the anti-gay politicians. I also agree that Russia is also riddled with fascists now too.

But RT's obvious slant aside, several other Western media outlets have reported that the Ukrainian Nationalists have highjacked the protests in the last three weeks. That was the only thing I had for my comment.

[DevonRex]

203. No, I didnt even see you up there.

For the record, I am so sick right now. I can barely make sense to myself, as you can tell by my pitiful paragraph above. I know what I want to say but I'm so tired.

No, the whole of Eastern Europe has a Neo-Nazi proble!m to be sure. Real Neo-Nazis some of them, whose families were collaborators during occupation. Then there are others whose families simply never disagreed with Hitler over the matter of Jews and racial superiority, except that it wasn't the Germans who were superior - it was whatever brand of Slav or Greek or whatever they happen to be. I'm sorry - you know this already. I don't mean to be a schoolmarm.

I know you are not naive about Russia and Putin regarding socialism and LGBTs. I know a lot about him. How he thinks, how he likes to operate. He isn't a perfectionist in his ops. He goes way beyond that. Sure, the entire plan must be done perfectly. But he must also get some sadistic pleasure out of the end. Like now. It looks like he got Ukraine. But now he must also twist the knife in the EU's gut, too, by insinuating something about them that his own country is even worse about. And always through his stenographer media.

Anyway, whenever his name is mentioned I go cross eyed with disgust, practically sputtering with anger. So, don't mind me. I wasn't talking about you. I know exactly where you stand. I just have to make sure other people know Putin is fully capable of causing those NNs to take over the protests. Just like he used them to beat up LGBTs after the law was passed.

[Starry Messenger]

209. Feel better, Devon!

Great post. I appreciate your insights!

[dipsydoodle]

167. There were later reports on the subject of the statue

which indicated that the base had decayed and all that needed to topple it was someone to lean against it - an accident waiting to happen.

[Starry Messenger]

178. I had no idea Svodboda were so civic-minded.

Last edited Tue Jan 21, 2014, 01:52 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm sure City of Kiev Public Works appreciates their volunteer efforts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/oleksandr-feldman/ukraine-protests-nationalism-anti-semitism_b_4588507.html

"A turning point came during a mass march through the center of Kiev on December 10, when a group of Svodboda activists -- led by Members of Parliament -- toppled a venerable statue of Lenin; smashing it apart with sledgehammers and decapitating it, while chanting in ominous warning to the President of Ukraine; &quot Victor) Yanukovych, you'll be next!".

[Corruption Inc]

164. RT USA is the best journalism in the U.S., rec'd!

I wondered why I only saw 5 of the responses, LOL! I guess I've finally got all the propagandists on ignore. I logged out and read some of their recitals and just wanted to thank DU for the ignore feature!

Thank you DU!

To all the RT USA haters: if you watched 1 day of RT USA you'd be more informed than after watching an entire years worth of mainstream American media. But, since you refuse to learn a thing, stay dumb as hell, you deserve it!

[sabrina 1]

200. That's what everyone I know who started watching it, says also. Great International coverage.

[stevil]

236. I doubt it

Spin is spin. American or Russian. How can people not see that?

[randome]

175. I thought the U.S. was supposed to stop telling other countries what to do.

And RT is Russian propaganda. Not very reliable.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[dipsydoodle]

177. Russian minister accuses European politicians of stoking Ukraine crisis

Russia's foreign minister has said the situation in Ukraine is "spinning out of control" and accused European politicians of being part of the problem.

The mainly peaceful protests that have paralysed Kiev for two months erupted into violence on Sunday evening with pitched battles between riot police and protesters, and numerous vehicles set on fire.

More than 100 protesters were injured and 42 taken to hospital, including a man who lost his hand when a sound grenade exploded. The police said 100 officers were hurt, with 61 needing hospital treatment. They said there had been 20 arrests.

>

Lavrov said Ukraine was Russia's "neighbour, our partner, our friend and our brother", and he was scornful of the European criticism.

"We would prefer that some of our European colleagues refrained from acting unceremoniously over the Ukrainian crisis when, without any kind of invitation, members of certain European governments rush to the Maidan [the square on which the protest has centred], and take part in anti-government demonstrations in a country with which they have diplomatic relations. It is just distasteful," he told a news conference.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/21/russian-minister-european-politicians-ukraine-crisis

[BelgianMadCow]

288. Protesters surround American embassy in Kiev, rally against US meddling

A huge crowd of demonstrators has surrounded the US embassy in the Ukrainian capital of Kiev, protesting against Washington’s meddling in the country’s internal affairs.

The event was organized by Kievans for Clean City, a new pro-government activist group which has spoken out against the rioters and violence in downtown Kiev.

Several thousand demonstrators are taking part, urging the US to “stop sponsoring” mass unrests, local media reported.

“The US is behind everything that is happening in Kiev’s downtown right now. The financing is coming from over there. This has to be stopped. That is what we came out here to say to the whole world: ‘US - stop! US - there needs to be peace in Ukraine,’” said Ivan Protsenko, one of the movement’s leaders.

From the same source, and I don't see it anywhere except on Voice of Russia. Usual caveats apply.