Ukraine General

[akm74 1]

http://rt.com/news/ukraine-protest-deadline-expires-856/

[mistyronin 1181]

Now please tell me who has been imprisoned in Russia for newspaper article critiquing the government?

For instance: Opposition blogger sentenced to jail in Russia

[akm74 1]

For instance: Opposition blogger sentenced to jail in Russia

is that's all ? I can easily confronted with this (from same source):

The single journalist behind bars in the Americas was in the United States. Roger Shuler, an independent blogger specializing in allegations of corruption and scandal in Republican circles in Alabama, was being held on contempt of court for refusing to comply with an injunction regarding content ruled defamatory. In recent years, journalist jailings in the Americas have become increasingly rare, with one Cuban documented in prison in 2012 and none throughout the region in 2011.

The 211 journalists jailed all over the world in 2013. So... ?

[maturin 12]

Now please tell me who has been imprisoned in Russia for newspaper article critiquing the government?

Who cares about newspaper articles? You don't jail a reporter, you just illegally shut down the newspaper. I bet no one in NORTH KOREA has been jailed for writing in the papers. Because repression is usually more sophisticated than that. See below:

Memorial's Full List of Political Prisoners in Russia:

http://www.khodorkovsky.com/memorials-full-list-of-political-prisoners-in-russia/

Of course, these people aren't victims of the Russian government's typical methods of repression. Putin is in no danger from the opposition, so jailing or committing dissidents to psychiatric hospitals (from the Soviet playbook) isn't often necessary. It is far easier for journalists and rights workers to be murdered, academics and professionals can be immediately fired, businessmen can have all their assets confiscated by the state, ROOs can be raided by the police on trumped-up charges. For all these, the examples are easy, off the top of my head. And this is all for those simply exercising freedom of speech, without making a nuisance of themselves on the streets. No need for OMON, titushki or cossack thugs.

And nowadays the courts are busily banning books Nazi-style (Tolstoy has been declared an illegal extremist THREE times) and steadily limiting to number of things that can be legally said. The only consistent definition of extremism in Russian jurisprudence is 'that which contradicts the regime,' again a definition that was active in the Soviet period. Because truth has now been outlawed, several times. It is truth to point to corruption in the Orthodox Church, yet this can be prosecuted as extremism. It is truth for a homosexual to say that he loves his partner, yet this is extremism and has been prosecuted as such. It is truth that Crimea is a contested territory whose status as part of Russia is not recognized by almost all of Ukraine and the rest of the world, yet talking about it is a crime. These are all crimes, with punishments.

Edited April 11, 2014 by maturin

[mistyronin 1181]

is that's all ? I can easily confronted with this (from same source):

That was only one of the cases. But what is interesting is your comparison with the US. I think no one here believes the US is a max. reference of goodness. One example Guantanamo, or the spying networks, or the drone strikes. Most of the countries of the world are against that.

But in Russia I have the feeling you think of the world like a bipolar entity. ProUS and ProRussia.

It's quite interesting, because I also detected that the Russian media ( specially in RT ) that instead of say the rest of the world doesn't agree with Russia, they use the word "The West" ( for example when more than 60% of the world supported the vote in the UN that considered the Crimean referendum not valid ).

Besides the Russian media and politicians no one believes in that imaginary "West" nor even consider it a political entity; as much some may say "the free world" ( referring to all democratic countries ). It's like the perfect enemy created by the Russians. One entity is the EU, the other the US, that don't always agree, not even countries inside the EU agree all the time. But besides them, there are a lot of other free countries that doesn't bow to anyone but themselves.

So try to group a huge amount of different countries with different policies in a group called "The West" is in my opinion completely illogic.

[maturin 12]

But in Russia I have the feeling you think of the world like a bipolar entity. ProUS and ProRussia.

Exactly. Morality and middle ground is completely absent from Russian politics. (Now so-called morality is usually an excuse for hypocrisy in Western politics, don't get me wrong.)

But it's always "the US invaded Iraq, so Russia gets to invade countries on false pretenses too." "The West recognized Kosovo, so Russia gets to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia." For every crime committed by Western countries, Russia deserves to commit an equal version of the same crime. This makes it one of the world's greatest hypocrites, and Crimea should forever put an end to the idea that Russia believes in state sovereignty and an alternative to American hegemony. It believes in nothing but its own power and aggrandizement.

Russians arguing on the internet (thankfully distinct from actual Russians that are worth talking to in person) can't seem to fathom the possibility that Westerners could disagree with their government.* I hated the Iraq War! I still want Bush prosecuted. Yet these Russian nationalists are so emotionally incapable of admitting fault before foreigners that they can't imagine the possibility of independent-minded citizens who judge the actions of both Western and Eastern governments based on sincerely-held convictions. This is the difference between morality and tribalism. Right vs. Wrong or Us vs. Them. What is so hard about agreeing that hawks and military adventurists tend to be bastards no matter their nationality? Aren't we all being lied to, distracted and cheated? At the moment, it's just Russia's turn to be the lying aggressor that needs to be resisted.

*(Except for the ones they love: semi-traitorous cranks like Galloway or Buchanan who have a number of disagreements on policy and hence wish for the failure of all their countries' political projects so that their geopolitical opponents can abuse small nations instead.)

Edited April 11, 2014 by maturin

[ProfTournesol 956]

Putin is truly a popular politician supported by the majority of the country. That's a fact. Of course, it's fact that owes a lot to complete government control of the television media (in the politically-irrelevant digital and print media, Russians can and do say whatever they want about the government), which caters to the biases of an isolated population that lives in constant fear of re-living the 1990s. The re-writing of history is well underway, in order to get a handle on the next generation of internet users. You also have very well-funded 'astro turf' internet activism and organized political indoctrination of youth by United Russia-controlled programs. (Putin's party itself is not particularly popular.)

Anyways, that doesn't make Russia much worse than Italy, I must say.

The main difference between East and West, as relates to approval ratings, is that Putin has successfully made it impossible for any challenger to arise, in a society that sees no value in opposition to begin with. There's no one else to vote for, and yet there is a palpable presence of worse alternatives to Putin. So you might as well support the guy who increases your pension every couple of years and makes you feel good about your childhood memories of pioneer camping trips and WWII movies. Russians are (for clear historical reasons) massively cynical about the ability of government or socially-active citizens to make their country better, so they settle for the devil they know. Viable alternative models from other countries are systematically discredited consciously by the state-run media, or accidentally by cultural miscommuncation (at many points of contact from travel abroad to pop music videos). Or didn't all you Europeans and Americans realize that you live in a debauched hellscape of negro gangsters, ruled by your godless fascist elite that wants you to raise your children as sodomites?

Russian society is still traumatized by the '90s. It can't envision a country where the elite is anything but endemically corrupt, unaccountable and heavy-handed. It has always been that way. On the other hand, since the presence of oppressive limousine-riding bastards is inevitable, the bastards might as well be strong leaders who will regulate society forcefully and keep the lawlessness of the '90s from coming back. It's not a dealbreaker if the current political order is really just the ultimate synthesis of Putin's circle and the most corrupt and rapacious vultures of the post-Perestroika feeding frenzy. Organized crime is mostly dead, because it turned into government.

Lastly, you have an imperial nationality whose recent history is nothing but disasters and shame, possessed by a virulent streak of megalomania that covets every ounce of social and ethnic prestige, while admitting no historical misdeeds and expecting gratitude from all its most aggrieved neighbors. And so society has a deep-seated need to stop feeling shame about its history, and is ready for any lies that will justify its pride. That presents a powerful politician with a lot of ways to score points. And Putin has done so, right down along the line. In truth, he deserves his popularity. But in doing so, he has dug himself so deep that he will never be able to leave office alive.

Thanks for that post, that sums it up brilliantly.

[spooky lynx 73]

http://www.stowarzyszenieuozun.wroclaw.pl/JOOMLA/48-do-marszalek-kopacz.html?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page

Interesting article (in Polish).

[Tonci87 163]

Exactly. Morality and middle ground is completely absent from Russian politics. (Now so-called morality is usually an excuse for hypocrisy in Western politics, don't get me wrong.)

But it's always "the US invaded Iraq, so Russia gets to invade countries on false pretenses too." "The West recognized Kosovo, so Russia gets to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia." For every crime committed by Western countries, Russia deserves to commit an equal version of the same crime. This makes it one of the world's greatest hypocrites, and Crimea should forever put an end to the idea that Russia believes in state sovereignty and an alternative to American hegemony. It believes in nothing but its own power and aggrandizement.

Russians arguing on the internet (thankfully distinct from actual Russians that are worth talking to in person) can't seem to fathom the possibility that Westerners could disagree with their government.* I hated the Iraq War! I still want Bush prosecuted. Yet these Russian nationalists are so emotionally incapable of admitting fault before foreigners that they can't imagine the possibility of independent-minded citizens who judge the actions of both Western and Eastern governments based on sincerely-held convictions. This is the difference between morality and tribalism. Right vs. Wrong or Us vs. Them. What is so hard about agreeing that hawks and military adventurists tend to be bastards no matter their nationality? Aren't we all being lied to, distracted and cheated? At the moment, it's just Russia's turn to be the lying aggressor that needs to be resisted.

*(Except for the ones they love: semi-traitorous cranks like Beagle or Buchanan who have a number of disagreements on policy and hence wish for the failure of all their countries' political projects so that their geopolitical opponents can abuse small nations instead.)

Perfect :)

[akm74 1]

Exactly. Morality and middle ground is completely absent from Russian politics. (Now so-called morality is usually an excuse for hypocrisy in Western politics, don't get me wrong.)

But it's always "the US invaded Iraq, so Russia gets to invade countries on false pretenses too." "The West recognized Kosovo, so Russia gets to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia." For every crime committed by Western countries, Russia deserves to commit an equal version of the same crime. This makes it one of the world's greatest hypocrites, and Crimea should forever put an end to the idea that Russia believes in state sovereignty and an alternative to American hegemony. It believes in nothing but its own power and aggrandizement.

Russians arguing on the internet (thankfully distinct from actual Russians that are worth talking to in person) can't seem to fathom the possibility that Westerners could disagree with their government.* I hated the Iraq War! I still want Bush prosecuted. Yet these Russian nationalists are so emotionally incapable of admitting fault before foreigners that they can't imagine the possibility of independent-minded citizens who judge the actions of both Western and Eastern governments based on sincerely-held convictions. This is the difference between morality and tribalism. Right vs. Wrong or Us vs. Them. What is so hard about agreeing that hawks and military adventurists tend to be bastards no matter their nationality? Aren't we all being lied to, distracted and cheated? At the moment, it's just Russia's turn to be the lying aggressor that needs to be resisted.

*(Except for the ones they love: semi-traitorous cranks like Galloway or Buchanan who have a number of disagreements on policy and hence wish for the failure of all their countries' political projects so that their geopolitical opponents can abuse small nations instead.)

just a single question, do you ever been in Russia ?

[maturin 12]

I've spent most of the last year and a half in Russia (not just Moscow/Petersburg). As I said, I was mostly ranting about Russian internet politics. The internet attracts trolls and fanatics, even without the government paying them to blog.

If my experience in Russia was anything like my experience on the internet, I wouldn't go back.

Oh, but yeah, I do hate radical nationalists, no matter what country they come from. Russian nationalists just have a particularly long list of historical genocides and discriminatory policies that they like to justify and support nowadays. Imagine if Bandera lived for 200 years. That's the Zhirinovskites.

[akm74 1]

Thanks for quick reply. The reason i'm asking... Most of my life i live in US. And even having 20+ years in this country i will still feel uncomfortable to teach Americans what right and what wrong. What they have to do, how they have to think, what they have read and eat :-). It a very different culture for me. Not bad or good, just different (and i like it). Now back to the point. There are one major weak point in your observation. You write "I hated the Iraq War! I still want Bush prosecuted".

Sound like.. hey this is a mistake, you don't have to repeat it.. Sound great. Then we have Libya, Egypt, Syria... and now Ukraine. Only this time they have punch in a face right back. We can argue if Russians have to react so vigilantly (it questionable) but they definitely did't start it first.

Edited April 11, 2014 by AKM74

[scrim 1]

*faceslap* And there we have exactly what maturin mentioned: "They did it, that means we are allowed to do it" isn't behaviour acceptable of children. It certainly isn't acceptable of countries.

And besides, maybe the Americans said "well, Russia invaded Poland in '39, so they started it. That means we can invade Iraq". It is such an extremely juvenile perspective on petty mundane things in everyday life, and when you apply it to geopolitics, you hardly come off looking like Einstein.

Not to mention that you are positively deranged if you think the invasion of Iraq was anything like the Russian annexation of Crimea. One is about illegally invading a dictatorship that had used WMDs against its own population, and replacing it with a democratic government. The other is about invading a European democracy, and annexing a large portion of its land.

[maturin 12]

One is about illegally invading a dictatorship that had used WMDs against its own population, and replacing it with a democratic government. The other is about invading a European democracy, and annexing a large portion of its land.

And one killed almost a million people, with the population resisting the invaders. The other has maybe resulted in one death, with the population welcoming the invaders. And the lies justifying the Iraq War were much bigger and more carefully prepared. Are you sure you're on the right side of this one?

And even having 20+ years in this country i will still feel uncomfortable to teach Americans what right and what wrong.

Point taken. But teaching right and wrong wasn't the point. When Russians treat the world with a different perspective and set of moral imperatives, I can respect that. For example, the idea that countries shouldn't intervene militarily, and that it is irresponsible to start violent struggles that wreck peoples' lives and livelihoods, even if the cause is just. That's a viewpoint I can engage in conversation with. What irritates me is when no one bothers to care about ethics: what I talked about in my post.

hey this is a mistake, you don't have to repeat it.. Sound great. Then we have Libya, Egypt, Syria... and now Ukraine.

If you see no essential difference between Iraq and Libya, much less Ukraine, I suspect it will be rather difficult to have a conversation.

Those other examples are entirely different. The US had extremely little influence on events in Egypt, whose revolution was the result (how strange a thought) of domestic political forces. Libya would have had a civil war even if the United States did not exist. Syria would have had a civil war, too. And there would have been protestors on the Maidan without any U.S. support whatsoever. I think you have a conspiracy theorist view of the world, where every crisis is caused by the CIA. The US in nowhere near as powerful as people think. The actual aims and beliefs of people inside countries always count the most. People in Ukraine ACTUALLY want to be part of Europe and ACTUALLY hate Yanukovich. They feel this way for entirely independent reasons. They are willing to struggle and die for those beliefs and don't need the slightest bit of support from the CIA or George Soros. The US is thousands of miles away; Russia is close by. The US could vanish tomorrow, and nothing would change in Ukraine.

And by including Egypt in the list, you make me think that you completely misunderstand US politics and interests. Obama was criticized for Egypt at home because for weeks he did NOTHING. In fact, 95% of important policymakers and politicians in Washington were terrified to learn that Mubarak could fall. He was our ally. We had supported him for years. We did not control or meddle with events. We simply reacted to them. And with words, not CIA agents. Despite what the Kremlin may say, the same goes for the conflicts in Libya, Syria and Ukraine.

[mistyronin 1181]

It seems that the mighty "little green men" struck again, this time outside Crimea:

( BBC ) Gunmen seize Ukraine police station in Sloviansk

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Edited April 12, 2014 by MistyRonin

[mistyronin 1181]

BTW if anyone was curious about what Putin's aggressive expansionist actions cause; just look a country like Finland that was proud of being neutral where most of the people didn't wanted to join NATO, and considered Russia a friend...

Well, just see that the Prime Minister has vowed to join NATO, and the polls show that the option of joining is increasing its followers.

I guess that Putin will be happy when most of the countries that considered Russia a friend now consider it a threat.

( Yle ) PM: Finland should embrace open, international integration and consider NATO membership

( Yle ) Poll: Reservist support for NATO membership clearly on the rise

[Sgt.Spoetnik 10]

welcome to nato ;) but keep blaming putin. btw did your goverment ask its citizen to join Nato?

[mistyronin 1181]

welcome to nato ;) but keep blaming putin. btw did your goverment ask its citizen to join Nato?

Did you read my last post? Anyway, all that kind of decisions are always voted by the people in referendums.

[Sgt.Spoetnik 10]

i did. and still your goverment will join. no referendum will change that!

[akm74 1]

If you see no essential difference between Iraq and Libya, much less Ukraine, I suspect it will be rather difficult to have a conversation.

i see defference.. i just don't care about it. What i care about is outcome. We have 4 more country who hate us. Of course Libya will have civil war even without "help from us". Only now, they can point fingers on us. We even manage to betray Egypt army corps (who was always friendly to west). McCain shaking hand with al-qaeda a-like in Syria did't help ether.

Rumsfeld once sad "you can't feed alligators with the hope it will eat you last". Can't agree more.

Sorry for little ot guys.

Edited April 12, 2014 by AKM74

[scrim 1]

And one killed almost a million people, with the population resisting the invaders. The other has maybe resulted in one death, with the population welcoming the invaders. And the lies justifying the Iraq War were much bigger and more carefully prepared. Are you sure you're on the right side of this one?

If we divide that by 10, it's true. The population resisted the invaders? Excuse me? Last time I checked, most welcomed the ousting of Saddam, and the people who resisted the invaders were mostly sectarian Shia and Sunni extremists, who are responsible for well over 95% of the civilian deaths. The only ones who can be said to have resisted the invaders on national grounds mostly wound up siding with the invaders against the sectarian groups around '07-'08.

And for the record, the last time someone changed European borders with force, it lead to 55 million people dead. So yeah, pretty sure I'm on the right side on this.

Rumsfeld once sad "you can't feed alligators with the hope it will eat you last". Can't agree more.

That's a Churchill quote, regarding appeasing a nation that decided to invade other European countries under the guise of protecting it's ethnic population regardless of which country they lived in, or were citizens of. The irony is overwhelming.

Edited April 12, 2014 by scrim

[Sgt.Spoetnik 10]

And for the record, the last time someone changed European borders with force, it lead to 55 million people dead. So yeah, pretty sure I'm on the right side on this.

try 65 million ppl but not only civiliian's also soldiers, and on iraq try almost 2 million but who's counting! and they still die today so yeah they still better off without Saddam, same with Libia,Afghanistan,Egypte and Syria and i know there leaders are no saints but they better off a decade ago then now, when they die in droves because off US and nato. and same with Russia,keep believing they are the root off all your problems and sorrows but better look at home first!

[Caselius 94]

i did. and still your goverment will join. no referendum will change that!

If referendum is held and people are against joining NATO, there is nothing the existing government can do about it then.

[mistyronin 1181]

try 65 million ppl but not only civiliian's also soldiers, and on iraq try almost 2 million but who's counting! and they still die today so yeah they still better off without Saddam, same with Libia,Afghanistan,Egypte and Syria and i know there leaders are no saints but they better off a decade ago then now, when they die in droves because off US and nato. and same with Russia,keep believing they are the root off all your problems and sorrows but better look at home first!

Uhm, so the borders in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan Egypt and Syria have changed? Did the US annexed them? The things that I have missed.

We are talking about expansionist imperialist aggressive wars/invasions, the ones that its goal its just to expand territory. For example the Crimea invasion, or when Iraq tried to invade Kuwait or Iran, Hitler in all Europe, Serbia with other exYugoslavian nations, Stalin in Eastern Europe and Finland, etc.

If referendum is held and people are against joining NATO, there is nothing the existing government can do about it then.

Exactly, even if the government wants it really badly. People decide, that is democracy.

Edited April 12, 2014 by MistyRonin

[Sgt.Spoetnik 10]

If referendum is held and people are against joining NATO, there is nothing the existing government can do about it then.

Dont get me wrong, i agree but do the goverment and the EU,Nato will do the same? time will tell.