On March 31 2014 03:42 sekritzzz wrote: As far as press freedom goes, I'm talking about the US, although the government does not directly give them bullets points, they heavily terrorize them up to the point where they have become just as ineffective as Russian media.
Common ways for the US govt to control media is by "punishing" them if they don't write stories in line with the current administrations. Punishments include not inviting them to press conferences, etc amongst other things. The govt also heavily relies on selective "leaks" from "officials" which most news sites rely on to send out specific information. Anyone who still thinks American media is actually not heavily influenced/controlled by the govt is delusional. There is a vast amount of information on the net on the ways the govt sends "signals" to the American media and anyone interested can do the research for himself or simply follow the "we have a free press parade" and sing kumbaya.
You actually just said US media is as ineffective as russian media... Do go on. No really, do go on, link us some evidence to support your stance that you so strongly insist on. As for why you're wrong? Plenty of US media sources have plenty of anti US government articles. Lots of ones bashing obamacare, bashing our economy, bashing the way it's going, articles about how the NSA needs to be stopped, articles about the current struggle with NSA and those who are suppose to oversee them. Russia would never allow anything similar to be published.
O'kay. Because of it you can just turn on Echo Moscow/RBC/TVRain or some other stuff, if you want to see other side of coin/listen to some experts/have fun.
There aren't 2-3 channels in this country. It's srsly like we have everything blocked, living with bag on head and don't know anything.
You do realize good news has no sides, there is only the truth and good news tries to find and convey that. News is meant to inform not sway.
Can you give me a ticket to utopian world? I wanna join you there.
Good overview article of recent developments (but oo_Wonderful_oo shouldn't read it, it's clearly biased...).
The only piece of analysis is missing is that by negotiating with the US, rather than with Ukraine itself, or with the EU involved, Russia is clearly continuing its push to undermine the principle of self-determination of nations in international law. It's basically a return to the `principle' of might makes right. (Which Russia will surely rue in the future as one of their neighbours is an actual military superpower with likely plans for expansion, at least considering that China's military budget has roughly tripled in the last 10 years..)
The only piece of analysis is missing is that by negotiating with the US, rather than with Ukraine itself, or with the EU involved, Russia is clearly continuing its push to undermine the principle of self-determination of nations in international law. It's basically a return to the `principle' of might makes right. (Which Russia will surely rue in the future as one of their neighbours is an actual military superpower with likely plans for expansion, at least considering that China's military budget has roughly tripled in the last 10 years..)
Since when you're going ham on me for being biased, lol? I hate biased people and want peace in all world, thing is just it won't happen same as everyone won't be satisfied with everything.
I will comment when infomation finally will be here tho, just to compare sources.
The only piece of analysis is missing is that by negotiating with the US, rather than with Ukraine itself, or with the EU involved, Russia is clearly continuing its push to undermine the principle of self-determination of nations in international law. It's basically a return to the `principle' of might makes right. (Which Russia will surely rue in the future as one of their neighbors is an actual military superpower with likely plans for expansion, at least considering that China's military budget has roughly tripled in the last 10 years..)
They're negotiating with the only people in the world with the will and ability to stop them from taking the Ukraine. Its just another strain of classic Realpolitik. They're acknowledging that the Ukraine doesn't really have any way of stopping them so why bother inviting them to talk? They have the EU by the balls for another 2 years by keeping their lights on and their economies running. That leaves the good ol arsenal of democracy threatening to put carrier battle groups in the black sea.
I come back after a few days of vacationing, and here there's a slight implication of Russia acting as if they plan to take all of Ukraine, and China having "likely plans" to "expand", into Russian territory of all places. I don't understand how there is any basis in either of these statements. Did some extreme development happen recently in Russian/Ukrainian politics and with the CCP that supports either of these things? The latter is especially an absurd scenario. Russian paratroopers floating into Tallinn is a hundred times more realistic, and even that is not going to happen at all.
As far as I'm aware, there is absolutely nothing pointing to Russia invading the rest of Ukraine Iraq-style and Russia is among the last countries China would want to take any military action against, for both obvious diplomatic and military reasons. They're infinitely more interested in "expansion" and "settling things" with Taiwan and Japan than they are with Russia. Hell, even as we speak, Malaysian-Chinese political relations are getting nasty, too.
Interestingly, ABC was saying US and Russia are closer to resolving the crisis, before today's meeting that went nowhere. Quite an optimistic forecast.
A senior Obama administration official said the talks are focusing on the role of international monitors in Ukraine, Russia pulling back its forces from the border, and direct talks between Russia and Ukraine “supported by the international community.” The official stressed that “we have been coordinating closely with the Ukrainians, including on this diplomatic proposal.”
Foreign Minister Lavrov, however, said Russia had rejected a Western proposal to set up an international “contact group” that would, in his words, supervise the talks between Russia and Ukraine.
“This would be an absolutely unacceptable format, and we are not talking about this,” he said in the interview. Lavrov said Russia wants Ukraine’s regions to have more autonomy, presumably because that would allow pro-Russian regions in the east to distance themselves from the new pro-Western government in Kiev. He suggested that the U.S. and its allies were now open to the idea as well.
On March 31 2014 11:46 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: I come back after a few days of vacationing, and here there's a slight implication of Russia acting as if they plan to take all of Ukraine
Well Russia calling for a 'federal Ukraine' just sounds like a way to pick up the East and West in my opinion.
On March 31 2014 03:42 sekritzzz wrote: As far as press freedom goes, I'm talking about the US, although the government does not directly give them bullets points, they heavily terrorize them up to the point where they have become just as ineffective as Russian media.
Common ways for the US govt to control media is by "punishing" them if they don't write stories in line with the current administrations. Punishments include not inviting them to press conferences, etc amongst other things. The govt also heavily relies on selective "leaks" from "officials" which most news sites rely on to send out specific information. Anyone who still thinks American media is actually not heavily influenced/controlled by the govt is delusional. There is a vast amount of information on the net on the ways the govt sends "signals" to the American media and anyone interested can do the research for himself or simply follow the "we have a free press parade" and sing kumbaya.
You actually just said US media is as ineffective as russian media... Do go on. No really, do go on, link us some evidence to support your stance that you so strongly insist on. As for why you're wrong? Plenty of US media sources have plenty of anti US government articles. Lots of ones bashing obamacare, bashing our economy, bashing the way it's going, articles about how the NSA needs to be stopped, articles about the current struggle with NSA and those who are suppose to oversee them. Russia would never allow anything similar to be published.
O'kay. Because of it you can just turn on Echo Moscow/RBC/TVRain or some other stuff, if you want to see other side of coin/listen to some experts/have fun.
There aren't 2-3 channels in this country. It's srsly like we have everything blocked, living with bag on head and don't know anything.
You do realize good news has no sides, there is only the truth and good news tries to find and convey that. News is meant to inform not sway.
Can you give me a ticket to utopian world? I wanna join you there.
Jede Geschichte hat vier Seiten. Deine Seite, Ihre Seite, die Wahrheit und das, was wirklich passiert ist.
In English: "Every story has four sides! Your side, their side, the truth and what really happened!"
But back to current events: It's looking good, that both Kerry and Lawrow are telling us, that they are interested in a diplomatic solution to this mess! And yes, I think Russia is true in this!
this is really peaceful (unlike Maidan) anti-EU meeting in Lviv
Can somebody actually living in former URSS states tell me what the hell is up with all the anti-gay movements? Why do they relate EU with some sort of homosexual masonry? Is it because of post-communist resurgence orthodoxy? Are gays the new jews in their fascist-like ideology? What is going on?
this is really peaceful (unlike Maidan) anti-EU meeting in Lviv
Can somebody actually living in former URSS states tell me what the hell is up with all the anti-gay movements? Why do they relate EU with some sort of homosexual masonry? Is it because of post-communist resurgence orthodoxy? Are gays the new jews in their fascist-like ideology? What is going on?
Actually, you're not far off. I've heard the following analysis from a number of sources:
...Vladimir Putin has been careful to quote Russian philosophers from the 19th and 20th centuries like Nikolai Berdyaev, Vladimir Solovyov and Ivan Ilyin.
Putin doesn’t only quote these guys; he wants others to read them. As Maria Snegovaya pointed out recently in The Washington Post, the Kremlin recently assigned three philosophic books to regional governors: Berdyaev’s “The Philosophy of Inequality,” Solovyov’s “Justification of the Good” and Ilyin’s “Our Tasks.”
Putin was personally involved in getting Ilyin’s remains re-buried back in Russian soil. In 2009, Putin went to consecrate the grave himself. The event sent him into a nationalistic fervor. “It’s a crime when someone only begins talking about the separation of Russia and the Ukraine,” he said on that day.
...
These philosophers often argued that the rationalistic, materialistic West was corrupting the organic spiritual purity of Russia. “The West exported this anti-Christian virus to Russia,” Ilyin wrote, “Having lost our bond with God and the Christian tradition, mankind has been morally blinded, gripped by materialism, irrationalism and nihilism.”
You can hear echoes of this moralistic strain in Putin’s own speeches, especially when he defends his regime’s attitude toward gays and the role of women. Citing Berdyaev, he talks about defending traditional values to ward off moral chaos. He says he is defending the distinction between good and evil, which has been lost in the outside world. Source.
I don't know about these things personally since I emigrated from Ukraine before I knew what any of these issues where, but according to my mother, who is a research scientist, the "revolutionary", "progresist" and "anti-communist" ideas were to put women back to their housekeeping place. At least that is how she felt during her career in the URSS. Maybe Putin is being progressive and fighting against Russia's communist oppresive past.
On March 31 2014 18:35 SF-Fork wrote: I don't know about these things personally since I emigrated from Ukraine before I knew what any of these issues where, but according to my mother, who is a research scientist, the "revolutionary", "progresist" and "anti-communist" ideas were to put women back to their housekeeping place. At least that is how she felt during her career in the URSS. Maybe Putin is being progressive and fighting against Russia's communist oppressive past.
I think the analysis says that Putin is not being progressive, in fact, his ideology is very traditionalist and conservative. Even though the communists were against all religions, orthodox morality wasn't far off. Remember that gays were not tolerated in the USSR either.
this is really peaceful (unlike Maidan) anti-EU meeting in Lviv
Can somebody actually living in former URSS states tell me what the hell is up with all the anti-gay movements? Why do they relate EU with some sort of homosexual masonry? Is it because of post-communist resurgence orthodoxy? Are gays the new jews in their fascist-like ideology? What is going on?
its nice to see that estonian guy who has fascist veterans parades in his country (and as I understood fully supports them) answered your question first
how can ppl not relate EU with some "sort of homosexual masonry" if there are gay marriages etc.? most of the exUSSR countries are very traditionalistic and I don't think its bad
by the way it is very interesting problem Russia gets a lot of critic for its "anti-gay propaganda for children" law while Qatar considers gay intercourse as crime and you can be punished for this (from 7 years in prison to death sentence)
by the way, there is no democracy in Qatar too - it's an absolute monarchy but nobody cares
On March 31 2014 18:35 SF-Fork wrote: I don't know about these things personally since I emigrated from Ukraine before I knew what any of these issues where, but according to my mother, who is a research scientist, the "revolutionary", "progresist" and "anti-communist" ideas were to put women back to their housekeeping place. At least that is how she felt during her career in the URSS. Maybe Putin is being progressive and fighting against Russia's communist oppressive past.
I think the analysis says that Putin is not being progressive, in fact, his ideology is very traditionalist and conservative. Even though the communists were against all religions, orthodox morality wasn't far off. Remember that gays were not tolerated in the USSR either.
What I mean is that maybe what we see as traditionalist and conservative is in fact seen as progressive for Putin suporters. Normally reactionary ideologists claim that they are traditionalist, but since it has been so long since tsarist russia, they can now turn the whole argument around and make "traditions" be equal to Soviet Russia.
this is really peaceful (unlike Maidan) anti-EU meeting in Lviv
Can somebody actually living in former URSS states tell me what the hell is up with all the anti-gay movements? Why do they relate EU with some sort of homosexual masonry? Is it because of post-communist resurgence orthodoxy? Are gays the new jews in their fascist-like ideology? What is going on?
its nice to see that estonian guy who has fascist veterans parades in his country (and as I understood fully supports them) answered your question first
how can ppl not relate EU with some "sort of homosexual masonry" if there are gay marriages etc.? most of the exUSSR countries are very traditionalistic and I don't think its bad
by the way it is very interesting problem Russia gets a lot of critic for its "anti-gay propaganda for children" law while Qatar considers gay intercourse as crime and you can be punished for this (from 7 years in prison to death sentence)
by the way, there is no democracy in Qatar too - it's an absolute monarchy but nobody cares
and you know why?
because Qatar is long time USA ally
For some reason I just can't find the link between allowing gay marriages and fearing a gay power-mongering conspiracy. Allowing women to vote is a means to creating a matriarchal society? This is the kind of attitude from Russian people I am struggling with. How can you mix gay-marriage with international relations, I just don't get it.
this is really peaceful (unlike Maidan) anti-EU meeting in Lviv
Can somebody actually living in former URSS states tell me what the hell is up with all the anti-gay movements? Why do they relate EU with some sort of homosexual masonry? Is it because of post-communist resurgence orthodoxy? Are gays the new jews in their fascist-like ideology? What is going on?
its nice to see that estonian guy who has fascist veterans parades in his country (and as I understood fully supports them) answered your question first
how can ppl not relate EU with some "sort of homosexual masonry" if there are gay marriages etc.? most of the exUSSR countries are very traditionalistic and I don't think its bad
by the way it is very interesting problem Russia gets a lot of critic for its "anti-gay propaganda for children" law while Qatar considers gay intercourse as crime and you can be punished for this (from 7 years in prison to death sentence)
by the way, there is no democracy in Qatar too - it's an absolute monarchy but nobody cares
and you know why?
because Qatar is long time USA ally
For some reason I just can't find the link between allowing gay marriages and fearing a gay power-mongering conspiracy. Allowing women to vote is a means to creating a matriarchal society? This is the kind of attitude from Russian people I am struggling with. How can you mix gay-marriage with international relations, I just don't get it.
i cannot find a link between your initial question and line about "fearing a gay power-mongering conspiracy" nobody fears gays
most of the ppl think gay-marriages are weird so they don't want this weird thing to happen in their country, but since EU considers its very important - ppl don't want to join EU
EPT
