Ukraine Crisis - Page 461

On April 29 2014 22:58 zatic wrote:
They are special forces. Being "in readiness" is basically their job. Doesn't mean there is any intention at all to use them in Ukraine. Never going to happen.

VIENNA, 29 April 2014 – OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Dunja Mijatović today denounced new cases of kidnapping and attacks on journalists, the recent takeover of a regional television station in Donetsk and illegal switching of broadcasts.

“Impunity for assailants of journalists and broadcasters is escalating the tensions and contributing to the deterioration of the security situation. I am dismayed by the lack of response by the law enforcement authorities to these attacks. Rule of law must be re-introduced in Ukraine,” Mijatović said.

Unidentified uniformed and armed people seized the Donetsk Regional Television and Radio Company and a regional transmission centre and replaced some local broadcasts with Rossiya 24. Digital broadcasts of all Ukrainian channels were switched off along with analogue signals of UT1, ICTV, 1+1 and 5 Kanal and some were replaced with Russian broadcasts.

Yurii Lelyavskii, a freelance journalist with ZIK channel from Lviv and Sergei Shapovalov, a journalist with VolynPost news portal from Lutsk, were detained in Sloviansk and their current whereabouts are unknown. Ruslan Kukharchuk, a journalist with the Novomedia journalists’ association, was also detained by unidentified persons in Sloviansk and released after 13 hours.

Yesterday in Donetsk, Richard Gaisford and Simon Llewellyn from ITV (UK), and Yevgenii Shibalov, a journalist with the Zerkalo Nedeli newspaper, were attacked by protesters during a rally. Shibalov received head injuries and the ITV camera was damaged.

Reportedly new accreditation procedures have been introduced by the unofficial local leaders in Sloviansk. Journalists without credentials will not be allowed into administrative buildings or attend press briefings and might not be allowed to enter the town.

In Donetsk, the staff of 62.ua news portal was intimidated by a group of uniformed, armed people demanding that the journalists obtain their approval before publishing any reports.

Yesterday in Kyiv, protesters demanded that the Inter and ICTV channels stop broadcasting a Russian television series. During the protest at Inter, doors and windows of the offices were damaged and smoke grenades thrown inside. The channel continued to broadcast.
Source.

Moscow is subjecting Ukrainians, Russians and the rest of the world to an intense campaign of disinformation that tries to paint a dangerous and false picture of Ukraine’s legitimate government. Russia Today, the Moscow-based TV network financed by the government, is a key player in this campaign of distortion. Along with its Russian operation, RT operates an English-language broadcast out of Washington.

Last week, Secretary of State John Kerry referred to RT as a "propaganda bullhorn," which was promoting Russian President Vladimir Putin's "fantasy." The result was a predictable howl of protest from RT's editor, who claimed the State Department knows little about what is really happening in Ukraine today and had the audacity to request an apology.

I spent seven years as the managing editor of TIME magazine before joining the State Department. I understand the difference between news, propaganda and opinion. Propaganda is the deliberate dissemination of information that you know to be false or misleading in order to influence an audience.

From assertions that peaceful protesters hired snipers to repeated allegations that Kiev is beset by violence, fascism and anti-Semitism, these are lies falsely presented as news. An opinion is subjective and not a statement of fact. Opinions, however odious, are defensible speech in a way that false claims are not. RT is a distortion machine, not a news organization.
Consider the way RT manipulated a leaked telephone call involving former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. Through selective editing, the network made it appear that Tymoshenko advocated violence against Russia. Or the constant reference to any Ukrainian opposed to a Russian takeover of the country as a "terrorist." Or the unquestioning repetition of the ludicrous assertion last week that the United States has invested $5 billion in regime change in Ukraine. These are not facts, and they are not opinions. They are false claims, and when propaganda poses as news it creates real dangers and gives a green light to violence.

Sometimes it’s even too much for the people paid to make these claims. The network's clear bias led to an unprecedented on-air rebellion. First, the host of RT America, Abby Martin, condemned Russia's invasion of Crimea on a broadcast. Then one of the network's anchors, Liz Wahl, resigned on air, saying, "I cannot be part of a network funded by the Russian government that whitewashes the actions of Putin."

Yet, even so, I would defend the right of RT to broadcast. The First Amendment protects speech that we reject as much as speech that we embrace. The State Department facilitates RT’s coverage by giving them unrestricted access to our briefings. No one is arguing that RT should be taken off the air the way Moscow has abruptly ended the license that allows Voice of America to broadcast to Russians. Free access to information is a basic principle, even if that information is nothing more or less than propaganda. But the network and its editors should not pretend that RT is anything other than another player in Russia's global disinformation campaign against the people of Ukraine and their supporters.
Source.

On April 30 2014 00:45 Shady Sands wrote:
Oh, great. The (literally) bloody T word gets dragged into the debate again....

On April 30 2014 02:01 mahrgell wrote:
I'm not exactly sure, how the protests/uprising now are much different from the initial Euromaiden...

The used language and methods are pretty much the same, just that the parties involved changed sides...

Both events had violent and peaceful 'protesting/uprising' elements, and depending on which side certain nations and media were favoring, they simply ignored either the peaceful or violent parts...
In both events administrative buildings were stormed by the protesters and held for longer times...
In both events everyone not supporting the (at this time in power) states position was labelled terrorists, unrightful, illegal, and had to be crushed by force.
In both events foreign nations did their best to fuel the uprisings even more, if it fit their own agenda.
In both events the security forces were supposed to crush the protests/uprising by the state and it's allies, and requested by the protesters and their allies to refuse their orders and change sides... Those that did, were called traitors/heroes, again depending on view.

On April 30 2014 00:45 Shady Sands wrote:
Oh, great. The (literally) bloody T word gets dragged into the debate again....

On April 30 2014 02:12 m4ini wrote:


There's quite alot of assumptions or plain wrong statements in there. Maybe you're not sure because you didn't make the effort to "investigate" for yourself.

On April 30 2014 02:20 mahrgell wrote:


Oh enlighten me about the wrong parts?

On April 30 2014 02:20 mahrgell wrote:


Oh enlighten me about the wrong parts?

On April 30 2014 02:14 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:

I expected it much sooner to be honest. Nazis are to Russia as terrorists are to the US. Everyone Russia/US don't like is obviously one, regardless if they actually are or not. Meanwhile, anyone they like or support is under no circumstances of being labeled as such, even if they fit the definition to the hilt. Welcome to politics.

On April 30 2014 02:33 Ghanburighan wrote:



- Actions are different: Euromaidan activists wanted to remain at the Maidan and keep on protesting. When the police left, they did not take over govt. buildings, and even protected the area from looting.

In the East, even in Luhansk and Donetsk, you have very few actual protests, instead you have small armed gangs of men, led by Cossacks from Russia. They do targeted attacks such as taking over admin buildings (needed for the elections) or taking over TV broadcasting buildings to turn off Ukrainian media and to turn on Russian media. Or the capture dissenting journalists.
- As is quite evident, despite the pro-Russia guys using lethal force, the Ukrainian army and special forces are not returning the favour.

I fail to see how `other nations' fueled the Euromaidan, in fact, Western leaders tried to ignore it for three months, and only when it became a violent conflict did they send diplomats to help negotiate a deal. Furthermore, before that point, the EU had told Yanukovich that the EU agreement is off the table because of his actions. I guess that counts as fueling the protesters, but not in the way you would like to make the argument...

wrong
euromaidan activists took over administrative buildings in Kiev and other regions
i will post only 1 link, cause i have no time: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-protesters-seize-building-in-kiev-as-standoff-with-viktor-yanukovych-intensifies/
srsly how can you so blatantly lie?

again wrong
its so called separatists who try not to attack army forces cause there are a lot of recruits who don't want to fight
they fight special forces like SBU though

when you fail to see smthing it doesn't mean it isn't exist

TL:DR for new users in the thread: don't listen to Ghan

On April 30 2014 03:39 PaleMan wrote:
radiatoren, believe it or not Zhirinovsky demanded the split of Ukrain in 2010
its very weird cause he is considered a clown

On April 30 2014 04:40 radiatoren wrote:

Yeah, he is quite the character and not least because of that I believe you.
It takes quite a character to go and demand a change of the world map. Especially when another country is independent and its legitimate leaders doesn't agree.