EPThttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26447682
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/05/ukraine-crisis-russia-nato-talks-live
That said; first aid kit, american kit, you are British spies judging your physique!
Ukraine Crisis - Page 212
| Forum Index > Closed |
There is a new policy in effect in this thread. Anyone not complying will be moderated. New policy, please read before posting: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=21393711 | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26447682 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/05/ukraine-crisis-russia-nato-talks-live That said; first aid kit, american kit, you are British spies judging your physique! | ||
|
Alzadar
Canada5009 Posts
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/the-ukraine-crisis-through-the-whimsy-of-international-law-1.2559980 | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On March 06 2014 00:03 Sent. wrote: Switching parties is normal in ex communist countries because political scenes there aren't as stable and developed as those in the western countries. I'm not saying it's a good thing but in my opinion it's not enough to discredit an Eastern European politician. I think it depends on circumstances. Did he leave because a) they kicked him out b) he is an opportunist and saw bigger opportunity in the other party c) was bribed/otherwise "convinced" d) stopped agreeing with them ideologically e) did not like were the party is going I think e) is actually positive, a) and d) also might be positive. In post-communist countries new parties appear often, which I actually consider in general a good thing and a benefit. And politicians sometime move to the new party as it is closer to their personal position than the old one. Sometimes they of course move because they are opportunists. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
Manuel Ochsenreiter: It is not worth to talk about the content of Kerry’s speech because maybe Kerry is one of the best paid professional liars in the West. We have to remember what he was telling about Syria in the past. He was one of the loudest war-mongers when it came to Syria. So now he does this function too, when it goes against Russia. The worst thing is to see that this is a part of a giant media propaganda war against Russia, particularly against Crimea and against the Russians in Ukraine. This is really dramatic and what Kerry does and what he says, he is somehow like a pop star in this propaganda show against Russia and this we shall take seriously. http://rt.com/op-edge/propaganda-war-ukraine-usa-russia-876/ Top-level hypocricy. There is a propaganda war going on alright and it is starting to spark tension between western press and pro-russian people in Crimea and russian press and pro-ukrainian people. When that is said, the problem of propaganda is that the hard to defend positions will start to pile up. At some point rt might want to look at themself in this regard. In this article they are taking in a person with a rather extremist view to confirm their own version of reality, instead of having someone questioning or moving their understanding of reality. That is very bad journalism! They were/are among the media pushing the fascism-stories the most and since that has become one of the primary points of contention in the media-reports from the front they probably should look at softening the language to release some of the tension. But that is never going to happen. Top-level hypocricy. | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3939 Posts
A typical speech full of pictural descriptions of those heroes dying for the freedom of the world with the evil devil eating humanities children, blablabla. It may have been fitting into some of the cheapest Hollywood movies, but certainly was not helping anyone in this real world. In fact, it is water on the wheels of those trying to widen the gap between Russia and the West even further. And Russian counterpropaganda promptly picked it up, good job. | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3939 Posts
My fullest respect to those policemen in Donetsk(and other eastern ukrainian towns)... There may be many shitty jobs in these times, but theirs is certainly one of the worst... Having to split those heated crowds, trying to stay neutral, even though surely every police man there has their own idea who is right here, and somehow trying to keep the situation peaceful, while being constantly under attack themselves is hell of a job right now. Their professionalism is, what somehow gives hope for a reasonable solution. I already pay a lot of respect to the normal police officers in Germany, having to split right and left extremists... But in Ukraine the situation is so much more volatile right now... And every little misstep can cause a lot, even on a global level. And certainly it is also much harder to stay neutral, when everyone is affected personally... (unlike in this stupid Right vs Left fights we have here, where you can easily call both sides idiots and have your own more neutral position) | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
In Ukraine in years before 2004 political parties have been incredibly unstable. Generally they were meant to get a few popular frontrunners and to capitalize on that. The party policy was almost non-existant. The exception was the Party of Regions. It was very organised and had huge oligarhic support. As a pay-off for the support for example the whole Donbass region was made a huge free economic zone with benefits none other region in Ukraine had. PoR had been always incredibly corrupt, but for people who had access to them it was a positive, since as soon as one could become part of it, lots of possibilities were opened. And for those from the Eastern regions finding someone who has connections to PoR or just working for one of them was pretty easy. So many voted for them because it was literally making their lives better (at the expense of others, but who cares). A lot of people in the East also feel like since there is so much industry in the East, they are actually "feeding" everyone else, so they are kind of entitled to some perks, like having control of the country and some corruption working for them. So as PoR was rising up the affiliation to it became the biggest political factor. Either a party was with them, or against them. Now this division was the biggest factor for the voters. And up till now it stayed like this. So back to Poroshenko now. There was only one big switch when he joined the Party of Regions. It was because of his (and of many other oligarhs, including the ones from the orange camp) conflict with Tymoshenko. Eventually Yanukovich backed off on his agreements and started to develop his "Family" allowing oligarhs less and less into the politics and corruption schemas. Those who didn't like it started experiencing various problems like more and more officials demanding bribes not to interfere with their companies' businesses. Poroshenko's businesses were hurt the most, since he was the biggest outsider. Overall Poroshenko is an opportunist. But there is very little one can throw at him in terms of corruption schemas. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On March 06 2014 04:41 Cheerio wrote: About Poroshenko. In Ukraine in years before 2004 Political parties have been incredibly unstable. Generally they were meant to get a few popular frontrunners and to capitalize on that. The party policy was almost non-existant. The exception was the Party of Regions. It was very organised and had huge oligarhic support. As a pay-off for the support for example the whole Donbass region was made a huge free economic zone with benefits none other region in Ukraine had. PoR had been always incredibly corrupt, but for people who had access to them it was a positive, since as soon as one could become part of it, lots of possibilities were opened. And for those from the Eastern regions finding someone who has connections to PoR or just working for one of them was pretty easy. So many voted for them because it was literally making their lives better (at the expense of others, but who cares). A lot of people in the East also feel like since there is so much industry in the East, they are actually "feeding" everyone else, so they are kind of entitled to some perks, like having control of the country and some corruption working for them. So as PoR was rising up the affiliation to it became the biggest political factor. Either a party was with them, or against them. Now this division was the biggest factor for the voters. And up till now it stayed like this. So back to Poroshenko now. There was only one big switch when he joined Party of Regions. It was because of his (and of many other oligarhs, including the ones from the orange camp) conflict with Tymoshenko. Eventually Yanukovich backed off on his agreements and started to develop his "Family" allowing oligarhs less and less into the politics and corruption schemas. Those who didn't like it started experiencing various problems like more and more officials demanding bribes not to interfere with their companies' businesses. Poroshenko's businesses were hurt the most, since he was the biggest outsider. Overall Poroshenko is an opportunist. But there is very little one can throw at him in terms of corruption schemas. Thanks for the explanation. Btw, if you do not mind telling, which group/party do you find most attractive ? | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5078 Posts
On March 05 2014 09:22 nunez wrote: so dishonest deb. if that latter part is putin being snidy it's quite funny. us is funelling resources into organizing in protests like these with said experienced people and have been for a long time. i think naive to think not directly, in the face of facts to pretend not indirectly. good Jake Rudnitsky quote (piece on orange-revolution) re: pando article poster earlier: source you say i'm being dishonest and then fail to prove it or bring it up again, can you even ad hominem in a coherent fashion? unsupported assertion from rudnitsky followed by speculation is taken by you, nunez, as a recitation of cold hard facts with which to say i am dishonest. pathetic but expected. read your own goddamn link - what you quoted was written about 2004, not today. all the author, mark ames said, without substantiation, is that the quote "applies to the US/EU role today." no evidence needed. jeebus h. keeerist. you should get warned for posts as sloppy and ridiculous as the above quoted one as they serve no purpose but as a foundation for you to say i'm dishonest. if you're going to link something and use it to attack me, try reading it first next time k? thx! JudicatorHammurabi Whether or not she is the "only one" is irrelevant to this matter so I don't know why you bring it up. For someone who gets oh so indignant when people don't accept his shocked and outraged uber-realpolitik view of the world, I'm surprised that you reject the idea that perception creates reality. But of course in this case this well-established idea serves America, as opposed to the other way around, so your assertion of irrelevance to the matter is not surprising at all. JudicatorHammurabi Eurasian Union? Establishing good relations with countries the US wants to eat up (just like we expanded our dominance to much of Eastern Europe after the Soviet collapse)? I don't see how this is delusional. Ah yes, the US wants to eat up these countries. Just like it ate up, say, Poland? Those bite marks on Poland, can't quite seem to find them... maybe some Poles could explain how the US ate them up. Or some Czechs. Maybe some Roumanians? Russia, on the other hand, merely wants good relations. This is why every single one of those countries other than Belarus has strained relations with Russia and views Moscow with varying degrees of suspicion. That's why every single one of those countries actually was eaten up by Russia for 45 years and historically longer than that but oh hell what's the point we already have you at the US wants to eat up these countries and Russia just wants to make relations, the delusion isn't going to stop. Of course you don't see how it is delusional, your definition of delusional is a one-way street with America and the West on the delusional side and everyone else on the rational, understandable side. JudicatorHammurabi If today's press conference says anything, he took the same exact approach as he must have with Merkel, because his "attackers" came out more uncomfortable than reassured of their moral high ground. And on what planet did this earth occur, where Western diplomats came out more uncomfortable than reassured of their moral high ground? It certainly was not the planet Earth. JudicatorHammurabi If Putin's "living in another world" on an ethical basis in regards to foreign policy, as you are suggesting, then I can't even imagine what she says (or more realistically, would like to say) about the US. I'm not supporting Russian incursion at all, but the situation could be significantly worse if other administrations were in his shoes. whataboutism! Does anyone think it possible for JudicatorHammurabi to make an argument about international relations that does not involve ludicrous references to and implications regarding the US being the worst country evar? JudicatorHammurabi True without a doubt, but what madness is he doing besides being a better socializer on the political field (making a confident "attacker" claiming the high ground feel uncomfortable isn't easy) and making relations with some of his neighboring countries that the US is hoping to expand to? Because that's his "madness" that has been stated in the last two pages of the thread. He is "mad" in some ways, but certainly not the things that people are stating. Oh yes it is the West that is feeling uncomfortable with criticizing Russia right now. Again, on what planet? Yes, that is a totally reasonable characterization of what Russia is doing, just making relations with some of his neighboring countries. lololololol. Do you read what you write before you hit post? JudicatorHammurabi Yeah, if you want to severely raise tensions with Russia, which isn't something the US nor its kids in Europe want to do. Our eating up the former Soviet bloc since 1991 to try to diminish any influence and power Russia has and to corner Russia is dickish enough as is. Yep, "eating up" the former Soviet bloc (which means absolutely nothing, it's just something Hammurabi says because he thinks it sounds good) to try to diminish any influence and power Russia has, after 45 years of Russia actually eating up the Eastern bloc (as opposed to the eating up by the US which happened only in Hammurabi's head), is such a dickish move by us. Russia should have been allowed to continue to rape and soak in blood Eastern Europe the way it had been doing for four and a half decades. But I'm sure that was probably the West's and America especially's fault too. We were trying to eat them up by giving them 50,000 trucks, millions of rifles, thousands of tanks and planes, billions of gallons of aviation gasoline, etc., to help them beat Hitler. The Russians had no choice but to occupy and rape Eastern Europe for 45 years in the face of our dickish behavior, right? Is that you, ghost of Henry Wallace? How long have you been possessing Hammurabi again? Or maybe it's the ghost of Mikhail Suslov. | ||
|
likeasu
Russian Federation88 Posts
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5dc_1393953567 | ||
|
Ramong
Denmark1706 Posts
Nice article about the Crimean Russian view on the west. It is becoming more and more apparent that a large part of the russian population seriously believe that we are somehow out to get them. Just look at some of the interviews posted here on TL and with the UN special envoy Robert Serry. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21116 Posts
On March 06 2014 05:31 Ramong wrote: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/ukraine-putin-tv-and-the-big-lie-104261.html?hp=pm_1#.UxeH4RBdXh4 Nice article about the Crimean Russian view on the west. It is becoming more and more apparent that a large part of the russian population seriously believe that we are somehow out to get them. Just look at some of the interviews posted here on TL and with the UN special envoy Robert Serry. welcome to the wonders of indoctrination. Its no co-incident that one of the first actions Russia took after occupying was to limit internet access. | ||
|
Rowrin
United States280 Posts
On March 06 2014 03:51 Dangermousecatdog wrote: You should remember to post your sources Sub40APM. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26447682 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/05/ukraine-crisis-russia-nato-talks-live That said; first aid kit, american kit, you are British spies judging your physique! Lol can anyone explain why those guys would suddenly freak out about finding a first aid kit? I mean surely America isnt the only place in the world with first aid kits. | ||
|
Taguchi
Greece1575 Posts
On March 06 2014 03:56 Alzadar wrote: Pretty good article from the CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/the-ukraine-crisis-through-the-whimsy-of-international-law-1.2559980 Yeah, pretty much. Obama blasting the Russians for occupying Crimea while sitting alongside the Israeli PM, currently occupying the West Bank. Just as Putin stood there and told the reporters, with a straight face, that all those extremely well organized, equipped and well behaved troops surrounding the Ukrainian bases are random civilians defending their livelihoods. This would make for some great comedy sketches... if only it didn't happen in the real world  | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21116 Posts
On March 06 2014 05:38 Rowrin wrote: Lol can anyone explain why those guys would suddenly freak out about finding a first aid kit? I mean surely America isnt the only place in the world with first aid kits. It was American man! totally have to be British spies then | ||
|
Liman
Serbia681 Posts
I find it hilarious how different media filters out the news in different ways. Just shows you how difficult it is to find real information. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21116 Posts
On March 06 2014 05:41 Liman wrote: There is still no mention of those"friendly" snipers in any western media,or even on aljazeera. I find it hilarious how different media filters out the news in different ways. Just shows you how difficult it is to find real information. Oh right the European snipers shooting at the pro-EU protests while the police snipers who we have pictures/video off did nothing. And ofc the fact the shots came from Police controlled sections. Yes totally friendly snipers..... | ||
|
Liman
Serbia681 Posts
Maybe they were americans or al qaeda:D | ||
|
likeasu
Russian Federation88 Posts
| ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3939 Posts
On March 06 2014 05:41 Liman wrote: There is still no mention of those"friendly" snipers in any western media,or even on aljazeera. I find it hilarious how different media filters out the news in different ways. Just shows you how difficult it is to find real information. The guardian (UK), Spiegel.de already mentioned it... Well... that's 2 out of the 2 sources I use... It was officially confirmed by all sides, that the conversation is authentic, but the interpretation is not exactly what RT makes out of it. Not sure where you get ' nobody mentioned it' from... | ||
| ||
