Ukraine Megathread: Crimea River Build a Bridge, Get Over It

[Estruia]

He's much closer to Fascism politically than Ukraine is.

He's still correct, thought not because of fascism or any such thing. Putin is wildly popular because his actions stoke nationalist pride. Yes, in the long term he's screwing Russia politically and economically, but for now at least they get to feel like the world still fears them.

Of course the World fears Russia. It's the same principle as the Police being fearful of a strung-out Meth addict with a gun. It isn't a fear of the person/state itself, but rather what irrational and unexpected action it will take.

[United Marxist Nations]

Did you know that famous porn actress Sasha Grey was a heroic nurse in Eastern Ukraine, murdered by Ukrainian Fascists?

http://uatoday.tv/society/porn-star-den ... 10191.html





Truly, she has been an inspiration to us all. In more ways than one.

She is not murdered. She recently has denied the claim that she was killed on Twitter. What you are reading was an source that was incorrect.

Read his post before you tell him things he put in his own post.

[Costa Fierro]

BBC's new public service announcement: how to recognize Russian bomber aircraft.

[Bratislavskaya]

BBC's new public service announcement: how to recognize Russian bomber aircraft.

I'll be honest, that is hilariously unnecessary.

[Roski]

BBC's new public service announcement: how to recognize Russian bomber aircraft.

I'll be honest, that is hilariously unnecessary.

Well, people in England are bored and don't want civilians causing unnecessary aggressions with a nuclear state

[West Aurelia]

Truly, she has been an inspiration to us all. In more ways than one.

Why does she have symapthise for the Rebels? She is not of Russian descendant.

Maybe because ethnicity doesn't matter?

[Organized States]

BBC's new public service announcement: how to recognize Russian bomber aircraft.

You'll now its a Tu-95 because it'll be loud as fuck.

Those propellers are some of the loudest in the world.

Radio conversation between a Tu-95 and an Il-80.

[Organized States]

Russian bomber crew films NATO escorts.

I love that the British Typhoon did a little belly dance and showed the Russians that it's fully-armed. Seriously, though... Who on Earth is afraid of TU-95s, anymore? They're antiquated pieces of trash, just like the B-52 (only a little more shitty.)

That was actually a really beautiful manuever. Hats off to that pilot from No.11 Squadron.

I am. They have fairly good range and can lob cruise missiles pretty far. They may be old, but they're still quite impressive.

[West Aurelia]

BBC's new public service announcement: how to recognize Russian bomber aircraft.

Link from that article: Witness says Russian bombers flew inland.

[Geilinor]

Anti-Communism is on the rise in Russia, specifically stemming from Russian opposition to Putin.
https://twitter.com/tvrain/status/568100958846263296

Anti-communism? Putin isn't communist, so do you mean that communism is on the rise?

[Lytenburgh]

I'll bite.

First, some of us ― no, Hell, a fucking LOT of us ― opposed Reagan's efforts to back the Contras in an effort to overthrow the Sandinistas. As a matter of fact, it pretty much came to be the position of one of America's two major parties (the Democratic Party... which, now that I think of it, just happens to be PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA'S PARTY) that such efforts were wrong and ought to be halted.

In fact, not only was Reagan's Nicaraguan policy opposed by the Democrats, but in fact they actually moved to block it within the American political system. Democrats in the U.S. House and Senate enacted something called the Boland Amendment, which effectively cut off all funding for American efforts to undermine Nicaragua's Sandinista government.

This, of course, led directly to efforts by the Reagan Administration to circumvent the law by illegal means, via the illegal sale of arms to Iran in exchange for monies that were to then be funneled to the Contras. In America, we dubbed this the Iran-Contra Affair, and it badly damaged Ronald Reagan's political fortunes, to the point where it virtually ruined his second term as President.

So if we can pause here for a minute, we are able to see a significant difference between American efforts against Nicaragua and Russian efforts against the Ukraine: In the former case ― that is to say, the case of American intervention in Nicaragua ― there was widespread public opposition to a policy that was seen to be unjustified and unjustifiable, even to the point where the people who undertook said policy ended up suffering major political damage. In the latter case ― that is to say, Russian intervention in the Ukraine ― there appears to be only very minimal domestic opposition, and virtually no press criticism; nor does it appear likely that Putin will suffer much political blowback from his inexcusably aggressive policies.

So on the simple level of "whataboutism", any attempt to justify Russian buttfuckery in the Ukraine on the basis of similar American hijinx in Central America back in the 80s falls flat on its miserable face. Whereas (among Americans) only right-wing assholes ever really supported such criminal acts, while the majority of Americans thought them inexcusable ― a reality that in time led to the policy's failure ― apparently Russians in general don't know any better, which leads them to blindly and stupidly support unwarranted aggression on the part of their government.

...

Ah, but that's not all. Europe opposed American efforts in Central America, just as it opposes Russian aggression in the Ukraine today. Like the Democratic Party in the 80s, they have nothing to be ashamed of on this score, and no hypocritical "gotcha" to have to explain away in opposing Russia's efforts to screw over Kiev.

You know, ASB, every time you go "I protested this or that!" or "I and all progressive americans were against the Wear in Iraq!" it doesn't absolve your government (as a structure) of anything at all. I remember one small green dude saying something along the lines "Do. Or do not. There is no try".

It doesn't matter that Democrats were shocked, shocked at Reagan's black-ops, or that they tried to stop financing Contras. What really matters, is that your government succeed in financing murderous thugs, which resulted in a full out war on Micaragua and death of 2% of this country's population.

Good intentions, attempts and nice words don't count - only your deeds. There is little comfort that some of you will say "Sorry!" after all this mess you've started in the first place. Your tragedy won't become less horrible if your hear "You know - I was among those who was against it!". Hell, how is this different from "But I Chast Followink Mein Orders!" excuse? Damage is already done, people are already killed and you can't just say "It was meanies from Republicans! We are totally innocent! Now, lets be frineds?". It just doesn't work like that. No one is so stupid.

That doesn't cast Russia or Russians in a very flattering light, now does it?

Yes. We are more honest.



Then, too, American efforts in Nicaragua never got so far over the line as to see American soldiers volunteer to fight alongside the Contras, bringing their equipment along with them as part of whatever inexplicable "leave" arrangement allowed them to go off and fight a war under someone else's banner under the cloak of plausible deniability.

Nor did America grab a chunk of Nicaraguan territory (such as, say, the Mosquito Coast), hold a referendum there in support of annexation, and then incorporate said territory into the US. So there's still the whole "land grab" aspect of Russian intervention in the Ukraine that doesn't line up here with your analogy, leaving it embarrassingly dangling out there for everyone to see (a flaw this analogy shares with the usual "But-America-invaded-Iraq-without-justification!" whataboutist excuse, BTW).

One thing that no Russia will understand here (really - I talked with people about it) is why invasion in the name of NeoCon paranoia/NeoLib agenda (it's rather easy to mistake them!) that leads to thousands of deaths, enormous property damage, topples country's government AND results in years long occupation is somehow better then nearly bloodless return of former Russian territory greately supposrted by the locals? You won't convince any Russian (with a few exceptions being members of the so-called "liberal opposition", who are even now chant tirelessly "Маккейн прiдэ - порядок навiдэ!") that USA are a swell guys who've done no wrong, and that Russians are modern age's Nazis for helping their compatriots to reunite with the rest of the country. Logic "two wrongs don't make one right" won't work here till you prove that USA are not exceptionally and could be punished for their violations of international vorders like any other country.

But here's the most annoying part of the whole comparison: Ultimately, Nicaragua proved that American (or, rather, to be more precise, REPUBLICAN lies about the nature of the Sandinistas and their government were, well, just that: LIES. The FSLN ultimately held elections, ultimately lost one of those elections, and then eventually returned to power again THROUGH ADDITIONAL ELECTIONS ― and none of that ended up harming American security or destabilizing Central America one single jot. IOW, the Sandinistas proved that everything American right-wingers said about them was absolute bullshit: They proved that they in fact were NOT a threat to the region or America, that intervention against them had NOT be justifiable, and that the Democratic alternative policy ― namely, that of leaving them alone to determine their own fate on the basis of self-determination and national sovereignty ― WAS, in fact, the right approach.

I fail to see how is that any different from your own (echoing right-wing officials and Media) cries "Rushins are comming!" and "If we don't stop them NAOW Poland and Baltic will be next!". This totally baseless alarmism is no different then the fear of "Domino Principle" in Asia, which promted USA to involve themselves in Vietnam (among other nasty things). See how it turned out.

[Lytenburgh]

See Lyt, you might have been able to have a point with all this if Russia didn't invade another country and start arming and sending "volunteers" to fight in another part of said country. Russia has made itself seem like a threat again, they made their bed now they get to lay in it.

Don't move goalposts. Yeah, hindsight is always 20/20! "Ukraine should kept its nukes!", yadda-yadda-yadda.

Do you understand that the process of couses and consequences is much complicated then that? More complicated then "lets travel back in time and nuke Russia! This will teach them and prevent the Ukrainian invasion! Huzzah for 'Morcacy!"

Once again - I'm talking about late 90s-00s period here. And no one - even you - so far answered me, who thretened New European countries.[/quote]

No one threatened them, but they decided they wanted to join NATO anyway. Now, what in the hell is so hard to comprehend about that?

No one forced them to join NATO, they wanted to join and they were accepted. It isn't a vast anti-Russian conspiracy, it isn't a plot for the ebul west to conquer everything, they simply wanted to join NATO. Would you have complained so much if they wanted an alliance with Russia after the Cold War ended?[/quote]

1) The decision to accept them or not lied totally in hands of NATO leadership - not these "New European" countries.

2) Yes. The last thing Russia needed in that time would be some international military obligations. If they stayed neutral it would suited Russia more.

[Geilinor]

I fail to see how is that any different from your own (echoing right-wing officials and Media) cries "Rushins are comming!" and "If we don't stop them NAOW Poland and Baltic will be next!". This totally baseless alarmism is no different then the fear of "Domino Principle" in Asia, which promted USA to involve themselves in Vietnam (among other nasty things). See how it turned out.

The Soviet Union and China supported North Vietnam, that's no cop-out. They were clearly expanding their influence.

[Organized States]

BBC's new public service announcement: how to recognize Russian bomber aircraft.

Link from that article: Witness says Russian bombers flew inland.

I call bullshit. Untrained spotter is apparently the only person to see these in a metropolitan area with a military base nearby, that would in theory have trained observers.

[Costa Fierro]

BBC's new public service announcement: how to recognize Russian bomber aircraft.

I'll be honest, that is hilariously unnecessary.

I think it'd be an interesting addition to bird watching.

"Oh look Mavis. There's a lovely heron."

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

"Tom, what's that noise?"

"I do believe it's a Tu-95."

"Oh how lovely."

[Costa Fierro]

Link from that article: Witness says Russian bombers flew inland.

I call bullshit. Untrained spotter is apparently the only person to see these in a metropolitan area with a military base nearby, that would in theory have trained observers.

One would have thought other people would have heard the damn thing, even at the altitude it was flying at.

Here's one taken where the aircraft is about 300 feet above the ground. I remember reading somewhere that USAF pilots intercepting Bears could hear the engines and the noise it made above the sound of their own jets.

[The balkens]

I call bullshit. Untrained spotter is apparently the only person to see these in a metropolitan area with a military base nearby, that would in theory have trained observers.

One would have thought other people would have heard the damn thing, even at the altitude it was flying at.

Here's one taken where the aircraft is about 300 feet above the ground. I remember reading somewhere that USAF pilots intercepting Bears could hear the engines and the noise it made above the sound of their own jets.

Thats almost impressive.

[Lytenburgh]

What do you mean? Surely we have to appreciate the constant threat of war, occupation and repeated genocide,

Pray, tell us, who threatens your little country with war, occupation and repeated genocide?

disregard for our right to determine our own fucking future

As opposed to glorious EU!

and pathetic lies being spread about "fascist infestations"

Surely, there are no Neo-Nazis marches in free and democratic Baltic countries!

Noooope! Move along, nothing to look at here!

when at best you can count a few hundred in the Baltics as a whole,

Are you talking here about Russians? Really?

Even in Lithuania there are 176,913 of us.

thinly veiled racial hatred

"Racial"? Racial hatred of "True Racial Pribalts"? Erm... What?!

But, of course, Baltic states are totally devoid of any "hatred" to anyone - as demonstrated by your post.

ridiculous applications of collective guilt

Erm... aren't a lot of you Pribalts proud of your soldiers role in WW II? Especially ones who fought for Hitler? If not - then why all these SS-pride marches?

attempts to spread their bullshit among our own fucking citizens

Yeah! Let's fight "reactionary authoritarian regime" with limiting citizen's access to news and information from Russia! Fuck freedom of press - the future of your countries is under threat of imminent invasio, occupation and mass deportation! Info 187%.

This is not even covering the fact that we have to deal with idiotic trolls on the internet who sincerely believe that the Baltics are so fucking stupid on a genetic level that only the mighty Russian can control their inner fascist, and by pseudoeducated idiots who sincerely believe that their absurd understanding of how the world should work is a much more solid argument for what must happen than the actual democratic desires and interests of the people who live in the Baltics. (Anyone who disagrees with these two groups is apparently either a Jew-Banderite, or a Fascist Gay Russophobe.

But surely, you don't need to turn yourself up so much here, on NSG. I understand that you might feel yourself uncomfartable after such people as the Balkens or WRA throw termins like these right and left. But, OTOH, I've never utilised them! So, look at the bright side here!

Surely there's nothing to be pissed about?

Yep - nothing.

[Geilinor]

Erm... aren't a lot of you Pribalts proud of your soldiers role in WW II? Especially ones who fought for Hitler? If not - then why all these SS-pride marches?

Again, all you have to argue on is collective guilt.

[The balkens]

Erm... aren't a lot of you Pribalts proud of your soldiers role in WW II? Especially ones who fought for Hitler? If not - then why all these SS-pride marches?

Again, all you have to argue on is collective guilt.

I had two relatives in the German military.

One died, shot twice in the back of the head by his own troops and the other saw little action in the Luftwaffe in France.

Gee, no SS there.

[Lytenburgh]

My Russian is terrible, but it sounds like Russian Opposition are planning a "spring", similar to what happened with the Arab Spring and European colour revolutions. Could a fluent Russian speaker please confirm?
https://twitter.com/SvobodaRadio/status ... 0987239424

Anti-Communism is on the rise in Russia, specifically stemming from Russian opposition to Putin.
https://twitter.com/tvrain/status/568100958846263296

In Bulgakov's "Heart of the Dog" Prof. Preobrazhenkiy advised his assistent Bormental not to read Soviet press.

I advise you not to read Russian so-called liberal media.

- First twitt is about planning some protest march called "The Spring" in Mar'jino district of Moscow.
- Second speaks nothing about "Anti-Communism is on the rise in Russia". On "Dozhd TV" one so-called liber said that protester should list among their demands the dissolution of KPRF and the burial of Lenin. Some represetatives from the so-called Russian so-called opposition =/= Russians. Even a small part of them.

[Lytenburgh]

An article about high journalistic standards, to which some Pillars of Free and Independent Western Press (tm) are still beholden - as evidenced by their Ukrainian coverge:

Our embarrassing, servile media: Does the New York Times just print everything the government tells it?

The worst and most worrisome, and the case prompting this column, is the Times’ Moscow bureau, from which Ukraine is covered. It swooned long ago from media war into barely varnished propaganda. The propaganda war is getting as dangerous as the war on the ground, if not as bloody. It is closing too many minds now and, in the end, makes the ground war possible by cultivating among us a climate of hatred, paranoia, intolerance and confusion. It starts to feel pre-war, the way summer air grows heavy and still before a storm.

“What remains incontrovertible is that Ukraine is Mr. Putin’s war.”

The above sentence appeared in a Times editorial last Friday, the very day it reported Minsk II, the second attempt to achieve a lasting cease-fire. Think about it. Hold it up to the light and turn it this way and that. This column began the moment I read it.

First, it is patently untrue. It is one of those cases wherein making the assertion implicitly proves its falsity. If Moscow’s culpability were so incontrovertible as that, no one would have thought to write the sentence. The editorialist doth protest too much.

Second, what kind of editorial judgment has it that this is the responsible thing to publish immediately after Russia and the European powers— which excluded Washington, pointedly — labored 17 hours at a mahogany table to get a peace plan, however flimsy, in place? As a measure of the paper’s dignity, people of Gruson’s generation would quake.

Third, talk about ad hominem. It is one thing for correspondents to indulge themselves in pieces listing Putin’s “expensive watch” as proof of his irremediable tyrannies—yes, one of the above-named pulled this stunt last year—but it is altogether another for New York editors to peddle such junk as “Mr. Putin’s war.” Again, no dignity. (And shame on the foreign-desk editor who failed to cut the expensive watch bit.)

Last, miss this not: It is the reporting coming out of the Times bureau in Moscow that makes the indefensible sentence possible.

The day after the editorial appeared and a day before the cease-fire was even to begin, the Times took Washington’s word for it that Russia had already begun a new supply of ordnance into Ukraine. Russia: Yes, of course, the country that helped broker the cease-fire. Source: Jen Psaki, the State Department spokesperson, highly reliable always. In this case her veracity rested on this: “We are confident that these are Russian military, not separatist systems.”

Confident, as in so many instances over the past year. Does anybody at the Times ever get tired of the State Department’s confidence?

Here is the new truth of the Ukraine crisis: Washington wants this cease-fire to fail as swiftly as possible so it can get on with the job of arming Ukraine, provoking further tension with Russia and advancing as close as it can to the Russian border, the better to destabilize the Putin government. This remains my take on the American motivation.

With this thought in mind, the Times now fights the propaganda war on two fronts, it seems to me.

Reflecting a 21st century version of the relationship with power that obtained in Sydney Gruson’s time, it remains enlisted in Washington’s cause as just described. In days to come we are likely to hear all about how Russia is sabotaging whatever peace is eventually achieved. Minsk II failed because the man with the expensive watch can never be trusted. The feeble Europeans ought to have known this. Now for the weaponry.

Equally, the Times has a war of its own to wage now. The body of evidence as to Washington’s primary responsibility in Ukraine is simply so substantial now— incontrovertible, indeed —one loses interest in arguing the case. More interesting now is what lengths the Times will go to get out of the corner it has painted itself into. And what the Times does the rest of the American media will do, like a pack of penguins. The question is thus important.

So far the Times guards its investment in a false narrative by investing more in it. As things go now, in 50 years some young Times reporter will lay out the Ukraine crisis as it truly was and a carefully attenuated account of the Times’ part in it. It is a shame this cannot happen now.

Reason No. 1: Its reputation, at a time its credibility is already in question in a number of spheres, would take too damaging a hit were it to dial back. Reason No. 2: This is a large, institution-wide rendition of the access game. Mind your manners and do as you are told and you will continue to get all the leaks, the whispered tips, the documents no one else sees, the exclusive interviews with “senior administration officials.” (When, incidentally, was the last time a Times reporter ever spoke to an official who was not “senior”?)

Fail to mind your manners, goes without saying, and one way or another we will make a Sydney Gruson of you.

It is true my craft has betrayed me, notably the Times, where I worked in one capacity or another on two separate occasions. But one wants to take these editors and correspondents by the collar and shout, “Straighten up!” mostly because if they got their backbones in order they would go a long way to forcing Washington to straighten up, too, and get with the 21st century program.

[Geilinor]

There's no evidence that the US government tells the New York Times anything, there is only speculation by left-leaning media.

[Occupied Deutschland]

An article editorial about high journalistic standards some thoughts a guy has about, to which some Pillars of Free and Independent Western Press (tm) are still beholden - as evidenced by their Ukrainian coverge the New York Times:
...

I have taken the liberty of translating Lytt's bullshit into regular-speak.

[West Aurelia]

and pathetic lies being spread about "fascist infestations"

Surely, there are no Neo-Nazis marches in free and democratic Baltic countries!

Noooope! Move along, nothing to look at here!

It's a little something called freedom of speech.