|
On March 02 2015 10:06 LegalLord wrote: Putin's approval rating is very high because he made things better for people (and that's also why the West doesn't really like him). It went as low as 20% at some points, such as during the Georgian crisis (though he was PM during this specific point). His popularity spike after the Crimean referendum is very much legitimate, judging by all those I know who didn't really like him much before who approve of him now.
If foreign countries started heavily investing into political parties in your country, you would think of them as traitors as well. Some groups are seen as traitors for exactly this reason; foreign funding for opposition groups in Russia is all too common. Not always fair but this tendency didn't develop without good reason.
You really believe the West hates Putin because he made life better for the Russian people ? The West doesn't like Putin because Russia's course is incompatible with the self-determination of ex-Soviet nations and because minorities are becoming increasingly marginalized.
Russia's political atmosphere looks like post WW1 Germany. The two enemies are the liberals on the inside who only care about money and themselves and the evil foreign forces who allegedly want to see the people suffer. Then the glorious honest nationalists step in and bring the country back to glorious strength!
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On March 02 2015 10:16 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2015 10:06 LegalLord wrote: Putin's approval rating is very high because he made things better for people (and that's also why the West doesn't really like him). It went as low as 20% at some points, such as during the Georgian crisis (though he was PM during this specific point). His popularity spike after the Crimean referendum is very much legitimate, judging by all those I know who didn't really like him much before who approve of him now.
If foreign countries started heavily investing into political parties in your country, you would think of them as traitors as well. Some groups are seen as traitors for exactly this reason; foreign funding for opposition groups in Russia is all too common. Not always fair but this tendency didn't develop without good reason. You really believe the West hates Putin because he made life better for the Russian people ? The West doesn't like Putin because Russia's course is incompatible with the self-determination of ex-Soviet nations and because minorities are becoming increasingly marginalized. Yes, that is more or less the reason. Notice that Putin is least popular whenever his interests contradict that of the United States, such as in Syria or in building missile bases in Poland. Yeltsin was extremely popular in the West (with the exception of when he spoke out against NATO involvement in Yugoslavia), precisely because he didn't do this much.
Let's not even get into the ex-Soviet nations and marginalizing minorities - lot of those issues being swept under the rug in the name of spiting Russia. There were at least a few ethnic conflicts in the republics in the past two decades.
On February 28 2015 19:59 Narw wrote: Yeah, poor Putin, western media so rude towards him. All that happened recently was some invasion of Ukraine, shooting down a plane and some critic being shot, no biggie. Wonder why media are so hard towards him :/.
Next time they should just headline it some random politician in some random country shot, that way no one gets offended. I think this is one of the simplest yet most poisonous posts in the entire thread. One of the major tenets of Western democracy is supposed to be due process, and more specifically the idea of "innocent until proven guilty." There are at least three major assertions in this short post:
1. There was an invasion of Ukraine. There were certainly volunteers, most of them from Russia, but even many European leaders say that there is no proof of an invasion. This is speculation paraded as fact by biased parties. 2. MH17. Frankly I see no reason why this would be blamed on Russia unless you just wanted to pin it on Russia. No evidence and it seems that the investigation has basically stopped? Until there is evidence that Russia played a hand in this, no reason to assume there is. 3. This shooting. Once again, no evidence, little reason to assume involvement unless that is the interpretation of events you find most suitable to hold.
The fact that all of these are pinned on Russia despite the lack of evidence is quite telling. The reasonable, though less interesting, thing to do would be to simply wait until reliable evidence appears before placing the blame on someone. Isn't that how the whole Syrian chemical weapons charade played out?
|
On March 02 2015 10:38 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2015 10:16 Nyxisto wrote:On March 02 2015 10:06 LegalLord wrote: Putin's approval rating is very high because he made things better for people (and that's also why the West doesn't really like him). It went as low as 20% at some points, such as during the Georgian crisis (though he was PM during this specific point). His popularity spike after the Crimean referendum is very much legitimate, judging by all those I know who didn't really like him much before who approve of him now.
If foreign countries started heavily investing into political parties in your country, you would think of them as traitors as well. Some groups are seen as traitors for exactly this reason; foreign funding for opposition groups in Russia is all too common. Not always fair but this tendency didn't develop without good reason. You really believe the West hates Putin because he made life better for the Russian people ? The West doesn't like Putin because Russia's course is incompatible with the self-determination of ex-Soviet nations and because minorities are becoming increasingly marginalized. Yes, that is more or less the reason. Notice that Putin is least popular whenever his interests contradict that of the United States, such as in Syria or in building missile bases in Poland. Yeltsin was extremely popular in the West (with the exception of when he spoke out against NATO involvement in Yugoslavia), precisely because he didn't do this much. Let's not even get into the ex-Soviet nations and marginalizing minorities - lot of those issues being swept under the rug in the name of spiting Russia. There were at least a few ethnic conflicts in the republics in the past two decades.
Let me try to get this straight. You claim the west doesn't like Putin because he made life better for Russians, and then you clarify by saying "yes, notice how the west dislikes him most when his policies are in conflict with United States interests". Don't you see a problem in this line of reasoning? You just said yourself that the West dislikes Putin because his policies are in conflict with the West, not because he "makes life better for Russians". I'm sort of baffled here. You're making it sound like Putin is disliked because the entire Western world is spiteful towards Russians and wants to see them suffer, and not because his policies are so often out of line with the goals of Western countries.
|
On March 02 2015 10:06 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2015 00:59 radscorpion9 wrote: All I know is, I have watched Russia Today Don't do that. Show nested quote +On March 02 2015 00:59 radscorpion9 wrote:and seen how anti-west (really just anti-US) it can be, and that sometimes it is so obvious and extreme, that I am left genuinely shocked; especially with the stories about Ukraine being composed entirely of nazis killing Russian speaking people. I am even more worried after now reading that most people in Russia simply don't have access to any other sources of news, or that they can't read any foreign languages. I think this is a wake up call to how damaging propaganda can be in its most extreme forms; we assumed this was just an isolated case in North Korea and China, but it started up so easily in Russia...and now it is the norm there.
What is the future of Russia going to be like? Putin looks like he's going to be a dictator for the rest of his life because he controls all the media, and therefore the minds of mostly all Russian citizens. This is why his approval ratings are at 90% in spite of a crumbling economy. If North Korea is any indication there won't ever be a breaking point. People will believe you are the savior even if your economy is non-existent and your technology is from the 50s while people are starving around you. As someone who reads news in both English and Russian, I would have to say that Russian news is definitely more objective as a whole (BBC is probably the English last source that still believes in journalistic integrity - everyone else just says whatever they want). There are some sources which are obviously propaganda (and everyone knows they are, this includes RT and Channel 1), and more level-headed sources as well (which are rarely in English). These days, apparently Twitter counts for a source, although if you look back at old threads with Twitter feeds, you will find more reckless speculation than truth. Putin's approval rating is very high because he made things better for people (and that's also why the West doesn't really like him). It went as low as 20% at some points, such as during the Georgian crisis (though he was PM during this specific point). His popularity spike after the Crimean referendum is very much legitimate, judging by all those I know who didn't really like him much before who approve of him now. If foreign countries started heavily investing into political parties in your country, you would think of them as traitors as well. Some groups are seen as traitors for exactly this reason; foreign funding for opposition groups in Russia is all too common. Not always fair but this tendency didn't develop without good reason.
I'd like to remind you that Russia is considered a not free country in terms of press freedom.
Source.
The only news channel still resisting being Novaya Gazeta, the others meekly push the Kremlin line.
As for your other point, the only way you can make sense of the claim that `Putin is hated by the West because he helps the people in Russia' if you assume, contrary to all evidence, that the West wants the people of Russia to suffer. Yet, even if you take some of the most vehement critics like Edward Lucas (the current Russian regime strongly dislikes him, see, for example, this RT smear piece), he is actually a self-declared Russiphile who has not only learned Russian but lived in Russia for years. He often mentions his friends in Russia. Why would he want them to suffer?
It's correct to say that Putin and the West have conflicting interests, but he is disliked in the West for concrete policies. Off the top of my head the two big ones are: a) wanting to dismantle the security framework established after the Cold War (for example NATO enlargement, Helsinki Accords, etc), b) establishing a near-abroad where the right of self-determination of peoples is diminished (Georgia and Ukraine are not allowed to establish closer ties with NATO and EU). Lying to Merkel and other leaders also deserves mention, as Merkel, for instance, is widely reported to have taken it as a personal affront (also raiding the offices of the Konrad Adenauer foundation in Russia which she established in honour of her political mentor didn't help).
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On March 02 2015 10:59 GwSC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2015 10:38 LegalLord wrote:On March 02 2015 10:16 Nyxisto wrote:On March 02 2015 10:06 LegalLord wrote: Putin's approval rating is very high because he made things better for people (and that's also why the West doesn't really like him). It went as low as 20% at some points, such as during the Georgian crisis (though he was PM during this specific point). His popularity spike after the Crimean referendum is very much legitimate, judging by all those I know who didn't really like him much before who approve of him now.
If foreign countries started heavily investing into political parties in your country, you would think of them as traitors as well. Some groups are seen as traitors for exactly this reason; foreign funding for opposition groups in Russia is all too common. Not always fair but this tendency didn't develop without good reason. You really believe the West hates Putin because he made life better for the Russian people ? The West doesn't like Putin because Russia's course is incompatible with the self-determination of ex-Soviet nations and because minorities are becoming increasingly marginalized. Yes, that is more or less the reason. Notice that Putin is least popular whenever his interests contradict that of the United States, such as in Syria or in building missile bases in Poland. Yeltsin was extremely popular in the West (with the exception of when he spoke out against NATO involvement in Yugoslavia), precisely because he didn't do this much. Let's not even get into the ex-Soviet nations and marginalizing minorities - lot of those issues being swept under the rug in the name of spiting Russia. There were at least a few ethnic conflicts in the republics in the past two decades. Let me try to get this straight. You claim the west doesn't like Putin because he made life better for Russians, and then you clarify by saying "yes, notice how the west dislikes him most when his policies are in conflict with United States interests". Don't you see a problem in this line of reasoning? You just said yourself that the West dislikes Putin because his policies are in conflict with the West, not because he "makes life better for Russians". I'm sort of baffled here. You're making it sound like Putin is disliked because the entire Western world is spiteful towards Russians and wants to see them suffer, and not because his policies are so often out of line with the goals of Western countries. Russia as a strong country is not good for Western interests. If you deny that there is a fair bit of animosity towards Russia and Russians in the Western world (among people AND governments), then there is not much more to say.
On March 02 2015 11:02 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2015 10:06 LegalLord wrote:On March 02 2015 00:59 radscorpion9 wrote: All I know is, I have watched Russia Today Don't do that. On March 02 2015 00:59 radscorpion9 wrote:and seen how anti-west (really just anti-US) it can be, and that sometimes it is so obvious and extreme, that I am left genuinely shocked; especially with the stories about Ukraine being composed entirely of nazis killing Russian speaking people. I am even more worried after now reading that most people in Russia simply don't have access to any other sources of news, or that they can't read any foreign languages. I think this is a wake up call to how damaging propaganda can be in its most extreme forms; we assumed this was just an isolated case in North Korea and China, but it started up so easily in Russia...and now it is the norm there.
What is the future of Russia going to be like? Putin looks like he's going to be a dictator for the rest of his life because he controls all the media, and therefore the minds of mostly all Russian citizens. This is why his approval ratings are at 90% in spite of a crumbling economy. If North Korea is any indication there won't ever be a breaking point. People will believe you are the savior even if your economy is non-existent and your technology is from the 50s while people are starving around you. As someone who reads news in both English and Russian, I would have to say that Russian news is definitely more objective as a whole (BBC is probably the English last source that still believes in journalistic integrity - everyone else just says whatever they want). There are some sources which are obviously propaganda (and everyone knows they are, this includes RT and Channel 1), and more level-headed sources as well (which are rarely in English). These days, apparently Twitter counts for a source, although if you look back at old threads with Twitter feeds, you will find more reckless speculation than truth. Putin's approval rating is very high because he made things better for people (and that's also why the West doesn't really like him). It went as low as 20% at some points, such as during the Georgian crisis (though he was PM during this specific point). His popularity spike after the Crimean referendum is very much legitimate, judging by all those I know who didn't really like him much before who approve of him now. If foreign countries started heavily investing into political parties in your country, you would think of them as traitors as well. Some groups are seen as traitors for exactly this reason; foreign funding for opposition groups in Russia is all too common. Not always fair but this tendency didn't develop without good reason. I'd like to remind you that Russia is considered a not free country in terms of press freedom. Source.The only news channel still resisting being Novaya Gazeta, the others meekly push the Kremlin line. Quoting a US-based group which is commonly accused of bias in its choices? I think that is the most that needs to be said.
Most Russian news sources report the news, possibly with a slant, but with much more news than baseless speculation. That is the idea of journalistic integrity, an idea which seems to have been lost in the western media.
On March 02 2015 11:22 Slaughter wrote: Why is a strong Russia bad for the West? A strong Russia is good except when they decide to annex parts of other countries because the mood struck them. Because large, powerful countries can have conflicting interests in the world. China certainly has different interests than the US, and so does Germany (although at the moment they are a little too dependent on the US to fully pursue them).
|
Why is a strong Russia bad for the West? A strong Russia is good except when they decide to annex parts of other countries because the mood struck them.
|
Most Russian news sources report the news, possibly with a slant, but with much more news than baseless speculation. That is the idea of journalistic integrity, an idea which seems to have been lost in the western media.
ok http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
|
On March 02 2015 11:18 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2015 10:59 GwSC wrote:On March 02 2015 10:38 LegalLord wrote:On March 02 2015 10:16 Nyxisto wrote:On March 02 2015 10:06 LegalLord wrote: Putin's approval rating is very high because he made things better for people (and that's also why the West doesn't really like him). It went as low as 20% at some points, such as during the Georgian crisis (though he was PM during this specific point). His popularity spike after the Crimean referendum is very much legitimate, judging by all those I know who didn't really like him much before who approve of him now.
If foreign countries started heavily investing into political parties in your country, you would think of them as traitors as well. Some groups are seen as traitors for exactly this reason; foreign funding for opposition groups in Russia is all too common. Not always fair but this tendency didn't develop without good reason. You really believe the West hates Putin because he made life better for the Russian people ? The West doesn't like Putin because Russia's course is incompatible with the self-determination of ex-Soviet nations and because minorities are becoming increasingly marginalized. Yes, that is more or less the reason. Notice that Putin is least popular whenever his interests contradict that of the United States, such as in Syria or in building missile bases in Poland. Yeltsin was extremely popular in the West (with the exception of when he spoke out against NATO involvement in Yugoslavia), precisely because he didn't do this much. Let's not even get into the ex-Soviet nations and marginalizing minorities - lot of those issues being swept under the rug in the name of spiting Russia. There were at least a few ethnic conflicts in the republics in the past two decades. Let me try to get this straight. You claim the west doesn't like Putin because he made life better for Russians, and then you clarify by saying "yes, notice how the west dislikes him most when his policies are in conflict with United States interests". Don't you see a problem in this line of reasoning? You just said yourself that the West dislikes Putin because his policies are in conflict with the West, not because he "makes life better for Russians". I'm sort of baffled here. You're making it sound like Putin is disliked because the entire Western world is spiteful towards Russians and wants to see them suffer, and not because his policies are so often out of line with the goals of Western countries. Russia as a strong country is not good for Western interests. If you deny that there is a fair bit of animosity towards Russia and Russians in the Western world (among people AND governments), then there is not much more to say.
Actually, I'd say that there has been very little if any animosity towards Russians, and that it is nearly all directed at the Russian government. But no, it appears there isn't much more to say if you're going to claim that the basis of western dislike of Putin is a desire to see Russians suffer. One of the more ridiculous things I've ever read on this site.
|
im glad v for vendetta is correct in showing that people living under dictatorship arent stupid
|
The performance of European countries in the RSF press freedom rankings is impressive. It becomes less impressive, however, when one knows the extent to which RSF depends for its financing upon European governments: either directly or indirectly via the European Union. RSF is commonly referred to as a "non-governmental organization" or "NGO." But in light of its financial dependence upon and close ties to, in particular, the French government and, above all, European institutions, RSF could be regarded as the very prototype of what might better be called a "PGO": a "para-governmental organization." As will be seen in Part II of this exposé (to be published next week), its highly curious rankings map far better upon the external -- and, in certain cases, internal -- political agenda of the European Union than upon any concrete indicators of press freedoms, or restrictions thereupon, in the countries RSF claims to be objectively evaluating. Part one: http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/1312/the-reporters-without-borders-press-freedom-index-independent-assessment-or-eu-propaganda-part-i Part two: http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/1350/the-reporters-without-borders-press-freedom-index-independent-assessment-or-eu-propaganda-part-ii
I highly suggest you read this.
|
While it's always nice to discard data as paid propaganda (Edit: sarcasm alert), the methodology and data is available to read on the Freedom of the Press website I linked. You will see that their research is quite sound. And the best part about it, you can decide so yourself, without resorting to shady intermediary sources. Also note that Freedom house and Reporters Without Borders are different organizations and measure very different things (albeit the general assessment is similarly sad for Russia).
|
Legallord, saying there's 'no reason' MH17 (evidence obfuscated by the Russian paramilitary) should be blamed on Russia is ridiculously naive. I can see why you find integrity and balance in Russian news.The invasion of Ukraine by Russian military personnel is not 'baseless speculation'. It's happening right now and the only dissenting media is coming straight out of Putin's press office. I agree that the current 'hit' on an opposition leader could be extremists, acting alone, but the other two incidents are blatant and only unacknowledged by Russian media.
I also don't know where you get the idea that the West hates Russians. It's just the Putin regime with its antagonistic policies and shameless propaganda.
|
On March 02 2015 17:19 Ghanburighan wrote: While it's always nice to discard data as paid propaganda (Edit: sarcasm alert), the methodology and data is available to read on the Freedom of the Press website I linked. You will see that their research is quite sound. And the best part about it, you can decide so yourself, without resorting to shady intermediary sources. Also note that Freedom house and Reporters Without Borders are different organizations and measure very different things (albeit the general assessment is similarly sad for Russia). Wrong. If you had read the article:
This would surely not be too much to expect of an organization disposing of an annual budget of nearly four million euros: much of which, as shown in Part I of this exposé, derives from public French and EU sources. Anyone looking for such a report from RSF, however, will be disappointed. The RSF Press Freedom Index is merely accompanied by a seven-page press release. Four of the seven pages, however, are taken up by a reproduction in tabular form of the index itself. This leaves RSF's discursive presentation of its results topping out at all of two-and-a-half pages or some 1373 words (in the English version): less than half the length of the present article.
A heading on the Web page for the RSF index promising "Evaluation by region" gives one hope for finding something more to chew on. The heading is followed by links for "Americas," "Asia," "Africa," "Europe" and "Middle East." Anyone clicking on those links, however, will discover that they lead to exactly the same 1373-word press release, with merely the subtitles changed! A more brazen expression of RSF's disinterest in providing a detailed justification for its rankings would hardly be possible.
There is no data. They come up with their own scales without any kind of justification and write random numbers 'they feel are right' in.
edit: Oh, just saw that your link was freedom house. One of the most blatant propaganda US funded NGO's in the world.
From their wiki:
On December 7, 2004, U.S. House Representative Ron Paul criticized Freedom House for allegedly administering a U.S.-funded program in Ukraine where "much of that money was targeted to assist one particular candidate." Paul said that
"one part that we do know thus far is that the U.S. government, through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), granted millions of dollars to the Poland-America-Ukraine Cooperation Initiative (PAUCI), which is administered by the U.S.-based Freedom House. PAUCI then sent U.S. Government funds to numerous Ukrainian non-governmental organizations (NGOs). This would be bad enough and would in itself constitute meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. But, what is worse is that many of these grantee organizations in Ukraine are blatantly in favor of presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko."[40]
|
Zeo, please read what I actually write, not what you'd like me to write. I posted the Freedom House list and not the Reporters Without Borders link, and the former have their methodology and data freely available.
As for Reporters without Borders, you probably mean this methodology sheet. As for data, they publish reports which give you an indication of what is diminishing freedom of the press in a country. The latest on Russia is here. I don't think you can argue with the facts here.
|
Did you just wrote that Zeo can't argue with facts? :/ Wtf man.
Media in Russia are a thriving (as long as they support Kremlin, but that's just a detail, nothing important, don't worry too much about it).
|
On March 02 2015 18:13 Ghanburighan wrote:Zeo, please read what I actually write, not what you'd like me to write. I posted the Freedom House list and not the Reporters Without Borders link, and the former have their methodology and data freely available. As for Reporters without Borders, you probably mean this methodology sheet. As for data, they publish reports which give you an indication of what is diminishing freedom of the press in a country. The latest on Russia is here. I don't think you can argue with the facts here. Cherry picking data from countries who are not in good relations with the US and ingnoring glaring violations of human rights in countries close to the US does not mean they are 'un-biased'
For instance: in Ukraine for criticism of Ukraine parliament, Government or Maidan movement you will get 3 years prison for "undermining of state authority and its power" here is a link to the law: http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb2/webproc4_1?pf3511=54167
google translate: + Show Spoiler +Amend Section XV Crimes against the authority of state agencies, local governments and citizens' associations, the Criminal Code of Ukraine (Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (BD), 2001, № 25-26, Article 131), expanding its Article 339- 1 as follows: "Article 339-1. Deliberate actions to undermine the authority of the state and its authorities. Socially dangerous illegal acts that infringe on the authority of Ukraine as a sovereign state, public vilification, abuse, defilement or other actions aimed at undermining the authority of the state government, local government and civic Ukraine and / or cynical, contempt and rejection as certain structural elements of the system of public administration (its relevant authorities) and the state as a whole, which in the future may entail a violation of established social norms and rules of social and political system and life - punishable by correctional labor for up to two years, or arrest up to six months or imprisonment for up to three years. "
All media in a language used at home by 50% of the population was blanket banned.
Do we really have to guess that in the next 'freedom index' Ukraine will have a higher rating than my country even? Do we really have guess that these laws mysteriously will be 'overlooked'
Do people actually believe the extended arm of the white house would be in any way impartial towards coutries the white house perceives as enemies?
|
Err, Ukraine's Press, according to Freedom House, is NOT FREE Source The only reason they are "partly free" on the map is that they don't have internet controls (yet) but their report clearly places Ukraine on a negative trend.
|
On March 02 2015 11:22 Slaughter wrote: Why is a strong Russia bad for the West? A strong Russia is good except when they decide to annex parts of other countries because the mood struck them. You should read Brzezinski: USA has to keep Europe or else they are dead. Therefore they need a weak Russia so Europe doesn't ditch USA for Russia. Moreover, Ukraine is what he call a geopolitical "pivot" that should be pro American.
|
I like that, extended arm of the White House. Brilliant.
Ukraine, extended arm of White House, full of Nazis (which recent election results clearly show) and nationalists suppressing the freedom of speech and undermining core values for which Russian Federation strives and fights every day. Almost warrants an intervention one could say.
It's a freaking miracle that country doesn't have martial law imposed considering situation in which it is.
|
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
On March 02 2015 10:16 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2015 10:06 LegalLord wrote: Putin's approval rating is very high because he made things better for people (and that's also why the West doesn't really like him). It went as low as 20% at some points, such as during the Georgian crisis (though he was PM during this specific point). His popularity spike after the Crimean referendum is very much legitimate, judging by all those I know who didn't really like him much before who approve of him now.
If foreign countries started heavily investing into political parties in your country, you would think of them as traitors as well. Some groups are seen as traitors for exactly this reason; foreign funding for opposition groups in Russia is all too common. Not always fair but this tendency didn't develop without good reason. You really believe the West hates Putin because he made life better for the Russian people ? The West doesn't like Putin because Russia's course is incompatible with the self-determination of ex-Soviet nations and because minorities are becoming increasingly marginalized. Russia's political atmosphere looks like post WW1 Germany. The two enemies are the liberals on the inside who only care about money and themselves and the evil foreign forces who allegedly want to see the people suffer. Then the glorious honest nationalists step in and bring the country back to glorious strength!
Oh man, do you really think the US cares about some random country's right to self-determination? Well I guess they do, as long as that self-determination directly benefits them. They wanted to have a pro-Western country next to Russia with the prospect of installing a military base there, they wanted to kick Russia out of Sevastopol and deny them access to the Black Sea. That's the only reason they gave the go-ahead for the violent takeover of governmental buildings back in 2014 by promising their support, just a few days after a compromise agreement was signed by Yanukovich and the opposition (that included early elections), and they even had the cheek to admit as much.
I thought this "democracy" storyline was old after Yugoslavia and Iraq.
Sorry, this is quickly de-railing and I didn't mean to add to the flames.
|
|
|
|