Merged Ukraine erupts in riots and general strike.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Cuban missile crisis revisited?

Russian Troops Mass at Border in Ukraine

The announcement of the troop buildup by Russia’s Defense Ministry was met with an unusually sharp rebuke from Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, who warned that the Russian government must abandon what she called the politics of the 19th and 20th centuries or face diplomatic and economic retaliation from a united Europe.

“Ladies and gentlemen, if Russia continues on its course of the past weeks, it will not only be a catastrophe for Ukraine,” she said in a speech to the German Parliament. “We, also as neighbors of Russia, would not only see it as a threat. And it would not only change the European Union’s relationship with Russia. No, this would also cause massive damage to Russia, economically and politically.”

 

[Snarf]

Which part(s) did I get wrong?

That it's a fact that CNN let her go for restructuring. There was some, I hear, making it the possible reason. But it's also possible that's just their explanation, and she was really fired for her criticism. So it doesn't prove anything. It's not a fact but a claim.

So I got no parts wrong. Got it.

She says that she quit over the censorship, not that she was fired.
Snarf indeed got the "provide evidence for your claims" part wrong. At least he admits the censorship, which is the point here.

Who are you quoting there? I was merely pointing out inconsistencies with your loose facts, which, as uke2se already pointed out, pokes holes in your narrative - and I'll add, doesn't differentiate you very much from the "main stream media" complaining I hear about all the time from truthers and Fox News pundits, who also omit little facts here and there just to keep their narratives going. Wouldn't you rather lead by example?
Regarding the "evidence for my claims", well, I went on her wiki page and followed the link to the Greenwald/Guardian article, where the news about the CNNi censorship first broke. Near the end he also reports on her being fired, and provides a link. Why didn't Amber correct him on that before he published? Your quarrel, as well as CL's, is with Greenwald/Guardian, not me.
And now your turn - provide evidence where she says she "quit" CNN because of censorship. Here's your chance to lead by example.

 

[Caustic Logic]

So I got no parts wrong. Got it.

As if fact, you said "She didn't quit, she was let go due to restructuring."

She says she quit, they say no, we fired her first let her go for unrelated reasons. (I thought the claim was she was fired vs. let go, not quit vs. My bad.) So the order of claims will be key to even saying which is more likely true. You act like you know for a fact it was the CNN version and not hers. That's fine as an opinion, but it's not a fact.

Uke2se taking your opinion that it's a fact as destroying CE's opinion favoring Lyons' story is, well, what it is.

As far as I can tell, nothing was destroyed here and either story is possible. I'm fine leaving that mini-subject on this note.

ETA: So, no nothing really wrong per se. A bit imprecise, nothing tricky or usnusual, no big deal. Fair 'nuff?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Wall Street isn't a person.

Well put.

Russia also is not a person.

A corporation also is not a person.

Wall Street, however, is a collective of corporations, which as we know are considered legal persons. Can you cite a good reason this collective of persons isn't going to develop, from common interests, an overall interest set? like, say, easier and more profitable access to foreign resources and markets?

And this group of legal persons, in various well-known combinations, pretty much own the media. And this media routinely echoes the corporate-owned government's claims about this or that "rogue" government (always Socialist or left-"anti-imperialist" whack jobs with CTs about being targeted by "imperialists"). Said claims are often proven false, and often the falsity remains unproven.

But I just take note of this or any other bias set, consider what they're saying, what they're not, what others are, what makes sense and explains the evidence, etc. I'm not all hung up on any source's bias. Some chose to, and it makes the reading easier. Good for them. Easier times are nice.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Just a tidbit on the white power angle. As I was "investigoogling" for text of the Paet-Ashton call (I need to do my own best transcription soon) I found the search had a #2 hit that's since been deleted. Stromfront, the American neo-Nazi page with a keen interest in the rise of their allies overseas, had a lively discussion on this subject: "Tapped Phone leak: "Behind The Kiev Snipers It Was Somebody From ..." I wonder what they thought/said, and why it was pulled? Just full-text violation?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Who are you quoting there? I was merely pointing out inconsistencies with your loose facts, which, as uke2se already pointed out, pokes holes in your narrative - [bla cut]

And now your turn - provide evidence where she says she "quit" CNN because of censorship. Here's your chance to lead by example.

Friend, did you notice that the words you quoted from me and commented on with words I now quoted from you were an introduction to a video and not "a narrative"? In that video you can find exactly what you admitted to, namely that CNN International censored her documentary, and Abby introducing her as someone who quit CNN quite publically over those events. The rest of the conversation is about "bigger picture" topics and leading to it is a bunch of examples where corporate media people were indeed fired for leaving the propaganda line. You might wanna watch it instead of wasting my time. Here, for convenience:

 

[Ziggurat]

Wall Street, however, is a collective of corporations, which as we know are considered legal persons. Can you cite a good reason this collective of persons isn't going to develop, from common interests, an overall interest set? like, say, easier and more profitable access to foreign resources and markets?

Collective interests consist of nothing more than a sort of average of individual interests. Without any enforcement mechanism (and there is none, unless you believe in some Joo cabal consipiracy), collective interests do not make individual actors act against their individual interests. So no, Wall Street does not control CNN in this sense.

But let's suppose CNN's own interests lie in the direction you suggest. What are the consequences of such an interest?

In the current situation, the easiest way to maintain access to foreign resources and markets is to kiss Putin's ass. Ukraine has much less to offer than Russia, and what it has we can still get through Putin. The last thing CNN would want, if this was their interest, would be a trade war with Russia (the only sort of war we'd possibly go to over Ukraine). CNN would have no reason to be "out to get" Putin if this was about what you claim it was about.

 

[dudalb]

Clear to see:

Surprised some people have not gotten sick from all the Putin brand Kool Aid they are drinking.

 

[Snarf]

You never quoted any words of mine, that’s why I asked where the heck those quotes came from. Keep up, empress.
So the non-journalist Abby says she "famously left CNN", and you take that to mean "famously quit CNN"?? Oh, wow. For shame...
Here, see if you can spot the difference between these two phrases:

1. I quit my poultry job at EggFarms Inc. because the bosses were eggheads.
2. I left the poultry industry and pursued ballet dancing after I was let go from EggFarms Inc.

The differences are subtle, but they’re there. I’m sorry you can’t tell the difference, or quote the right people, or be bothered (wasting your time, as you put it) to do some basic research before repeating unverified talking points. Ah well, another narrative squashed to bits. Amber got ****-canned, but instead of accepting that fact and using it to her advantage to show what happens to martyrs when they expose The Truth™ on CNN, she fibs her resume and declares she “left”, when she actually means she left mainstream media (after getting ****-canned, but let’s leave that part out for some reason) and the sheeple like Abby have no problem gobbling it up and regurgitating it just the same. What a dishonest group of characters. Truly a waste of everyone’s time.

 

[Childlike Empress]

You never quoted any words of mine, that’s why I asked where the heck those quotes came from. Keep up, empress.
So the non-journalist Abby says she "famously left CNN", and you take that to mean "famously quit CNN"?? Oh, wow. For shame...
Here, see if you can spot the difference between these two phrases:

1. I quit my poultry job at EggFarms Inc. because the bosses were eggheads.
2. I left the poultry industry and pursued ballet dancing after I was let go from EggFarms Inc.

The differences are subtle, but they’re there. I’m sorry you can’t tell the difference, or quote the right people, or be bothered (wasting your time, as you put it) to do some basic research before repeating unverified talking points. Ah well, another narrative squashed to bits. Amber got ****-canned, but instead of accepting that fact and using it to her advantage to show what happens to martyrs when they expose The Truth™ on CNN, she fibs her resume and declares she “left”, when she actually means she left mainstream media (after getting ****-canned, but let’s leave that part out for some reason) and the sheeple like Abby have no problem gobbling it up and regurgitating it just the same. What a dishonest group of characters. Truly a waste of everyone’s time.

Let me guess: You still sell out at CNN?

 

[jimbob]

Childlike Empress,

What do you think about the referendum questions?

 

[McHrozni]

Clear to see:

Some of those seem rather odd. The one in Somalia for example. Please provide detailed information on it

McHrozni

 

[Childlike Empress]

Childlike Empress,

What do you think about the referendum questions?

I know what you want to hear so go upthread and find it. Instead I'll quote myself from the evening of February 21, page 8 and 9 of this thread:

Now we have a "compromise", a "peace treaty" even (English language document provided by the German foreign ministry). Signed by the president, the boxer, Nuland's boy and the neo-nazi. Witnessed and co-signed by the foreign ministers of Germany, France, Poland and the Russian special envoy. Hallelujah! And this with the man who has just ordered to kill dozens of his own people in broad daylight a day earlier, if you believe what the media reports and Obama claims. Which of course none of those who signed the document do. But we should be outraged, shouldn't we? The "right sector" guys have already declared that this is far from enough.

My fear in the immediate situation is that this "agreement" and the retreating of police forces from the center will lead to the extremists establishing cells all over the place, with the weapons stolen in the west reportedly in part already arrived in Kiew, and take the next opportunity to escalate even more, which will get blamed on "the regime" again, as a feature, not a bug.

I really hope I'm wrong because on the paper, there's not much wrong with that document (if you ignore the fact that we are talking about an elected president facing elections in around a year and the presidential powers in the current constitution are not that much greater than in the USA, for example, and to change them back to what they were in 2004 would in theory be something to be achieved by ... what was the word ... ah, yeah: democracy).

And the next day the putsch happened, with that unsavory bunch of Nazis and Bankster puppets being immediately recognized as "legitimate" by "the West", to the great horror of a large element of Ukrainians.

And then happened what Americans only know from fairy tales: A red line was drawn.

And here we are.

Lawrow and Kerry just had another several hours long meeting that ended without any compromise. The Russians consider what I described in the posts above and is outlined in the linked document as the last legal stand of this affair, and rightfully so. I'm sure they would be willing to make a lot of concessions, including Yanukovic (who actually nobody gives a damn about) resigning immediately after being formally reinstalled, etc.

But "the West" is not capable of admitting that their bluff was called, after all Kerry would have to eat his laughable wig for that. So the puppets even in Europe continue to babble, like Merkel. Rest assured that she talks different in private (just ask the NSA).

So if "the West" doesn't move and call their creeps off (who have nothing else to stand on), likely Sunday will see the referendum taking place which will seal the break-up of Ukraine which is in the interest of nobody in their right mind, including the Russians who will just have to pay more than they did so far for their bases.

What a bizarre spectacle.

 

[jimbob]

I know what you want to hear so go upthread and find it. Instead I'll quote myself from the evening of February 21, page 8 and 9 of this thread:






And the next day the putsch happened, with that unsavory bunch of Nazis and Bankster puppets being immediately recognized as "legitimate" by "the West", to the great horror of a large element of Ukrainians.

And then happened what Americans only know from fairy tales: A red line was drawn.

And here we are.

Lawrow and Kerry just had another several hours long meeting that ended without any compromise. The Russians consider what I described in the posts above and is outlined in the linked document as the last legal stand of this affair, and rightfully so. I'm sure they would be willing to make a lot of concessions, including Yanukovic (who actually nobody gives a damn about) resigning immediately after being formally reinstalled, etc.

But "the West" is not capable of admitting that their bluff was called, after all Kerry would have to eat his laughable wig for that. So the puppets even in Europe continue to babble, like Merkel. Rest assured that she talks different in private (just ask the NSA).

So if "the West" doesn't move and call their creeps off (who have nothing else to stand on), likely Sunday will see the referendum taking place which will seal the break-up of Ukraine which is in the interest of nobody in their right mind, including the Russians who will just have to pay more than they did so far for their bases.

What a bizarre spectacle.

It wasn't a rhetorical trap. If you have said something, either restate it or quote it.

Russia Today has quoted the referendum questions and I think it is fair to paraphrase them giving the choice of choosing between Crimean independence then joining Russia, or Crimea immediately joining Russia.

I *hope* you think this is not a valid set of choices. I previously described it as "Soviet". You seem to be suggesting that there is no fault on Russia's side, whereas I think that Putin has been making a bad situation worse.

Until the blatantly unfair referendum was announced, I was more unsure of the situation because I could easily imagine that large areas of the country would have preferred to be part of Russia during the events of 2013, but Russia's behaviour has worsened the situation in Ukraine.

I agree that until there is an election in Ukraine, the interim government is not legitimate, however Yanukovych was abandoned by his own party so his position was untenable.

His predecessor was venal and corrupt, which is why Yanukovych won the last election but Yanukovych was no saint, nor was he competent.


It is worth pointing out that the Russian definition of "fascist" is slightly "unconventional" and elastic.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/04/russian-propaganda-ukrainian-rumours-anger-hate-crimea

I agree with the following:

Certainly, there were unsavoury elements among the Kiev protests, and there are a number of people with unpleasant far-right views that hold positions in the new interim government. Many people in western Ukraine do hold complicated views about the wartime period, and many in Russia are understandably concerned by the veneration by small parts of the protest movement of controversial collaborationist leaders.

and this seems true too:

But perhaps the most disturbing thing about the Russian propaganda is that it is clear that many inside the Kremlin actually believe it. In December, a Russian government source assured the Guardian that the Kiev protests were the preserve of radical marginals, and that the rest of the city had no time at all for its goals.

On Tuesday, Putin conceded that he understood that there were some normal people on Independence Square who were tired of Ukrainian corruption, but there is nevertheless a sense in the Kremlin that the entire protest was a western-backed plot, as evidenced by Putin's claims that they were organised by "people sitting in America doing experiments, like on rats".

On the ground in Crimea, what is particularly odd is that the most vociferous defenders of Russian bases against supposed fascists appear to hold far-right views themselves.

Outside the Belbek airbase, an aggressive self-defence group said they were there to defend the base against "Kiev fascists", but also railed against Europe, "full of repulsive gays and Muslims".

"What you foreigners don't get is that those people in Maidan, they are fascists," said Alexander, a Simferopol resident drinking at a bar in the city on Monday night. "I mean, I am all for the superiority of the white race, and all that stuff, but I don't like fascists."

 

[Childlike Empress]

It wasn't a rhetorical trap. If you have said something, either restate it or quote it.

I went back and looked it up and what I said was in response to you. I'm not willing to exchange many words on that level. You also completely ignored my posts made on the eve of the putsch and the violent nature of what happened next. You said "Yanukovych was abandoned by his own party so his position was untenable" while you should have said "Yanukovych was abandoned by his own party but by now we know that Parubiy/Jarosh's guys likely had their bats ready when that statement was made".

I understand that it is hard to argue against the overwhelming stream of propaganda but if you aren't up for it I think showing you the very cold shoulder is what is most likely to help making progress.

 

[jimbob]

I went back and looked it up and what I said was in response to you. I'm not willing to exchange many words on that level. You also completely ignored my posts made on the eve of the putsch and the violent nature of what happened next. You said "Yanukovych was abandoned by his own party so his position was untenable" while you should have said "Yanukovych was abandoned by his own party but by now we know that Parubiy/Jarosh's guys likely had their bats ready when that statement was made".

I understand that it is hard to argue against the overwhelming stream of propaganda but if you aren't up for it I think showing you the very cold shoulder is what is most likely to help making progress.

I presume you meant the bits you quoted in your previous post. I couldn't parse them as a response to a question about whether you considered the referendum to be fair or not.

I have found what you said before:

Just checked, and Russia today gives the same questions.

http://rt.com/news/crimea-referendum-status-ukraine-154/

As my original source was Kievpost not RT...

The crux is this, of course:

“There is no option for ‘no,’ they are not counting the number of votes, but rather which one of the options gets more votes,” says [Volodymyr Yavorkiy, a member of the Kharkiv Human Rights Group].

Because choosing non of the options and casting the ballot would obviously be the "no" option if they count the number of votes as to be expected. More information needed.

I read this as arguing that it is possible for that referendum to be fair if they count the number of spoilt ballots. Is that a reasonable reading of your reply?


I'd disagree. The ballot is to be held far too soon for any proper checks on the validity to be in place, there is no evidencereason to suppose that spoilt papers will be counted as a no vote, so the voters won't know. And both options give the same ultimate reesult.


I have said that there are unsavoury elements in the interim government, and that until there is a fair election in Ukraine, the government is not legitimate, however they are more legitimate than any other option at the moment and Yanukovych almost certainly had lost the support of the people - not just the west but the majority of the population.

 

[jimbob]

Childlike Empress,

What do you think about the referendum questions?

I know what you want to hear so go upthread and find it. Instead I'll quote myself from the evening of February 21, page 8 and 9 of this thread:

Now we have a "compromise", a "peace treaty" even (English language document provided by the German foreign ministry). Signed by the president, the boxer, Nuland's boy and the neo-nazi. Witnessed and co-signed by the foreign ministers of Germany, France, Poland and the Russian special envoy. Hallelujah! And this with the man who has just ordered to kill dozens of his own people in broad daylight a day earlier, if you believe what the media reports and Obama claims. Which of course none of those who signed the document do. But we should be outraged, shouldn't we? The "right sector" guys have already declared that this is far from enough.

I don't understand. People sign agreements with people they have been fighting. That's how conflicts often end.

My fear in the immediate situation is that this "agreement" and the retreating of police forces from the center will lead to the extremists establishing cells all over the place, with the weapons stolen in the west reportedly in part already arrived in Kiew, and take the next opportunity to escalate even more, which will get blamed on "the regime" again, as a feature, not a bug.

I really hope I'm wrong because on the paper, there's not much wrong with that document (if you ignore the fact that we are talking about an elected president facing elections in around a year and the presidential powers in the current constitution are not that much greater than in the USA, for example, and to change them back to what they were in 2004 would in theory be something to be achieved by ... what was the word ... ah, yeah: democracy).

Sometimes, when protesters are killed it is actually by regime forces.

ETA: sometimes, the simplest explanation is the correct one. As soon as you add complexity to a project, it increases its chance of failure. Making secrecy a requirement adds a very large risk. I believe in the cockup theory of history. From what I have seen of organisations, they are very common, and I really wouldn't want to depend on an intricate plan not falling to pieces.

And the next day the putsch happened, with that unsavory bunch of Nazis and Bankster puppets being immediately recognized as "legitimate" by "the West", to the great horror of a large element of Ukrainians.

And then happened what Americans only know from fairy tales: A red line was drawn.

And here we are.

Lawrow and Kerry just had another several hours long meeting that ended without any compromise. The Russians consider what I described in the posts above and is outlined in the linked document as the last legal stand of this affair, and rightfully so. I'm sure they would be willing to make a lot of concessions, including Yanukovic (who actually nobody gives a damn about) resigning immediately after being formally reinstalled, etc.

Why are you sure about this? What would be gained by Yanukovych being reinstated then resigning? Why would he agree to that? As soon as he resigns, he'd be arrested on legitimate corruption charges at the very least.

 

[uke2se]

It's quite amazing that the "anti-imperialists" are still defending Russia who is seeking to annex a region legally belonging to another nation by force of arms. That is the definition of imperialism.

After this is all said and done, Russia will be fresh out of friends, and the "anti-imperialists" will never be taken seriously again.

Those are my predictions. Feel free to quote me.

 

[L.Y.S.]

It's quite amazing that the "anti-imperialists" are still defending Russia who is seeking to annex a region legally belonging to another nation by force of arms. That is the definition of imperialism.

After this is all said and done, Russia will be fresh out of friends, and the "anti-imperialists" will never be taken seriously again.
Those are my predictions. Feel free to quote me.

Highly doubt the highlighted.

 

[uke2se]

Highly doubt the highlighted.

Well, almost no one takes the "anti-imperialists" seriously now, so it's not much of a prediction, but I stand by it.