Skip to comments.The Backlash of Moral Equivalency on Ukraine
Posted on 03/15/2014 2:48:05 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
The Backlash of Moral Equivalency on Ukraine
The pushback on those exposing Putin's myths about Ukraine.
Catherine A. Fitzpatrick March 11, 2014 Print Friendly
With strong statements from the US State Department countering Kremlin propaganda like President Putins Fiction: 10 False Claims About Ukraine and Setting the Record Straight on Ukraine coming from the US Embassy in Kiev, it didnt take long for some commentators to appear with a plague on both their houses.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz published an article 6 March by Ariel Danieli headlined From Washington to Moscow, Everyone is Lying about Whats Happening in Ukraine. Danieli rejected the State Departments simple counterfactual to Putins persistent claim that the opposition did not implement the February 21 agreement with former President Viktor Yanukovych that Yanukovych fled the country.
Instead, Danieli vaguely cites chaos in the Ukrainian capital and claims that a substantial percentage of the anti-Russian opposition demonstrators rejected the agreement formulated by the warring parties with the mediation of the European Union. He fails to mention that it was in fact pro-Russian factions who objected to the deal, and the reason Ukrainian radicals were cited for lack of support they wanted to oust Yanukovych was taken care of by Yanukovych himself when he fled.
Let’s look at the source:
This outfit is funded by a corrupt Russian oligarch who fell out with Putin. Why do groups like this pose as neutral and objective? It’s obviously a politically motivated propaganda outfit just like RT.
Looks like his crime was in supporting democracy and getting a little too popular, thus he was arrested:
“Khodorkovsky also became a philanthropist, whose efforts include the provision of internet-training centres for teachers, a forum for the discussion by journalists of reform and democracy, and the establishment of foundations which finance archaeological digs, cultural exchanges, summer camps for children and a boarding school for orphans. Khodorkovsky’s critics saw this as political posturing, in light of his funding of several political parties ahead of the elections for the State Duma to be held in late 2003.
He is openly critical of what he refers to as “managed democracy” within Russia. Careful normally not to criticise the current leadership, he says the military and security services exercise too much authority. He told The Times:
“It is the Singapore model, it is a term that people understand in Russia these days. It means that theoretically you have a free press, but in practice there is self-censorship. Theoretically you have courts; in practice the courts adopt decisions dictated from above. Theoretically there are civil rights enshrined in the constitution; in practice you are not able to exercise some of these rights.”
Khordorkovsky promoted social programs through Yukos in regions where the company operated, one example being “New Civilization”, in Angarsk, which promoted student government to young adults. The scout program incorporated aspects of student government. Participants from throughout the country spent their holidays organizing student-governed bodies at summer camps.”
The topic does not need to drone on and on.
In one very short paragraph:
The Black Sea ports are considered vital to Russias military viability. The Russians will do whatever it takes (no limits at all) to keep them.
Everything else is window dressing.
Everyone who served in the armed forces during the cold war should be able to explain it.
Actually, you have to be pretty damned stupid not to understand the importance of those ports to Russia. The EU appears to have been that stupid in provoking this.
There was no threat to Russia’s port. The issue here is bigger, which is, he needs Ukraine obedience to Russia in order to secure his Eurasian empire dreams.
I think most of us who served during the Cold war were not supporting Russia’s goals for empire and power, most of us still don’t.
An assertion on your part does not today and never has negated reality.
And the reality was that the Eurocrats were leading Ukraine down the steps to EU membership.
Nobody who was paying attention was suprised by the way things are unfolding. We pointed out how it would go.
Anyone who thought Europe could work to enviegle Ukraine into restrictive favored trade agreements (generally the first step if you watched the EU form) and have something different happen was Jimmy Carter stupid.
Some positions really can not elicit any other response except ridicule. When Europe started down this road they needed to have their own superpower military ready to counter Russia. That wouldn’t have created the possibility of a successful buff - Russia has to go to the mat on this - but it would have given Europe the option to go down that gory road if they chose to.
There’s propaganda on both sides, as always, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
We don’t have to support those goals to comprehend the moves they will make. Understanding something doesn’t require agreement with it.
I understand why heroin addicts steal. I don’t agree with it, but I understand it.
Do you understand why heroin addicts steal?
You are defending Russia’s goals, most of us Cold war veterans oppose Russia’s move to regain empire and power.
Give me a break. Do you think people here don’t know who Khodorkovsky is and that he acquired vast holdings in obviously rigged auctions?
Do you have any association with this or any other NGO? Because you are regurgitating talking points like robot.
Give me oil kingpin over murderous KGB. It be a step up.
Part of the whole appeal of that was in being forced to make anti-corruption reform as part of the joining process. Considering all the documented thievery of the Russian puppet and his mooks, it is obviously needed.
As for Putin, check out Eurasianism and men like Aleksandr Dugin. Putin's goal here is beyond a port, which is why his agents are already trying to provoke war in the eastern part of Ukraine. He wants the USSR back, not just one little port which he already had, and no one was threatening.
Russia wasn't going to end up begging the EU to continue their lease on those ports and bases down the road, or even begging a Ukraine elite fat on EU dollars and cozy with the Soros crowd.
After all, Porky Pig incarnate "gave" the Ukraine the Crimea (for PR only since he figured he'd always own the Ukraine anyway) in 1954 which ain't exactly ancient history.
The Crimea voted to be an autonomous part of the Ukraine now they're going to exercise that autonomy and vote themselves out of that affiliation and into the arms of Russia one way or another. If the Ukrainians want a lot of blood shed over the issue let them seriously fight and bleed for a while, then ask for help.
So far I've only seen the same sort of street actions that we all saw in Libya, Algeria, and Egypt, and it's clear that those were pumped up and funded by people outside of those countries. IMHO, so was what we've been seeing in the Ukraine only with the slightly different goal of expanding the EU instead of expanding the Caliphate.