Crimea River

Crimea River

          I can’t take credit for the brilliant pun that it the title of this entry, but the author is in the legal profession and, hence, can not be revealed as it reflects on state secrets.

Since people have been interested, at least for awhile, in Ukraine, many have turned to RT for information.  Its audience has grown considerably, although it is not prompted other stations to provide facts.  Instead, efforts were and are being made to cast aspersions upon the station.  This article goes into detail on that.  And this is also an opportunity to say that we are no longer carrying RT at our site.  This is not for any other reason than the Java script provided made the image so large that it distracted from anything else.  We may replace it with a link to the site soon.

        Given Mr. Schechter's account, preferably sooner.

Russia Today’s Beast Of Burden

By Danny Schechter 

March 9, 2014
Change text size: [ A+ ] / [ A- ]

Posted in: Media (Main), Russia, SourceZ, US | No comments

James Kirchick is just the neutral reporter the Daily Beast would assign to report on the ideological controversy surrounding the Russian backed RT-TV Channel’s coverage of the crisis in the Ukraine.

The Beast lives up to its name by sending a hardcore polemical ideologue to uncover what he predictably labels as ideological media bias.

Kirchick is a veteran of the anti-communist wars, now revived as the anti Putin wars, not some neutral journo crusading for democracy.

According to Wikipedia, he is a fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington, prior to this he was writer-at-large for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. He is a graduate of the New Republic, Murdoch’s Weekly Standard and writes for Azure, a magazine that described itself as pro-Zionist and free market.

Ok, just so we know who are dealing with here.

And now, to bolster his “credibility” he presents himself as a victim in his latest article that exposes himself, far more than his target, asserting that his rights as a journalist were somehow compromised because of a gutsy quest for truth.

Here’s his exhibit:

•The Headline: “Watch RT, Putin’s TV Network, Call the Cops on Me”

•The Lead: “That’s what happens, it seems, when you ask some simple questions outside RT’s Washington headquarters.”

•The Polemic: “What would possess an American to work for a Russian propaganda outlet, especially now that the world is on the brink of a potential war in Eastern Europe? 

I asked that question of about two dozen people coming in and out of the Washington headquarters of RT, the Kremlin-funded television network that has become infamous in recent days for whitewashing Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. No one would answer me directly. Instead, RT called the local cops on me. …”

Kirchik’s first story in his jihad against RT was to interview Anchor Liz Wahl who resigned flamboyantly on the air denouncing the channel she worked and making her an instant shero among Russia-bashers the world over.

Wahl offered up sweet innocence laced with the veneer of red white and blue (drop the red) patriotism, declaring, “I’m very lucky to have grown up here in the United States,” she said. “I’m the daughter of a veteran. My partner is a physician at a military base where he sees every day the first-hand accounts of the ultimate prices that people pay for this country. And that is why personally I cannot be part of a network that whitewashes the actions of Putin. I am proud to be an American and believe in disseminating the truth and that is why after this newscast I’m resigning.”

Cue the National Anthem!

Funny, after her declaration of independence, and stagy pledge to quit was broadcast on a network that could have cut her off, none other than former Congressman Ron Paul who was interviewed by Wahl weighed in after she claimed RT censored her interview with him.

He denied it, saying, “I don’t think it was slanted in any way.”

Earlier, another RT on-air personality, Abby Martin, also denounced Putin’s Ukraine policy on the air but was not fired and did not quit.

Later, she turned up on CNN debating Piers Morgan, he of the show about to be cancelled, about how fair and objective most American TV is. She was far better informed on that subject than this departing British host in assessing the US press, and on a network considered by some critics as an “American propaganda outlet.”

In an article about Martin in National Journal, Lucia Graves wrote, “While it’s clear the network maintains astrong pro-Russian bias, Glenn Greenwald on Tuesday defended RT’s coverage, saying it isn’t so different from what we saw on American media outlets in the lead up to the Iraq War. “For all the self-celebrating American journalists and political commentators: Was there even a single U.S. television host who said anything comparable to this in the lead up to, or the early stages of, the U.S. invasion of Iraq?” he wrote.

On Google, a story from CNN on Wahl’s hyped farewell to RT carried Martin’s picture, not hers. 

Oh well, details, details!

Back to Mr. Kirchick’s heroism in defense of democracy!

(Watch the video of how he posed some of his “simple” questions to RT employees outside their office.http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/07/watch-rt-putin-s-tv-network-call-the-cops-on-me.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_afternoon&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_afternoon&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet)

What you see is a wise-guy provocateur harassing people entering the building with hostile, if not nasty and self-righteous questions, in an argumentative and aggressively hostile manner.

RT later challenged this image-building exercise of the “man who is not afraid of Putin” with a denial that they called the cops, an “update” that the Daily Beast tacked on to their story.

“RT America did not contact the DC police at any point,” Anna Belkina said in a statement. “The building’s security personnel called in the police after an intruder has been reported inside the building. The police questioned Mr. Kirchick as part of the investigation of that incident.”

Kirchick’s shouted out questions were there to call attention to himself, and score political points, and not to challenge the network that actually offers programs with views that are more diverse than on any US TV news channel. It features programs with Tom Hartmann and even Larry King, both of whom deny they have been censored.

As an occasional commentator on RT News myself, I can and have said the same. I am not surprised that the networks I once worked for, ABC, CNN and CNBC never have me on, while BBC, RT, Press TV and Saudi TV, among others, feature my commentaries without telling me what to say.

Kirchick is less bothered by what gets on RT than that it exists at all, and especially because the network has built an audience among Americans disgusted by how controlled and manipulated most US media outlets are.

His real target are RT’s viewers who he bitterly denounces as a “species,” perhaps because they are looking for information you never find on the Daily Beast or many of the outlets he whores for as a self-styled “objective newsman.”

Listen to this: “RT has become the go-to network for a particular species of disillusioned American, fed-up with what the “corporate media” is telling them about the world.”

He doesn’t waste any putdowns either from an arsenal of vituperative broadsides and even—get this— denounces RT employees as “slovenly.”

He then rants on to share what may have been his Yale-bred elitism about his perception of the people the network interviews that includes politicians and commentators of all stripes.

“RT, both in its employment and viewership,” he writes,” seems to attract a particular type of person. You know the man who writes political chain emails IN ALL CAPS or the bag lady shouting on the street corner about the metal device the government has implanted in her head? Under normal circumstances, no one would give them a television show. But these are the people who appear on, and watch, RT.”

Oh, really– another round of clichés to keep the truth from getting in the way of his preconceived perceptions.

Now, now, feel better Mr. Kirchick, time to take your medication, before you melt down, or stir up more hatred and animosity for people who lack your years of slimy experience as a media warrior in the service of a neocon empire.

MR KIRCHICK?

Oh, you have more to say?

“For the past 9 years, RT has provided steady paychecks and frequent media appearances to a veritable insane asylum of the great unwashed and unemployable dredges of the American fringe.”

Whew, I am glad he got that out of his system, until tomorrow, of course, when he will find another way of cursing without cursing, while showcasing superiority to those of us in that other sub- human “species.”

Now, let me get back to my Rolling Stones record:
I‘ll never be your beast of burden
I’ll never be your beast of burden
Never, never, never, never, never, never, never be

Also, by the way, do I need to say that I am not a Putin booster, my father was a veteran, I have pledged allegiance to the flag many times, and wrote two books and made a film about media miscoverage of the Iraq War. My critique was based, in part, in my own experience in network TV.

News Dissector Danny Schechter edits Mediachannel.org and blogs at NewsDissector.net. His latest book is Madiba A to Z: The Many Faces of Nelson Mandela. Comments to dissector@mediachannel.org. 

-->

Ukraine, Einige Fakten

Ukraine, Einige Fakten
Seit einiger Zeit haben wir uns für eine Ahnung gewartet , ja, eine Ahnung von Sinn auf dieser gesamten Situation . Andere als ein paar Wissenschaftler, die unmittelbar worden "Putin Apologeten " genannt haben , als ob Putin fühlte keine Notwendigkeit für die Entschuldigung, und geben sehr kurzen Zeiten auf unserem Corporate Media . Für eine Weile , haben wir die RT- Website für allgemeine Zugang zu einem entgegengesetzten Standpunkt , und es zumindest ermöglicht Opposition auf eigenen Luftraum. Ein Nachrichtensprecher zurückgetreten , auf Luft, und sie war nicht abgeschnitten. Sie wusste, sie würde große Aufmerksamkeit zu bekommen und das war ihre Gelegenheit zur Beschäftigung in einem größeren Netzwerk vielleicht finden.



          Der Punkt ist , einige gute Informationen , und genaue Informationen , beginnt zu erscheinen. Sie können ihn unter ZNET online zu finden , von wo dieser Artikel erschienen ist. Es ist eine klare und prägnante Übersicht über die Situation . Wir könnten hinzufügen , bevor verlassen, um es , dass die Kriegshäfen auf der Krim wurden von Katharina der Großen im 18. Jahrhundert begonnen , und ich nehme an , dass dies bedeutet in den 1700er Jahren .



          Es hat auch sehr viel über die schlechten Tataren , die von Stalin vertrieben wurden . Nun, wenn Stalin tat es , muss es falsch sein , geht die Argumentation . Aber wie hat es die Tataren bekommen in erster Linie? Dschingis Kahn, ist, wer. Jetzt auf die " böser ", Stalin oder Dschingis ist, kommt es . Die Absurdität ist überwältigend. Auch, wenn Sie über Pussy Riot , die Mädchen, die viel herum springen sprechen wollen , diejenigen, die sie mit ihren Peitschen oder Stöcken waren Tataren . Also, vielleicht Pussy Riot verursacht das alles?



          Dumme Saison wieder . Hier ist ein großer Essay :



 Ukraine : Eine Analyse
Von David McReynolds

9. März 2014



Veröffentlicht in: Osteuropa , Europa, Internationale Beziehungen, Russland, SourceZ , Ukraine, USA | 1 Kommentar
Vor dem Start in meine Analyse der Ereignisse in der Ukraine , es gibt ein paar Punkte, die für ein amerikanisches Publikum zugänglich gemacht werden soll.
Putin :Kommentatoren sind in einer Kampagne, um Wladimir Putin zu diskreditieren beschäftigt, ihn zu entlassen als nichts anderes als der ehemalige Leiter des KGB . Ich halte keine Kurz für Putin , den ich für das Oberhaupt eines Staates von Oligarchen beherrscht . Aber es sei daran erinnert, Putin ist der Kopf von einem Staat , mit dem die USA müssen umzugehen. Vergiftung des Wassers mit persönlichen Angriffen uns nicht bewegen, zu einem Dialog über die Ukraine oder zu anderen Fragen, wo die USA braucht, um mit Russland zu arbeiten.
Es ist auch daran zu erinnern , dass Gorbatschow , weit im Westen gelobt ( und aus meiner Sicht ein wichtiger "good guy" ) war eigentlich der KGB Kandidat bei seinem Amtsantritt . Es ist in der US-Interessen , um ein Arbeitsverhältnismit Russland in Fragen wie Iran , Syrien und Afghanistan . Und , darüber hinaus, über Fragen der nuklearen und konventionellen wahren Abrüstung.


Wie legitim ist die neue ukrainische Regierung?Es besteht allgemeine Übereinstimmung , dass die gestürzten Präsidenten , Viktor Janukowitsch F. , war beschädigt. Das Problem ist, wurde er mit deutlichem Vorsprung gewählt. Dramatische Ereignisse wie auf dem Maidan wurden , bleibt unklar, welche Kräfte beteiligt waren , der "gewonnen" , und was sie darstellen . Ich habe mehrere Augenzeugenberichtevon den dramatischen Aktionen im Februar zu lesen - das Problem ist, keine zwei zustimmen. Die USA besteht darauf, die neue Regierung steht für die Menschen in der Ukraine - aber wer macht diese Entscheidung ? ( Jüngere Leser müssen sich daran erinnern , dass während Großbritannien erkannte die neue sowjetische Regierung, die 1917 an die Macht kam , im Jahre 1924 , die USA nicht zu erkennen , bis 1933. Im Fall von China, wo die gegenwärtige chinesische Regierung die Macht übernahm im Jahr 1949 , die USA nicht anerkennen , bis Richard Nixon Begriff . die USA sind sehr selektiv , wann es neue Regierungen, die die Macht über eine Revolution kommen ) erkennt .
Wie gewaltfreien waren die Ereignisse auf dem Maidan ?Ich war mehr als nur ein wenig überrascht, dass die Facebook-Seite der Nonviolent Action Research Network ( weit breit amerikanischen Pazifisten ) bezeichnet die Ereignisse in Kiew " gewaltfreien " . Das ist Unsinn . Man kann für oder gegen die Verschiebungen, die in Kiew stattgefunden , aber man sie gewaltfrei nicht nennen . Nicht nur, dass eine Reihe von Demonstranten getötet, aber so waren eine Reihe von ukrainischen Polizei. Wenn die Menschen überprüfen die Erstürmung des Winterpalais im zaristischen Russland, im Oktober 1917, als die Bolschewiki die Macht übernahm und die Russische Revolution Wirklichkeit wurde , gab es nur eine Handvoll Menschen getötet - weit weniger als in Kiew gestorben. Ich unterstütze das Recht der Menschen auf Unterdrückung durch die Methoden, die sie wählen, widerstehen, aber als Pazifist Ich fordere , dass der Widerstand gewaltfrei sein . Für besser oder schlechter , war Kiew nicht gewaltfrei.

Was geschah am Maidan ?
Die Ereignisse in Kiew waren turbulent. Es gibt Berichte - wieder von Augenzeugen - das ganz rechts Flügelelemente dominiert die Demonstranten , während andere ebenso glühender Augenzeugen bestehen äußersten rechten Flügel Elemente waren marginal. Steve Erlanger, in einem " Memo von Kiew" in der New York Times vom Sonntag, 2. März darauf hingewiesen, dass die neue Regierung hat nur wenige Vertreter von " was war das Land der größte und beliebteste Partei, der Partei der Regionen, der verdrängt geführt Präsident Viktor f . Janukowitsch. Stattdessen wird die Regierung noch durch die mit einem ehemaligen Ministerpräsidenten Julia Timoschenko V. , die häufig für das Scheitern der Orangenen Revolution 2004 , korrupte politische System der Ukraine ändern verantwortlich gemacht wird " verbunden dominiert. Erlanger Analyse deutet darauf hin, dass die russischen Ängste der neuen Regierung gelten - und , noch wichtiger, dass die Befürchtungen vieler Ukrainer , vor allem im Osten der Ukraine, sind gültig.
Andrew Wilson, ein Ukraine -Experte an der European Council on Foreign Relations , sagte, dass eine frühe "Fehler" von der neuen Regierung war die Umkehrung des Gesetzes, das erlaubt Regionen der Ukraine Russisch zweite Amtssprache , " unnötig beleidigen russisch- 2012 machen dominierten Regionen wie dem Donbass und der Krim " .
Kommentatoren auf Ereignisse in der Ukraine scheinen in eine Art "links gegen rechts "-Muster brechen . William Blum, deren Schreib oft sinnvoll , argumentierte kürzlich in einem Stück , die Entwicklungen in der Ukraine sind Teil der bewussten Muster der USA, die Welt zu beherrschen , die US-Aktionen im letzten Jahrhundert regiert hat . Vieles, was geschrieben hat Blum Wert hat, aber das ist Unsinn - es war im Jahr 1914 Großbritannien , die die Welt regiert , WW Ich hatte gerade erst begonnen , und die USA nicht im Bewusstsein ihrer " neuen Schicksal " zu werden , bis nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg . Andere Zahlen - Staatssekretär Kerry, Präsident Obama und Hillary Clinton - sind so außerhalb der Basis , es wäre lustig , wenn es nicht ernst wäre . Was soll man sagen, von Obama , spricht auf einer Pressekonferenz im Weißen Haus mit dem israelischen Ministerpräsidenten Netanjahu sitzt neben ihm , als er des Völkerrechts sprach, ungeachtet der Tatsache, dass Israel die Westbank in Verletzung des Völkerrechts besetzt , mit erheblicher Brutalität und Gewalt , für mehr als vierzig Jahre.
Und natürlich , was kann man über alle Aktionen auf der Krim russische sagen (auf dem ich in einem Moment Kommentar ), wenn sie von dem Führer einer Nation, die den Irak einmarschiert , in den Prozess , es zu zerstören zu kommen, und hat einen Rekord von blutigen Militär Interventionen , von denen einige noch nie rational Sinn gemacht ( wie im Fall von Vietnam, wo schätzungsweise drei Millionen Vietnamesen wurden getötet ) .
Es hat eine fast vollständige Mangel an Ausgewogenheit in den Medien. CNN war glücklich, längere Zeit, um Interviews mit John McCain, einer der wenigen Veteranen, die lange für den Krieg scheint , aber nur wenig Zeit, um ruhigere Stimmen zu geben.
Um zusammenzufassen, was bei Maidan passiert , ich bin mit einigen der linken mir erzählen es eine antisemitische Veranstaltung war zugeführt wird, und jeder auf der rechten sagen, es war ganz eine demokratische Veranstaltung. Klar - wenn man durch die Berichte zu arbeiten - es war nicht nur eine "linke vs richtigen" Ereignis, sondern eine, in der viele junge Ukrainer , sich mit der Korruption der Regierung zugeführt wird, in eine weitgehend spontan und sehr spannender Moment der Revolte brach . Allerdings gibt es keine Frage, dass die politische Rechte war , und keine Frage überhaupt , dass es gegeben Schlüsselpositionen in der neuen Regierung.


Ein Hinweis auf der Krim :Krim ist historisch Russisch. Es muss nicht die unabhängige Geschichte der Ukraine . Es hat auch nur warmes Wasser Hafen Russlands . Es war unvermeidlich , wenn die Ereignisse in Kiew nahm die wiederum taten sie, dass Russland in der Krim zu bewegen, und es ist nicht zu verlassen. Denken Sie zurück an unsere eigenen Handlungen - als Fidel Castro die Macht übernahm in Havanna im Jahr 1960 keine Bedrohung er in die USA - nur um die US-Kontrolle in Mittel-und Südamerika. Doch die USA war so gestört, es startete einen militärischen Angriff (der Schweinebucht ) und hat viel von der im letzten halben Jahrhundert lang versucht, Fidel zu ermorden , und Verhängung drastischer Strafen . Und wir sind überrascht , dass Russland nahm Schritte, um zu schützen, was war historisch ein Teil von Russland?


Der Auslöser für die russischen Aktionen :Anfang Februar , als Veranstaltungen auf dem Maidan eine Krise geschaffen , mit der Todesopfer steigt, erfüllt polnischen und deutschen Diplomaten sowohl mit der ukrainischen Regierung und den Rebellen , die Ausarbeitung einer Reihe von Kompromissen , die Janukowitsch an der Macht gelassen haben würde, aber würde auch haben viele der Anforderungen von denen in der Maidan erfüllt . Es ist wahrscheinlich, dass Putin mit , dass gelebt haben , aber wir werden es nie erfahren , da die Randalierer setzte den Aufstand, der bereits damals eine Revolution , und Janukowitsch war gezwungen zu fliehen.
Der Kontext der ukrainischen Krise:Hier möchte ich einen Schritt zurück von der unmittelbaren Krise der Ukraine, für einen Blick auf die Geschichte , die viel russische Politik diktiert - unter Putin , wie es unter Stalin .
Russland hat nicht die natürliche Barriere - kein Fluss , kein Gebirge - um es auf seiner Westgrenze zu schützen. Unter Napoleon zweimal unter den Deutschen und dann - Es war Invasion aus dem Westen drei Mal in der jüngsten Vergangenheit gelitten. In der letzten Invasion , unter Hitler , zwischen 25 und 27 Millionen Sowjetbürger ihr Leben verloren. Alle Fabriken , Staudämme , Eisenbahnen. Städte und Gemeinden westlich einer Linie von Leningrad im Norden nach Moskau, um Stalingrad im Süden wurden zerstört. Amerikaner machen viel von 9.11 (und ich kein Licht zu machen ), aber für Russland war es nicht nur eine Handvoll von Gebäuden in einer Stadt , die zerstört wurden - es war ganze Städte , eingeebnet. Und dann mit dem verwundeten zu pflegen, die Waisen , die Witwen .
Amerikaner haben nie verstanden, was der Krieg soll und warum Russland nach dem Krieg versuchten die Sowjets , eine " Schutz Band" des Territoriums zwischen sich selbst und Deutschland bauen. Dies war Osteuropa, die unter der eisernen Stiefel von Stalin wurde "Volksdemokratien " oder " gegenwärtig existierenden Sozialismus " .
Etwas Amerikaner (vielleicht einschließlich unseres Präsidenten und dem Außenminister ) vergessen haben, war, dass Russland wollte einen Deal mit dem Westen zu machen. Es war Frieden mit Finnland, das (wieder, sind Erinnerungen kurz, und wir dies vergessen zu haben ) auf der Seite der Nazis gekämpft hat . Die Sowjets zogen sich aus Österreich nach dem der Westen einig, dass Österreich, wie Finnland, wäre neutral.The Sowjets sehr viel wollte ein vereinigtes Deutschland , entwaffnet, und neutral. Stalin nicht die Integration der Ost-Deutschland in den osteuropäischen Wirtschaftspläne für einige Zeit , in der Hoffnung , dass er viel schlagen konnte . Aber der Westen wollte die Bundesrepublik Deutschland als Teil der NATO , und so die Teilung Deutschland dauerte bis Gorbatschow an die Macht kam .
Ich würde radikalen Aktionen durch den Westen im Jahr 1956 aufgefordert haben, als die ungarische Revolution brach aus - es war offensichtlich, dass, wenn die Sowjets nicht Osteuropa herrschen ohne das Senden in Tanks (wie sie bereits in Ost-Deutschland im Jahr 1953 zu tun hatte ) , sie stellte keine wirkliche Gefahr eines Militärschlags in den Westen.
Was, wenn wir nach Moskau gesagt hatte , zurückziehen Ihre Tanks aus Ungarn, und wir werden die NATO aufzulösen , während Sie den Warschauer Pakt aufzulösen.
Aber natürlich ist der Westen nicht tun. Insbesondere die USA ( aber ich würde nicht befreien , die Europäer von einem Teil der Schuld ) wollten ihre Militärstützpunkte in den Osten zu umranden. Wenn der UdSSR gab die Kontrolle über Osteuropa , drückte die US- NATO weiter zu drücken Osten, in Polen und bis an die Grenzen der Ukraine.
Pause für einen Moment, und davon ausgehen, dass revolutionären Ereignisse in Kanada gemeint hatte, war im Begriff, Kanada aus der NATO zurückziehen und laden in der russischen Militärberater .
Was denken Sie, US-Antwort wäre ?
Warum sind wir überrascht , dass Putin gesagt hat, sehr deutlich ", nicht näher - wieder aus ."
In diesem Fall hält Moskau die hohen Karten. Europa wird nicht in den Krieg Krim. Und es braucht russisches Gas . Sanktionen werden in beide Richtungen schneiden - Europa ist sehr zurückhaltend und , Ironie der Ironien , ist es Deutschland, das Verhalten ist mit dem größten Diplomatie.
Wenn von all dem US- Planer die Tatsache akzeptieren, dass es echte Grenzen, wie weit Ost NATO schieben kann , dann ist die Krise wird uns geholfen haben, sich mit der Realität zu kommen. Es kann sogar dazu führen, uns zu prüfen, Auflösung der NATO !
Die Bedeutung der Zivilgesellschaft.Alle Staaten handeln in ihrem eigenen Interesse . Staaten haben keine moralischen Werte . Was wir brauchen, zu zählen, auf die Zivilgesellschaft - und Russland hat ein - die staatliche Verhalten ändern wird , wie die Zivilgesellschaft hier kann manchmal Zustandsverhalten ändern. Wir - die Leute in der amerikanischen Zivilgesellschaft - Notwendigkeit zu erreichen, um die Leute in der ukrainischen und russischen Zivilgesellschaft. Es gibt Anti-Kriegs- Aktionen in Russland zu dieser Zeit - toll, wollen wir versuchen, mit ihnen zu verbinden. Wir müssen uns Sorgen machen, wenn , wie in Nazi-Deutschland , der Zivilgesellschaft wird zum Schweigen gebracht. Zu einem großen Teil , die hier passiert ist , in den USA . Natürlich haben wir für eine faire Volksabstimmung auf der Krim hoffen sollte - aber ich denke, die möglichst gerechte Referendum noch sehen Krim nach Russland zurückgekehrt.
In der Zwischenzeit müssen wir andrücken die Rede von Militäraktionen , von Sanktionen und der Bemühungen um Putin zu demütigen. Er ist nicht mein Held , aber die meisten Russen sind mit ihm zufrieden. Er hat in Russland wieder etwas von dem Stolz verlor sie mit der Auflösung der alten Sowjetunion. Amerikaner , aller Menschen , sollte dies zu verstehen, mit unseren endlosen ( und lästig ) Beharren wir sind die große Nation der Welt.
David McReynolds war die Sozialistische Partei Kandidat für die Präsidentschaft im Jahr 1980 und 2000 , ehemaliger Vorsitzender der War Resisters International, und fast vierzig Jahren auf das Personal der War Resisters League ein. Er ist pensioniert und lebt mit seinen zwei Katzen in Manhattans Lower East Side. Davidmcreynolds7@gmail.com : Er kann erreicht werden unter

Did Pussy Riot Cause a Revolution?

UKRAINE: SOME FACTS

For some time now, we have been waiting for an inkling, yes, an inkling, of sense on this entire situation.  Other than a couple scholars who have immediately been called “Putin apologists,” as if Putin felt any need for apologies, and give very short times on our Corporate Media.  For awhile, we put the RT site up for more general access to an opposing viewpoint, and it at least allows for opposition on its own airspace.  One newscaster resigned, on air, and she was not cut off.  She knew she would get great exposure and this was her opportunity to perhaps find employment at a larger network.

          The point is, some good information, and accurate information, is starting to appear.  You can find it at ZNET online, from where this article appeared.  It is a clear and concise overview of the situation.  We might add, before leave to it, that the naval ports in Crimea were started by Katherine the Great in the 18^th Century, and I assume that this means in the 1700s.

          There has also been a great deal about the poor Tartars who were expelled by Stalin.  Well, if Stalin did it, it must be wrong, the reasoning goes.  But how did the Tartars get there in the first place?  Genghis Kahn, that’s who.  Now it comes down to who is “badder,” Stalin or Genghis.  The absurdity is overwhelming.  Also, if you want to talk about Pussy Riot, the girls who jump around a lot, the ones that hit them with their whips or sticks were Tartars.  So, maybe Pussy Riot caused all this?

          Silly season again.  Here is a great essay:

Ukraine: An Analysis

By David McReynolds 

March 9, 2014
 

Posted in: East Europe, Europe, International Relations, Russia, SourceZ, Ukraine, US | 1 comment

Before launching into my analysis of events in Ukraine, there are a few points which should be made for an American audience.

Putin:
Commentators are engaged in a campaign to discredit Vladimir Putin, dismissing him as nothing more than the former head of the KGB. I hold no brief for Putin, whom I consider the head of a state dominated by oligarchs. But it is worth remembering Putin is the head of a state with which the US needs to deal. Poisoning the water with personal attacks does not move us toward a dialogue on Ukraine or on other matters where the US needs to work with Russia. 

It is also worth remembering that Gorbachev, widely praised in the West (and in my view a major “good guy”) was actually the KGB candidate when he took office.  It is in US interests to have a working relationship with Russia on matters such as Iran, Syria, and Afghanistan. And, beyond that, on issues of true nuclear and conventional disarmament.

How legitimate is the new Ukrainian government?
There is general agreement that the ousted president, Viktor F. Yanukovych, was corrupt. The problem is he was elected by a clear margin. Dramatic as events on the Maidan were, it remains unclear what forces were involved,  who “won”, and what they represent. I’ve read several eye witness accounts of the dramatic actions in February – the problem is no two agree. The US insists the new government represents the people of Ukraine – but who makes that decision? (Younger readers need to remember that while Britain recognized the new Soviet government, which came to power in 1917, in 1924, the US did not recognize it until 1933. In the case of China, where the present Chinese government took power in 1949, the US did not recognize it until Richard Nixon’s term. The US is very selective as to when it recognizes new governments that come  to power via a revolution).

How nonviolent were the events at the Maidan?
I was more than a little surprised to find that the facebook page of the Nonviolent Action Research Network (widely wide by American pacifists) termed the events in Kiev “nonviolent”. That is nonsense. One  can support or oppose the shifts that occurred in Kiev but one cannot call them nonviolent. Not only were a number of protestors killed, but so were a number of Ukrainian police. If people check the storming of the Winter Palace in Czarist Russia,in October of 1917, when the Bolsheviks took power and the Russian Revolution became a reality, there were only a handful of people killed – far fewer than died in Kiev. I support the right of people to resist oppression by the methods they choose, but as a pacifist I will urge that resistance be nonviolent. For better or worse, Kiev was not nonviolent.

What happened at the Maidan? 

The events in Kiev were turbulent.  There have been reports – again, from eye witnesses – that far right wing elements dominated the protesters, while other equally fervent eye witnesses insist far right wing elements were marginal. Steve Erlanger, in a “memo from Kiev” in the New York Times of Sunday, March 2, noted that the new government has few representatives of “what was the country’s largest and most popular party, the Party of Regions, led by the ousted President, Viktor f. Yanukovych. Instead, the government is currently dominated by those associated with a former prime minister, Yulia V. Tymoshenko, who is widely blamed for the failure of the 2004 Orange Revolution to change Ukraine’s corrupt political system”. Erlanger’s analysis suggests that Russian fears of the new government are valid – and, more important, that the fears of many Ukrainians, particularly in the Eastern Ukraine, are valid.

Andrew Wilson, a Ukraine expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said that an early “mistake” by the new government was the overturning of the 2012 law that allowed regions of Ukraine to make Russian a second official language, “needlessly offending Russian-dominated regions like the Donbass and Crimea”.

Commentators on events in Ukraine seem to break down into a kind of “left vs. right” pattern. William Blum, whose writing often makes good sense, argued in a recent piece that developments in Ukraine are part of the conscious pattern of the US to dominate the world, which has governed US actions for the last century. Much of what Blum has written has value, but this is nonsense – in 1914 it was Great Britain which ruled the world, WW I had just begun, and the US did not become conscious of its “new destiny” until after World War II. Other figures – Secretary of State Kerry, President Obama, and  Hillary Clinton – are so off base it would be funny if it were not serious. What is one to say of Obama, speaking at a press briefing in the White House, with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu sitting beside him, when he spoke of international law, ignoring the fact that Israel has occupied the West Bank in violation of international law, with considerable brutality and violence, for more than forty years.

And of course what can one say about any Russian actions in Crimea (on which I’ll comment in a moment) when they come from the leader of a nation which invaded Iraq, destroying it in the process, and has a bloody record of military interventions, some of which have never made rational sense (as in the case of Vietnam, where an estimated three million Vietnamese were killed).

There has been an almost complete lack of balance in media coverage. CNN has been happy to give extended time to interviews with John McCain, one of those rare veterans who seems to long for war, but little time to calmer voices.

To sum up what happened at Maidan, I’m fed up with some of the left telling me it was an anti-Semitic event, and everyone on the right saying it was entirely a democratic event. Clearly – if one can work through the reports – it was not just a “left vs right” event, but one in which many young Ukrainians, fed up with the corruption of the government, burst into a largely spontaneous and very exciting moment of revolt. However there is no question that the political right was there, and no question at all that it has been given key posts in the new government.

A note on Crimea:
Crimea is historically Russian. It does not have the independent history of Ukraine. It also has Russia’s only warm water port. It was inevitable, once the events in Kiev took the turn they did, that Russia would move into Crimea, and it is not going to leave. Think back to our own actions – when Fidel Castro took power in Havana in 1960 he posed no threat to the US – only to US control in Central and South America. Yet the US was so disturbed it launched a military attack (the Bay of Pigs), and has spent much of the the past half century trying to assassinate Fidel, and imposing severe sanctions. And we are surprised that Russia took steps to protect what had historically been part of Russia?

The trigger for Russian actions:
Early in February, as events at the Maidan has created a crisis, with the death toll rising, Polish and German diplomats met with both the Ukrainian government and with the rebels, working out a series of compromises which would have left Yanukovych in power but would also have met many of the demands of those in the Maidan. It is probable that Putin would have lived with that, but we will never know, since the rioters continued the uprising, which had by then become a revolution, and Yanukovych was forced to flee.

The context of the Ukrainian Crisis:
Here I want to step back away from the immediate crisis of Ukraine, for a look at the history which dictates much Russian policy – under Putin as it did under Stalin.

Russia has no natural barrier – no river, no mountain range – to guard it on its Western border. It has suffered invasion from the West three times in recent memory – under Napoleon and then twice under the Germans. In the last invasion, under Hitler,  between 25 and 27 million Soviet citizens lost their lives.  All the factories, dams, railroads. towns and cities West of a line from Leningrad in the North to Moscow to Stalingrad in the South were destroyed. Americans make much of 9.11 (and I don’t make light of it) but for Russia it was not just a handful of buildings in one city which were destroyed – it was entire cities, leveled. And then with the wounded to care for, the orphans, the widows.

Americans have never understood what the war meant to Russia and why, after the war, the Soviets sought to build a “protective band” of territory between itself and Germany. This was Eastern Europe, which under the iron boot of Stalin became “people’s democracies” or “presently existing socialism”. 

Something Americans (perhaps including our President and the Secretary of State) have forgotten was that Russia wanted to make a deal with the West. It had made peace with Finland, which (again, memories are short and we have forgotten this) fought on the side of the Nazis. The Soviets withdrew from Austria after the West agreed that Austria, like Finland, would be neutral.The Soviets very much wanted a Germany united, disarmed, and neutral. Stalin did not integrate the East Germany into the Eastern European economic plans for some time, hoping he could strike that deal. But the West wanted West Germany as part of NATO, and so the division of Germany lasted until Gorbachev came to power.

I would have urged radical actions by the West in 1956 when the Hungarian Revolution broke out – it was obvious that if the Soviets could not rule Eastern Europe without sending in tanks (as they had already had to do in East Germany in 1953), they posed no real threat of a military strike at the West.

What if we had said to Moscow, withdraw your tanks from Hungary, and we will dissolve NATO, while you dissolve the Warsaw Pact. 

But of course the West didn’t do that. The US in particular (but I would not exempt the Europeans from a share of the blame) wanted to edge their military bases to the East. When the USSR gave up control of Eastern Europe, the US pressed for pushing NATO farther East, into Poland and up to the borders of Ukraine. 

Pause for a moment and assume that revolutionary events in Canada had meant Canada was about to withdraw from NATO and invite in Russian military advisers.

What do you think US response would be?

Why are we surprised that Putin has said, very clearly, “no closer – back off”.

In this case Moscow holds the high cards. Europe is not going to war over Crimea. And it needs Russian gas. Sanctions will cut both ways – Europe is very cautious and, irony of ironies, it is Germany which is behaving with the greatest diplomacy.

If, out of all this, US planners accept the fact that there are real limits to how far East NATO can push, then the crisis will have helped us come to terms with reality. It may even lead us to consider dissolving NATO!

The importance of civil society.
All states act in their own interests. States do not have moral values. What we need to count on is the civil society – and Russia has one – which will modify state behavior, just as civil society here can sometimes modify state behavior. We – folks in the American civil society – need to reach out to the folks in Ukrainian and Russian civil society. There have been anti-war actions in Russia at this time – great, let’s try to link with them. We need to worry when, as in Nazi Germany, civil society is silenced. To a great extent that has happened here, in the US. Of course we should hope for a fair referendum in Crimea – but I think the fairest possible referendum will still see Crimea returned to Russia. 

Meanwhile, we need to tamp down the talk of military action, of sanctions, and of efforts to humiliate Putin. He isn’t my hero, but most Russians are happy with him. He has restored to Russia some of the pride it lost with the dissolution of the old Soviet Union. Americans, of all people, should understand this, with our endless (and tiresome) insistence we are the great nation in the world.

David McReynolds was the Socialist Party candidate for President in 1980 and 2000, past Chair of War Resisters International, and for nearly forty years on the staff of War Resisters League. He is retired and lives with his two cats on Manhattan’s Lower East Side. He may be reached at: davidmcreynolds7@gmail.com

-->

Ukraine, Idiocy, Russia, Benghazi, and Sense

Ukraine, Idiocy, Russia

          Just recently, Lindsay Graham proclaimed proudly on Fox that Russia’s reaction to Ukraine was a result of Benghazi.  I heard this in disbelief.  Preposterous!  How could he get away with it? 

          Shortly thereafter, someone posted this survey of right-wing types, Fox news advocates, that shows where these people thought Benghazi was located.  As you can see, only 2% of them could even locate the correct continent!  There is no wonder these people would swallow that nonsense.  They know nothing else.  Still, I feel obliged to say I am not making any of this up, because what is to come is even more surrealistic.

          The question was asked whether or not the U.S. has any military agreement with Ukraine, asked of course by someone who wanted a nice little war.  The answer was that we did, of sorts.  There was mentioned an agreement between the California National Guard and Ukraine.  So, we might ask, what happens as a result?

          The answer is obvious.  Because of Benghazi, we send the California National Guard to Kiev (two syllables, idiots) in Ukraine and then to Crimea to rescue it from Putin who is oppressing the Tartars.  That makes perfect sense. 

          We will get back to this issue shortly, but meanwhile, Nitwityahoo was here visiting with Obama, the most hated U.S. President of all time in Israel and who has facilitated the most for it.  His, Nitwityahoo’s, speech to AIPAC was about BDS, boycotts, divestment, and sanctions.  If you are interested in boycotting goods that profit Israel directly, here is a product code strip, they thing they scan to ring up your purchases:

So, look at the first three digits.  This is solely done here for the purpose of giving Israel the attention it deserves during these busy times.

          OK, back to Ukraine.  There seems to be a contention that Crimea, a Russian speaking and Russian Ethnic section of Ukraine, can not vote to secede from Ukraine and join Russia as it wishes.  This is according to its constitution.  However, the constitutional president of Ukraine was overthrown in a coup engineered by the “West,” as conversations involving a U.S. Ambassador show.  Also, those gunmen or snipers you saw, allegedly Pro-Russian have now been forensically identified as members of the “Ultra-Nationalist” opposition.  Actually, Russia has every right to grant the request of the democratically elected President of Ukraine, who is currently in Russia, and take military action.

          Putin has already gotten permission to do just this, to protect ethnic Russians in Ukraine from his own Parliament.  That sounds legal enough to me.  All we have to do is identify which parts are ethnically Russian and which not.  Fortunately, we have this map:

So, it seems quite clear.  Russia should get the red places and Poland the yellow or green (whatever that other color is).  Or to make it easier, everything east of Kiev should be part of Russia or the Russian Federation and west should be part of NATO.

          Now, we have not mentioned NATO.  Article 5 of the agreement allows any member of NATO to have all of NATO act as if it has been attacked.  Russia has been surrounded by enemies for a couple thousand years, at least, while the U.S. is safely surrounded by two oceans.

          Another fact is that Europe relies on Russia for a great deal.  The energy supplies are only one factor here, but they are critical. 

There is one more idiocy I would like to clear up.  Our press, 90% owned by 6 corporations, tells us that Russia forbade American adoption of its orphans because of Georgia (the one over there, stupid, not Atlanta).  Actually, that ban went into force after a woman here, in one of our southern states, sent back an orphan she had adopted.  She just put him on a plane to Moscow, put a note on him saying something like “he’s a pain in my ass,” and then forgot about him.  Russia decided that Americans are not very reliable so far as adoption is concerned and it would rather take care of its own orphans. 

Some people say that Ukraine first saw humans as far back as 32,000 B.C.  The people who think this is important are the same people that think the world is only 6,000 years old. 

I did not make any of this up!

-->

SOME BALANCE

AS long as corporate media continues to give a one-sided view of the Ukraine, we are running Russian Television.  There are some facts you need to know.

Remember Boston? Ukraine has Friends

    This is just available from the Justice Integrity Project.  Ukraine encourages terrorism:

Justice Integrity Project

---

New Ukrainian Official Urges Chechen Terrorist To Act Against Russia Posted: 02 Mar 2014 04:56 AM PST The Ukraine's new deputy national security director urged March 1 that Russia's most feared terrorist take action against their mutual opponent. In a shocking statement largely ignored by the Western media, Dmitry Yarosh asked the fugitive Chechen Doku Umarov to take advantage of the "unique chance to win" arising from disturbances in the Ukraine. Yarosh was appointed to the Ukraine's new government after leading the Right Sector group of ultra-rightists, perhaps the best organized and otherwise most effective of the street fighters who topped the Ukraine's government last week. Umarow, described as Russia's equivalent to Osama bin Laden, has not been reported seen or heard since last summer, when he urged terror attacks to prevent the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. He is shown in a file photo courtesy of Creative Commons and Wikipedia. In an interview on RT March 1, I described Yarosh's request to the terrorist as dangerous because it is so inflammatory and comes from an official of the new government. But the Yarosh statement serves also as a valuable illustration to Western audiences of the violent tendencies of the street demonstrators who took power after they were encouraged by the West. Meanwhile, Russian troops deployed through pro-Russian Crimean Peninsula of the Ukraine hosting a vital naval base of the Russians. Russian troops also massed near the Ukraine border at a reported strength of 150,000. Crimea is the tan section in the Black Sea on the adjoining map courtesy of Wikimedia. United States and allied Western officials threatened reprisals against Russia but appeared to have few military or other meaningful options without risking world war. A war-weary American public is hardly likely to support a new one that could escalate to a tragedy beyond anyone's understanding or control. Also, any action by the United Nations Security council would be subject to a Russian veto, and "a coalition of the willing" is unlikely for similar reasons. Even a down-sized Russia is not Saddam Hussein's Iraq. President Obama and allied powers denounced the Russians Saturday following a mid-day meeting at the White House of such top administration officials as Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. However, the actions so far of the Obama team show them as seeming unprepared for what appears to have been the most logical outcome of the West-orchestrated overthrow of the Ukraine's elected government. Republican leaders had little more to add aside from recriminations against Democrats for not acting more aggressively and spending more money on war-preparations and offers of aid. More generally, the vast suffering created in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria all began with optimistic rhetoric from Western leaders about the benefits of collective action to support such attractive-sounding goals as national security, peace, democracy, and human rights. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power was among those who followed that pattern March 1 as she warned Russia against interference in the Ukraine. Curiously lost in most U.S. coverage, however, has been the clear trail of United States and other Western interference in the Ukraine leading to coup last week overthrowing elected President .