Ironclad Warlord wrote: The Ukraine is'nt a nation, it never was, it was created by the Lenin as a administrative district of the Soviet Union.
Ah, that explains why it was called "The United Nations and also Ukraine, who we're treating as a nation but totally isn't one because some guy on Dakka Dakka said so."
I have been wondering that for so long, and I thank you for finally answering the question for me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: You shouldn't disregard information or a story simply because the source is known to be biased. Rather, you should look to secondary sources and see if they confirm the original story.
Yeah, people should go and look for other articles on the story, to either confirm it or look for ways in which the story inaccurate.
But the thing is that I've done that, a lot. And it's pretty never gotten me anywhere with the other side, they'll either ignore the other articles or make up some new nonsense, often just posting a new junk story from the same site. I think this is because once someone has decided on a certain side and is happy just to find whatever crap supports their POV, then nothing that disproves that POV is going to make any difference... they've decided already, their mind is made up, if it wasn't they wouldn't be happy to just accept junk from junk news services.
At some point it just makes no sense to keep doing work to disprove the argument of someone who just doesn't care if his political opinion actually fits with reality. At some point you just have to accept that saying 'you're using a junk news service that's actually not much more than the press agency of the Russian government' is enough, because any more work than that is pissing in the wind.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: So, does that mean that impartial news agencies are more than just a myth?
While it is true that complete impartiality is never going to happen, it's a complete nonsense to then conclude that all media is equal. There is a basic difference between factual reporting that still has a point of view but looks to be as objective as possible, and distorted lying bs that intends only to deceive people in to buying in to a pre-determined line. The BBC would be an example of the former, while RT would be an example of the latter.
Like it or not, but Pravda does represent a very popular opinion in Russia.
And the Daily Mail is the most popular paper in the UK. But it's also complete crap that only makes its readers dumber.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
loki old fart wrote: Yeah it's not like the BBC lies or covers up things, I mean they didn't cover up for jimmy saville did they . Oh wait.....
If they did that in order to promote the agenda of the government then you'd have a point. As that had nothing to do with serving the interests of the government of the day, it's nothing to do with nothing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Because the BBC doesn't have a history of being a propaganda mouthpiece for the British government?
Picking out some instances of poor behaviour at the BBC and using that to equate the service with RT is pretending "not perfect" is the same as "gak".
I just enjoy watching part of the crowd that will devolve into gibbering, gak-flinging monkeys the second a Fox News article is posted defend RT. It's like a hypocrisy balm for the soul.
Iron_Captain wrote: But really, both stations are used for propaganda. All media is used for propaganda, and state media even more so than others. Why would the British government have its own media station if not for propaganda? Sure, they will appear critical at times in order to maintain an air of impartiality and remain believable, but in the end they still broadcast the views of the British government.
I'm fascinated at this idea that government would allow the media to tell negative stories about its government, just so that down the line when the national carrier told a story on foreign policy people would believe it. That's... well it is certainly imaginative.
Seaward wrote: I just enjoy watching part of the crowd that will devolve into gibbering, gak-flinging monkeys the second a Fox News article is posted defend RT. It's like a hypocrisy balm for the soul.
Is it okay if I have contempt for FOX and RT? And CNN, actually. Although in each case it's a little different - RT is saying what government wants said, FOX is pandering to the US far right, and CNN is filled with idiots who are extremely bad at their jobs.
sebster wrote: Is it okay if I have contempt for FOX and RT? And CNN, actually. Although in each case it's a little different - RT is saying what government wants said, FOX is pandering to the US far right, and CNN is filled with idiots who are extremely bad at their jobs.
No. You have to pick a side. Nobody gets to be Switzerland.
Seaward wrote: I just enjoy watching part of the crowd that will devolve into gibbering, gak-flinging monkeys the second a Fox News article is posted defend RT. It's like a hypocrisy balm for the soul.
Is it okay if I have contempt for FOX and RT? And CNN, actually. Although in each case it's a little different - RT is saying what government wants said, FOX is pandering to the US far right, and CNN is filled with idiots who are extremely bad at their jobs.
In my book, Left Turn, I compute Slant Quotients, or “SQs” for several media outlets.
An SQ of “0″ means that the outlet sounds approximately as conservative as a speech by Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) or Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). An SQ of “100″ means that the outlet sounds approximately as liberal as a speech by Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) or Barney Frank (D-Mass.)
If the outlet is perfectly centrist, then it has an SQ is 50.4, which, according to my estimates, is the Political Quotient, or PQ, of the average U.S. voter. (Click here to learn more about PQs and, if you desire, to compute your own PQ.)
For more details about how I estimate SQs, click here.
Here I list the Slant Quotients, or SQs, of several media outlets, as well as the SQs of several local newspapers. To compute these SQs, I use the results of a research project by Gentzkow and Shapiro. The latter researchers use “loaded political phrases” to compute the slants of newspapers. (See Chapter 15 of my book, Left Turn, for a summary of their method.) I translate their slant estimates into SQs.
(Specifically, here’s how I translate their slant estimates into SQs. Gentzkow and Shapiro’s estimates answer the following thought experiment: Given the distribution of loaded political phrases that a media outlet reports, if that outlet were a member of Congress, what is the most likely conservativeness of his district — where “conservativeness” means the district’s two-party vote percentage for George W. Bush in 2004? Through a regression analysis, I translate this measure into a Slant Quotient. That is, I alter the thought experiment to ask, “What is the most likely Political Quotient, or PQ, of that would-be member of Congress?”. I define that PQ as the SQ of the outlet.)
Meanwhile, in the upper part of the site (where I report SQs), I list the SQs of several national media outlets. I base these SQs on the method that Professor Jeff Milyo and I developed for our article published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics. (Here is a link to the article. I summarize the article, as well as respond to some critiques of the article, in Chapter 13 of Left Turn.) That method uses as its basic data the think tanks that media outlets cited.
In Left Turn I use the above method, plus two other methods to compute SQs. One of the latter two methods is the loaded-phrase method, developed by Gentzkow and Shapiro. The final method notes facts about the Bush tax cuts, and it records whether the news outlet did or did not report the facts.
In general, the media outlets that I examine appear less liberal when judged by the think-tank method than when judged by the other two methods. For instance, as I discuss on pages 175-77 of Left Turn, if you believe that the loaded-phrase method is the most proper of the three methods, then the true SQs of the media outlets are approximately two points higher (i.e. more liberal) than the SQs I report. If you believe that the fact-based method (i.e. the one that examines facts about the Bush tax cuts) is the most proper method, then, as I discuss on pages 185-6 and 197 of Left Turn, the true SQs of the media outlets are approximately 16 points higher than I report.
If you believe that the three methods are equally valid (or equally invalid), then the most accurate SQs are represented by an average of the three methods. This means that the true SQs are approximately six points ( = (2+16)/3 ) higher than I report.
The good folks at Andrew Breitbart’s “Big” web sites (BigGovernment.com, BigJournalism.com, etc.) have asked me to expand my list of SQs—that is, to compute SQs for more news outlets than I computed during the research for my book. Unfortunately, this is a very arduous task, and I do not have the time and resources to do this for more than a few outlets.
Instead, I have created subjective estimates for several additional outlets. The latter estimates follow the basic thought experiment that I adopt when computing the objective, statistical estimates. That is, I note the content of the particular outlet. Next I ask: What if that content were instead a speech by a member of Congress? What is my best guess of the PQ of the would-be member of Congress?
For each subjective estimate, I list the SQ in italics. (Thus, all non-italicized SQs were computed by one of my objective, statistical methods.) Below I give details about how I derive some of the subjective estimates.
When it comes to politics and media, the left argues that the right is more biased than the left while the right argues that the left is more biased than the right. Who’s right?
That’s what we try to answer in our latest podcast, “How Biased Is Your Media?” (You can download/subscribe at iTunes, get the RSS feed, listen live via the media player above, or read the transcript below.) In a way, this episode is a follow-up to a podcast we put out a few months ago called “The Truth Is Out There, Isn’t It?,” which examined how we choose to believe what we believe about a variety of important issues. In this episode, we apply that same idea in a small-bore fashion, going after media bias.
You’ll hear from a variety of media practitioners and academic scholars who’ve been brave (foolhardy?) enough to wade into the media-bias debate. Among the practitioners: Glenn Beck (who’s been on Freakonomics Radio before), Ann Coulter, Juan Williams, and Andrew Rosenthal, the editorial page editor at The New York Times.
Everyone of course has his opinion about media bias, but we were trying to get beyond opinion. As Steve Levitt points out, this is no simple matter:
LEVITT: Measuring media bias is a really difficult endeavor because unlike what economists usually study, which are numbers and quantities, media bias is all expressed in words.
So we look at some of the recent empirical work on media bias, in which research scholars use words as data to better understand whether a) media bias exists; b) if so, to what degree, and in what directions; and c) what purpose/s it serves. In a 2004 paper, Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo took a stab at media bias; that paper became the launching point of Groseclose’s book Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind. You’ll hear from Gloseclose about his methodologies and findings, and you can read an earlier Q&A with him here. Here’s how Levitt has described the Groseclose-Milyo analysis:
LEVITT: Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo estimate how left-wing or right-wing media outlets are based on what research by think tanks they mention in their stories. They then compare that to the think-tank research that elected officials cite when they talk on the House or Senate floor, to calibrate where the media fits relative to the Congress. They find some interesting answers: most of the media does have a liberal bias (throwing out the editorial page, the Wall Street Journal is the most liberal of all, even beating the New York Times!). Fox News is one of the few outlets that is right of center.
Here’s how 20 major media outlets rank on Groseclose and Milyo’s slant scale, with 100 representing the most liberal and zero the most conservative:
Iron_Captain wrote: So, does that mean that impartial news agencies are more than just a myth?
While it is true that complete impartiality is never going to happen, it's a complete nonsense to then conclude that all media is equal. There is a basic difference between factual reporting that still has a point of view but looks to be as objective as possible, and distorted lying bs that intends only to deceive people in to buying in to a pre-determined line. The BBC would be an example of the former, while RT would be an example of the latter.
I don't find the BBC an example of the former. They most definitely do not look to be as objective as possible, and if they do, they fail at it. The BBC has a clear bias typical of all British media (that I know at least).
As to RT, at this point I will have to admit that I do not often read their articles that do not have to do with the Ukraine crisis, but so far, I haven't found them to be any less factual, though just as biased as the BBC. Could you please provide some proof of RT spewing this 'distorted lying bs' you are talking about? Since I generally tend to agree with RT's opinion on the Ukrainian crisis, the bias might be harder to detect for me than it is for you.
Seaward wrote: I just enjoy watching part of the crowd that will devolve into gibbering, gak-flinging monkeys the second a Fox News article is posted defend RT. It's like a hypocrisy balm for the soul.
Like it or not, but Pravda does represent a very popular opinion in Russia.
And the Daily Mail is the most popular paper in the UK. But it's also complete crap that only makes its readers dumber.
Its a lowbrow tabloid, no more or less trustworthy than The Sun, for instance.
Some of its columnists and foreign correspondents are very good though. Peter Hitchens for instance, has reported from inside North Korea, Somalia, Gaza and Palestine, Libya, Soviet era Russia and Moscow, and many many other places.
loki old fart wrote: Yeah it's not like the BBC lies or covers up things, I mean they didn't cover up for jimmy saville did they . Oh wait.....
If they did that in order to promote the agenda of the government then you'd have a point. As that had nothing to do with serving the interests of the government of the day, it's nothing to do with nothing.
I think the point was that the BBC has been known to be untrustworthy at times, to the point of criminality.
Iron_Captain wrote: So, does that mean that impartial news agencies are more than just a myth?
While it is true that complete impartiality is never going to happen, it's a complete nonsense to then conclude that all media is equal. There is a basic difference between factual reporting that still has a point of view but looks to be as objective as possible, and distorted lying bs that intends only to deceive people in to buying in to a pre-determined line. The BBC would be an example of the former, while RT would be an example of the latter.
I don't find the BBC an example of the former. They most definitely do not look to be as objective as possible, and if they do, they fail at it. The BBC has a clear bias typical of all British media (that I know at least).
The BBC frequently violates its own Charter, and is institutionally Left Wing. Its even been admitted by past Directors, but their excuse is always "Oh, we used to be Left Wing and biased but not any more. When I was in charge we were totally impartial". The BBC is not so much biased to any one party, as it is to one end of the political spectrum. It favours any party that espouses Left Wing ideology and policies. It favoured New Labour, then switched to the self confessed "Heir to Blair", David Cameron, whos adopted a Centre-Left / Centre position.
The BBC does not fear British government, rather its the opposite way round. Successive governments have been afraid of the BBC, and have often shied away from attempting reform for fear of the BBC turning on them (I'm in favour of crapping the license fee altogether - I don't want ANY tax payer funded state media).
To accuse the BBC of being a mouthpiece for the government is simply wrong. Governments dance to the BBC's tune. The BBC and everything it represents IS the establishment.
sebster wrote: Is it okay if I have contempt for FOX and RT? And CNN, actually. Although in each case it's a little different - RT is saying what government wants said, FOX is pandering to the US far right, and CNN is filled with idiots who are extremely bad at their jobs.
I wonder how long it will be before russia is the "bad guy" for turning off the gas...
how audacious of them, to expect payment for their natural gas!
They should be happy to sell it to the ukraine, at whatever price the ukraine wants to pay, even if the ukraine is over 4 billion in arrears at the discounted price.
as for news sources,
every single one is biased, and is a puppet for its resepective government, if you deny this, you are simply denying the reality of the 21st century "the epoch of mass surveillance and mass media"
the difference between RT and BBC, is that while both are propoganda machines, the russians KNOW RT is propaganda, while the west will look at the BBC as un adultered/whitwashed/sanitized fact.
Russia can turn off the gas, and they would be in their right to do so. But I don't think that they will.
I would imagine that turning off the gas will just result in a "Berlin Airlift 2.0" and Europe and the US will get together and ship gas to Ukraine and forever earn their favor and international goodwill.
every single one is biased, and is a puppet for its resepective government, if you deny this, you are simply denying the reality of the 21st century "the epoch of mass surveillance and mass media"
So both DailyKos and the Breitbart sites are government puppets?
Oh goody. Spraying more of our tax money at people who don't deserve it, won't appreciate it, won't pay it back and will simply come back demanding more...
d-usa wrote: Russia can turn off the gas, and they would be in their right to do so. But I don't think that they will.
I would imagine that turning off the gas will just result in a "Berlin Airlift 2.0" and Europe and the US will get together and ship gas to Ukraine and forever earn their favor and international goodwill.
how *exactly*, is the USA going to bottle up gas and ship it trans atlantic, at rates cheaper then what the ukraine wants from russia, who is right next door with an existing pipeline? also in the volume required for ukraine, let alone all of europe if it gets that bad?
I think russia will very much turn the taps off on the ukraine, so long as they fail to reach a deal at least, but that the ukraine will just siphon gas off (allegedly, for the 2nd time already too) while its en route to the rest of europe. This will lead to more... unpleasantness to say the least.
d-usa wrote: Russia can turn off the gas, and they would be in their right to do so. But I don't think that they will.
I would imagine that turning off the gas will just result in a "Berlin Airlift 2.0" and Europe and the US will get together and ship gas to Ukraine and forever earn their favor and international goodwill.
USA might Europe wont, we get our gas from Russia via Ukraine
Come Winter with Walkers at your door getting ready to invite themselves in and convert you to their cause dead or alive and the gas heater fires up because Putin open up the pipeline. He goes from King to Savior and then to Saint.
And even with subsidiaries, wind energy is horribly unreliable and inefficient, and needs to be backed up by fossil fuel stations.
Wind energy is a false economy except perhaps for individual households.
Indeed. There are only a few places on earth where you have consistent wind that can produce reliable power.
Solar and biofuels have much more promise(except Ethanol, which is grossly inefficient)
Wind solar works well together.
hydro could be utilised more.
Bio diesel is overated, because if your growing crops for diesel, your not growing crops for food.
Converting bio mass into energy shows promise.
Hydro-electric works. Constant free energy from flowing water, as long as you don't have a very severe drought (and let's face it, it's Britain were talking about ).
And even with subsidiaries, wind energy is horribly unreliable and inefficient, and needs to be backed up by fossil fuel stations.
Wind energy is a false economy except perhaps for individual households.
Indeed. There are only a few places on earth where you have consistent wind that can produce reliable power.
Solar and biofuels have much more promise(except Ethanol, which is grossly inefficient)
Wind solar works well together.
hydro could be utilised more.
Bio diesel is overated, because if your growing crops for diesel, your not growing crops for food.
Converting bio mass into energy shows promise.
I saw a presentation on a promising bioengeneering idea.
They had modified algae to produce diesel as a byproduct of their metabolism.
The biggest problem they had extracting the diesel without killing all the algae in the tank. So currently they have to basically kill all the algae in the tank to remove the fuel.
And even with subsidiaries, wind energy is horribly unreliable and inefficient, and needs to be backed up by fossil fuel stations.
Wind energy is a false economy except perhaps for individual households.
Indeed. There are only a few places on earth where you have consistent wind that can produce reliable power.
Solar and biofuels have much more promise(except Ethanol, which is grossly inefficient)
Wind solar works well together.
hydro could be utilised more.
Bio diesel is overated, because if your growing crops for diesel, your not growing crops for food.
Converting bio mass into energy shows promise.
I saw a presentation on a promising bioengeneering idea.
They had modified algae to produce diesel as a byproduct of their metabolism.
The biggest problem they had extracting the diesel without killing all the algae in the tank. So currently they have to basically kill all the algae in the tank to remove the fuel.
Yup saw that, I think. The biggest problem with it is cost. The vast areas of land needed to grow it, and the power needed to pump all that liquid around the system. Just think how much fuel is used in a day. A good by product is cattle feed though.
Good news for China then. Don't they have entire lakes, rivers and inland seas contaminated with pollution and algae? They could skim some algae from a lake, convert it to fuel, skim more algae.
Cleaning up the environment and producing a renewable energy all at once, bargain!
And even with subsidiaries, wind energy is horribly unreliable and inefficient, and needs to be backed up by fossil fuel stations.
Wind energy is a false economy except perhaps for individual households.
Indeed. There are only a few places on earth where you have consistent wind that can produce reliable power.
Solar and biofuels have much more promise(except Ethanol, which is grossly inefficient)
Wind solar works well together.
hydro could be utilised more.
Bio diesel is overated, because if your growing crops for diesel, your not growing crops for food.
Converting bio mass into energy shows promise.
I saw a presentation on a promising bioengeneering idea.
They had modified algae to produce diesel as a byproduct of their metabolism.
The biggest problem they had extracting the diesel without killing all the algae in the tank. So currently they have to basically kill all the algae in the tank to remove the fuel.
Yup saw that, I think. The biggest problem with it is cost. The vast areas of land needed to grow it, and the power needed to pump all that liquid around the system. Just think how much fuel is used in a day. A good by product is cattle feed though.
I didn't think cost was an issue for the system. Other than needing copious amounts of water. And the value of diesel was good enough. It was literally the difficulty in extracting the diesel from the growth tanks. So once they found a good way to do that it would be smooth sailing.
And even with subsidiaries, wind energy is horribly unreliable and inefficient, and needs to be backed up by fossil fuel stations.
Wind energy is a false economy except perhaps for individual households.
Indeed. There are only a few places on earth where you have consistent wind that can produce reliable power.
Solar and biofuels have much more promise(except Ethanol, which is grossly inefficient)
Wind solar works well together.
hydro could be utilised more.
Bio diesel is overated, because if your growing crops for diesel, your not growing crops for food.
Converting bio mass into energy shows promise.
I saw a presentation on a promising bioengeneering idea.
They had modified algae to produce diesel as a byproduct of their metabolism.
The biggest problem they had extracting the diesel without killing all the algae in the tank. So currently they have to basically kill all the algae in the tank to remove the fuel.
Yup saw that, I think. The biggest problem with it is cost. The vast areas of land needed to grow it, and the power needed to pump all that liquid around the system. Just think how much fuel is used in a day. A good by product is cattle feed though.
I didn't think cost was an issue for the system. Other than needing copious amounts of water. And the value of diesel was good enough. It was literally the difficulty in extracting the diesel from the growth tanks. So once they found a good way to do that it would be smooth sailing.
Needs to be near fish farm or sewage works to provide nutrients for the algae.
Take only a percentage of the algae out, the rest acts as starter for next batch. Can't remember which variant of algae they were using.
Anyway back to topic.
Seaward wrote: No. You have to pick a side. Nobody gets to be Switzerland.
But I want to be Switzerland. Switzerland won their match with the last kick of the game. My country lost 3-1, and is destined to get knocked out in the group stage, maybe without even getting a point.
Uurgh... freakonomics. Such a promising concept so utterly wasted.
Anyhow, it strikes me that their methodology has a really strong structural assumption - that think tanks on both sides are equal, that the likes of Brookings has the same methods and aims as the Heritage Foundation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: I don't find the BBC an example of the former. They most definitely do not look to be as objective as possible, and if they do, they fail at it. The BBC has a clear bias typical of all British media (that I know at least).
They have British bias, sure. They're British afterall, their reporters and editorial staff are going to see things with a specific point of view.
The first thing in understanding reliable news sources is understanding that there is nothing wrong with that per se. It means you need to look at multiple sources, but you shouldn't dismiss a source simply because you see a point of view (because all that will end up doing is having you dismiss sources with points of view different to your own).
The second thing in understanding reliable news services is that while all sources have some bias or point of view, they're not all equally honest. Some sources are trying to be as honest as possible, while others are manipulating information or even straight up lying. So you could read, say, the UK paper The Times and see a conservative point of view, but still some pretty reliable news, or watch FOX news and get a similarly conservative POV, but be presented with information that is likely manipulated or even straight up false.
As to RT, at this point I will have to admit that I do not often read their articles that do not have to do with the Ukraine crisis, but so far, I haven't found them to be any less factual, though just as biased as the BBC. Could you please provide some proof of RT spewing this 'distorted lying bs' you are talking about? Since I generally tend to agree with RT's opinion on the Ukrainian crisis, the bias might be harder to detect for me than it is for you.
They run conspiracy nonsense - birth stuff, truther stuff, and other insane nonsense. The only consistency in any of gibberish is the anti-US bent. There's nothing wrong with an anti-US bent, but there's a difference between actual failings of the US at home and in their foreign policy, and insane conspiracy nonsense.
During the conflict against Georgia RT set up a standard editorial line that Georgians were slaughtering South Ossetians. Not dissimilar to the charges they make against Ukraine right now. Their claims in the Georgia war were wildly exaggerated, and I see no reason to believe them this time around.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I think the point was that the BBC has been known to be untrustworthy at times, to the point of criminality.
Any very large organisation, given a century of so of existence, will do something illegal or corrupt somewhere.
Many US banks operated in explicitly illegal ways that were exposed in the wake of the GFC - does that mean that no-one will open a chequing account with them because they believe the bank will just steal the money? No, that's insane. But it is no different than saying the BBC turned a blind eye to a sex criminal who worked in the music industry, therefore we can't believe their foreign reporting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: I wonder how long it will be before russia is the "bad guy" for turning off the gas...
how audacious of them, to expect payment for their natural gas!
Right now the college I work at has outstanding bills for payment with several multinational oil & gas companies. A couple are outstanding for more than a quarter million each, one is six months outstanding. It isn't much money to them, but it is a lot of money to us.
They aren't paying because they are disputing the total of those bills, and we are working with them to resolve those bills. Meanwhile other bills are being paid, and we are continuing to provide service.
That's how it works. You dispute a charge out rate, or dispute who should pay for some piece of equipment, and while that gets resolved you carry on with the rest of the deal.
Right now the Ukraine is disputing its bill with Russia. It's dispute is reasonable in principle - Russia doesn't get to maintain or remove its subsidy based on how much it likes the Ukrainian government of the day - but impractical in practice - it's Russia's gas and if the Ukraine had wanted a reliable subsidy it should have negotiated for one formally as part of the deal to have European pipelines pass through its territory.
But the point is that attempting to liken this to simply turning the gas off because a bill is unpaid is hopelessly simplistic narrative, and one that just doesn't work once you have any knowledge of how complex contracts work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Putin pretty much has everybody, except the US, by the nuts.
The narrative in which Putin is this all powerful master manipulator is boring and silly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: Hydro-electric works. Constant free energy from flowing water, as long as you don't have a very severe drought (and let's face it, it's Britain were talking about ).
Hydro is great, but the issue is that there's only so much good hydro opportunities around. Most of it was maximised in the developed world in the 20th century.
And even with subsidiaries, wind energy is horribly unreliable and inefficient, and needs to be backed up by fossil fuel stations.
Wind energy is a false economy except perhaps for individual households.
Like hydro, wind is a great source of power for specific locations. It isn't a complete answer to all our energy needs, but then no one technology has to be.
easysauce wrote: I wonder how long it will be before russia is the "bad guy" for turning off the gas...
how audacious of them, to expect payment for their natural gas!
Right now the college I work at has outstanding bills for payment with several multinational oil & gas companies. A couple are outstanding for more than a quarter million each, one is six months outstanding. It isn't much money to them, but it is a lot of money to us.thats a very simplistic way to look at it... your colledges' measly quarter mill, not even a house-worth of debt, is not at all comparable to 4.5 BILLION with a B, nor does it being "a small" amount to the creditor matter at all. Goods and services must be paid for for there to be an expectation that they will continue to be supplied.At any point the creditor can refuse to issue new credit, especially if old credit is well into arrears. If you cannot pay your mortgage, a debt similar to your 250grand example, they might offer re financing options (none of which reduce the amount owed, just how you pay that amount back, and failing all that, they take back the house. No bank, EVER, will just say "oh, you cant pay 250grand for that house? you want to pay 100grand for it instead? yeah, ok, just pay that, its cool bro *brofist*"
They aren't paying because they are disputing the total of those bills, and we are working with them to resolve those bills. Meanwhile other bills are being paid, and we are continuing to provide service.
That's how it works. You dispute a charge out rate, or dispute who should pay for some piece of equipment, and while that gets resolved you carry on with the rest of the deal.No, thats really not how it works... you sign a contract, you fufill the obligations of that contract, or you are breaching that contract. Just because you change your mind, after the fact, about prices, does not releive you of your contractual obligations. That is the ENTIRE point of having a contract written up.. to prevent people from changing the rules/prices/ect in the middle of a deal.
Right now the Ukraine is disputing its bill with Russia. It's dispute is reasonable in principle - Russia doesn't get to maintain or remove its subsidy based on how much it likes the Ukrainian government of the day - but impractical in practice - it's Russia's gas and if the Ukraine had wanted a reliable subsidy it should have negotiated for one formally as part of the deal to have European pipelines pass through its territory.again, simplisitc, and not actually true, russia very much does get to set the price for their gas, and once that price is agreed upon, and the gas delivered, the agreed upon price must be paid. RE-negotiating a lower price after the fact, is the height of bad business, and a breach of contract. It is a crucial part of business between countries that they very much give better prices based on better relations, the concept of "you scratch my back, i scratch yours" works for a reason. the concept of "you scratch my back, I promise to scratch yours, but I dont actually" doesnt work for obvious reasons. Changing the agreed upon price, after the contract is signed, is not a legitimate business practice, although it is one often attempted. You might want to look at all the favorable prices the US gets on commodities before you go toting stupid ideas like commody sellers not being able to set prices based on relationship status between them and the buyer.
But the point is that attempting to liken this to simply turning the gas off because a bill is unpaid is hopelessly simplistic narrative, and one that just doesn't work once you have any knowledge of how complex contracts work.the only thing "simplistic" is you trying hand waive away a 4.5billion dollar debt as meaningless because, hey, your colledge is in debt for 250 grand, since that is OK, so this debt must be ok too. Its not a complicated contract, its an agreed upon price, that has not been paid. Claiming that because one side now wants to change the price after the fact somehow grants legitimacy to not paying the agreed upon price, is just silly, and a text book definition of breach of contract.
easysauce wrote: I wonder how long it will be before russia is the "bad guy" for turning off the gas...
how audacious of them, to expect payment for their natural gas!
Right now the college I work at has outstanding bills for payment with several multinational oil & gas companies. A couple are outstanding for more than a quarter million each, one is six months outstanding. It isn't much money to them, but it is a lot of money to us.thats a very simplistic way to look at it... your colledges' measly quarter mill, not even a house-worth of debt, is not at all comparable to 4.5 BILLION with a B, nor does it being "a small" amount to the creditor matter at all. Goods and services must be paid for for there to be an expectation that they will continue to be supplied.At any point the creditor can refuse to issue new credit, especially if old credit is well into arrears. If you cannot pay your mortgage, a debt similar to your 250grand example, they might offer re financing options (none of which reduce the amount owed, just how you pay that amount back, and failing all that, they take back the house. No bank, EVER, will just say "oh, you cant pay 250grand for that house? you want to pay 100grand for it instead? yeah, ok, just pay that, its cool bro *brofist*"
They aren't paying because they are disputing the total of those bills, and we are working with them to resolve those bills. Meanwhile other bills are being paid, and we are continuing to provide service.
That's how it works. You dispute a charge out rate, or dispute who should pay for some piece of equipment, and while that gets resolved you carry on with the rest of the deal.No, thats really not how it works... you sign a contract, you fufill the obligations of that contract, or you are breaching that contract. Just because you change your mind, after the fact, about prices, does not releive you of your contractual obligations. That is the ENTIRE point of having a contract written up.. to prevent people from changing the rules/prices/ect in the middle of a deal.
Right now the Ukraine is disputing its bill with Russia. It's dispute is reasonable in principle - Russia doesn't get to maintain or remove its subsidy based on how much it likes the Ukrainian government of the day - but impractical in practice - it's Russia's gas and if the Ukraine had wanted a reliable subsidy it should have negotiated for one formally as part of the deal to have European pipelines pass through its territory.again, simplisitc, and not actually true, russia very much does get to set the price for their gas, and once that price is agreed upon, and the gas delivered, the agreed upon price must be paid. RE-negotiating a lower price after the fact, is the height of bad business, and a breach of contract. It is a crucial part of business between countries that they very much give better prices based on better relations, the concept of "you scratch my back, i scratch yours" works for a reason. the concept of "you scratch my back, I promise to scratch yours, but I dont actually" doesnt work for obvious reasons. Changing the agreed upon price, after the contract is signed, is not a legitimate business practice, although it is one often attempted. You might want to look at all the favorable prices the US gets on commodities before you go toting stupid ideas like commody sellers not being able to set prices based on relationship status between them and the buyer.
But the point is that attempting to liken this to simply turning the gas off because a bill is unpaid is hopelessly simplistic narrative, and one that just doesn't work once you have any knowledge of how complex contracts work.the only thing "simplistic" is you trying hand waive away a 4.5billion dollar debt as meaningless because, hey, your colledge is in debt for 250 grand, since that is OK, so this debt must be ok too. Its not a complicated contract, its an agreed upon price, that has not been paid. Claiming that because one side now wants to change the price after the fact somehow grants legitimacy to not paying the agreed upon price, is just silly, and a text book definition of breach of contract.
Ahh yes... the professor professes!
Russia's claming there's a breach of contract, Ukraine is claming there's not. If you've not breached a contract and yet whoever is the other party in the conflict says you have, is it reasonable to demand that you pay just because the other side claims you have?
Disclaimer: I'm not saying that Ukraine is in the right, just their point of view which, if correct, can hardly be blamed.
the contract stipulated gazprom would recieve money for gas,
gas was delievered, no money has been recieved. The contract is factually, verifiably, now breached.
its very reasonable to expect to be paid the amount set out before hand in a contract after goods or services have been rendered... it is the cornerstone of civilized economies that you actually fufil contractual obligations. 4.5 billion isnt some token amount that gazprom can do without.. it actually needs that money...
this is the equivelent of driving up to a gas station, filling your tank, and driving away... except that you also signed a contract saying you would pay for that gas before you drove away.
the contract stipulated gazprom would recieve money for gas,
gas was delievered, no money has been recieved. The contract is factually, verifiably, now breached.
its very reasonable to expect to be paid the amount set out before hand in a contract after goods or services have been rendered... it is the cornerstone of civilized economies that you actually fufil contractual obligations. 4.5 billion isnt some token amount that gazprom can do without.. it actually needs that money...
this is the equivelent of driving up to a gas station, filling your tank, and driving away... except that you also signed a contract saying you would pay for that gas before you drove away.
And who's saying that no money's been recieved? Gazprom. Hence the whole conflict. It's not about whether or not Ukraine SHOULD pay, it's about whether they HAVE paid or not.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And who's saying that no money's been recieved? Gazprom. Hence the whole conflict. It's not about whether or not Ukraine SHOULD pay, it's about whether they HAVE paid or not.
so now the goal posts are moving from "we demand a fair price before we give you any money"
to
"we already paid you all the money, even though we have no receit, no proof we paid, and you are out 4.5 billion in delivered goods.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And who's saying that no money's been recieved? Gazprom. Hence the whole conflict. It's not about whether or not Ukraine SHOULD pay, it's about whether they HAVE paid or not.
so now the goal posts are moving from "we demand a fair price before we give you any money"
to
"we already paid you all the money, even though we have no receit, no proof we paid, and you are out 4.5 billion in delivered goods.
the check is TOTALLY in the mail dude"
No, more like:
"We feel Z is the price you should pay according to agreement X, you've not paid Z so we're cutting the gas"
vs.
"We feel Y is the price we should pay according to agreement X, we've paid Y so cutting the gas isn't fair".
You're assuming from the get-go that it's Ukraine and not Gazprom that's breaking the contract, assume for a second that it's Gazprom and the Ukranian response becomes completely logical.
That said, I think we all agree that it's pretty damn likely that it's Ukraine fething about, especially considering past events.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Hydro-electric works. Constant free energy from flowing water, as long as you don't have a very severe drought (and let's face it, it's Britain were talking about ).
Its awesome until you try to build a dam and the tree huggers go berserk.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Hydro-electric works. Constant free energy from flowing water, as long as you don't have a very severe drought (and let's face it, it's Britain were talking about ).
Its awesome until you try to build a dam and the tree huggers go berserk.
easysauce wrote: thats a very simplistic way to look at it... your colledges' measly quarter mill, not even a house-worth of debt, is not at all comparable to 4.5 BILLION with a B, nor does it being "a small" amount to the creditor matter at all. Goods and services must be paid for for there to be an expectation that they will continue to be supplied.
The scale is meaningless. What you should have learned is that payments are disputed and negotiated as a regular part of business, and while they remain in dispute the creditor doesn't pay.
At any point the creditor can refuse to issue new credit, especially if old credit is well into arrears. If you cannot pay your mortgage, a debt similar to your 250grand example, they might offer re financing options (none of which reduce the amount owed, just how you pay that amount back, and failing all that, they take back the house. No bank, EVER, will just say "oh, you cant pay 250grand for that house? you want to pay 100grand for it instead? yeah, ok, just pay that, its cool bro *brofist*"
Ah, actually mortgages are frequently renegotiated, though this often done on loans that are underwater or near to it. But that's got nothing to do with anything, because this is a creditor payment on a good delivered, not a loan backed by an asset. I can only assume you used it as an example because you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
No, thats really not how it works... you sign a contract, you fufill the obligations of that contract, or you are breaching that contract.
In the actual real world contracts and the business transactions underlying them are complex and prone to interpretation. While you are right that contracts are drawn up to clarify the obligations of both sides, you are naive in thinking that contracts always make all points of the deal absolutely clear. Where things aren't clear, disputes arise, often over the size of payments, and while those are being disputed it is common to not pay the invoices sent.
again, simplisitc, and not actually true, russia very much does get to set the price for their gas, and once that price is agreed upon, and the gas delivered, the agreed upon price must be paid. RE-negotiating a lower price after the fact, is the height of bad business, and a breach of contract.
Given that Russia has greatly increased the price for gas in the wake of the change of government, your argument that there is a fixed price that must be paid is silly.
I think you're working on the idea that prices are absolutely fixed and always completely clear, when in reality future prices are listed as dependent on future factors, which are frequently prone to manipulation. As Russia has done here.
You might want to look at all the favorable prices the US gets on commodities before you go toting stupid ideas like commody sellers not being able to set prices based on relationship status between them and the buyer.
Oh really, most favoured nation is a thing. Well fething thanks for enlightening me.
Anyhow, you didn't bother to read what I actually wrote, and so your rebuttal once again misses the point. The issue is with Russia changing that favourable price based on their approval of the government of the day. There is nothing remarkable about Australia's low uranium price for exports to the US, but it would absolutely amazing if we suddenly hiked up the price if a Republican was elected president.
you trying hand waive away a 4.5billion dollar debt as meaningless because, hey, your colledge is in debt for 250 grand, since that is OK, so this debt must be ok too.
Sigh. First up - read. The money is owed to us, not by us, and one debt is over $250k, there are several other major amounts in dispute.
Second up - the point is that you might learn how business operates. When a debt is in dispute you don't pay it. Meanwhile the contract continues. If my employer were to suddenly get outraged at the outstanding debt and cancel all on-going work with the customer it would be a remarkably stupid thing.
The actual, sensible thing is to just work through the dispute, and come out with other side with either a re-negotiated contract or simply a clarification of terms. Which is exactly what's going on, because fortunately the world is run by people who actually fething know how things work, and not easysauce.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And who's saying that no money's been recieved? Gazprom. Hence the whole conflict. It's not about whether or not Ukraine SHOULD pay, it's about whether they HAVE paid or not.
so now the goal posts are moving from "we demand a fair price before we give you any money"
to
"we already paid you all the money, even though we have no receit, no proof we paid, and you are out 4.5 billion in delivered goods.
the check is TOTALLY in the mail dude"
No, more like:
"We feel Z is the price you should pay according to agreement X, you've not paid Z so we're cutting the gas"
vs.
"We feel Y is the price we should pay according to agreement X, we've paid Y so cutting the gas isn't fair".
You're assuming from the get-go that it's Ukraine and not Gazprom that's breaking the contract, assume for a second that it's Gazprom and the Ukranian response becomes completely logical.
That said, I think we all agree that it's pretty damn likely that it's Ukraine fething about, especially considering past events.
Exalted. If Ukraine thinks that Gazprom has broken the contract, their response makes sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's a start... I just hope nobody on either side does anything monumentally stupid before this comes into effect.
Ukraine's Poroshenko offers unilateral ceasefire
12 minutes ago
Ukraine's president has proposed a unilateral ceasefire by his troops to allow pro-Russian separatists to lay down their weapons.
Petro Poroshenko said the peace plan would be implemented "shortly", Interfax-Ukraine news agency reports.
His announcement comes after he held a phone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
They discussed a solution to the crisis in eastern Ukraine where pro-Russian rebels are battling government forces.
Speaking to reporters in Kiev, Mr Poroshenko said a "brief" truce would be introduced to allow "Russian mercenaries" to leave Ukraine.
A presidential spokesman told the BBC the ceasefire may be announced in "hours or days" but gave no details.
Some days ago I asked if anyone had seen any conclusive proof that the ‘Russian tanks’ seen in Ukraine had actually crossed the border.
I have to say this claim seemed tenuous and unlikely to me. Why would Russia take such a large risk for so little? Much more effective, and much less traceable weapons than tanks can be ( and in my view are being) taken across the border by covert means, as can people. But actual tanks? The destroyed Russian-made tanks I saw in Baghdad after the invasion in 2003 were easily identifiable by make and model, and no doubt, even after being knocked out (in most cases the entire turret had been blown off). They contained equipment and serial numbers which would have allowed any competent intelligence service to determine where they had come from. Why would Moscow, which has been so careful to stay deniable, take such a risk . Why have deniable operations, if you’re going to do undeniable things?
A contributor referred to a BBC news account of the ‘Russian tanks’ seen in the Ukraine being supposedly identified by NATO satellite. He appeared to believe this settled the matter.
I have no doubt that the BBC reported this with its usual impartiality, care and attention to detail. But I have to say I find the connection inconclusive. Satellites are very good at spotting things in general, but (at least in any satellite pictures I have ever seen released by any major military power - perhaps they have better ones they keep secret) they are weak on conclusive detail.
I have looked at one reasonably dispassionate account of the matter (see link below), and the yawning gap in the middle of it is any demonstrable connection between the three tanks loaded on to a transporter (a not uncommon procedure) in Rostov-on-Don and the three tanks seen in Ukraine. About 13,000 T-64s were built, though it is a very old tank, superseded by the T72 and the T80 in the 1970s. According to Wikipedia, Russia still has about 4,000 but they are out of service and awaiting the scrapyard. Ukraine, by contrast, still has about 2,000 in service. Do the satellite pictures even show that the tanks in Rostov are T-64s? Isn’t it more likely that rebels managed to capture a few Ukrainian T-64s from some poorly-guarded depot? The former Soviet Union is full of middle-aged men who have been taught how to drive a tank.
About 13,000 T-64s were built, though it is a very old tank, superseded by the T72 and the T80 in the 1970s. According to Wikipedia, Russia still has about 4,000 but they are out of service and awaiting the scrapyard. Ukraine, by contrast, still has about 2,000 in service. Do the satellite pictures even show that the tanks in Rostov are T-64s? Isn’t it more likely that rebels managed to capture a few Ukrainian T-64s from some poorly-guarded depot? The former Soviet Union is full of middle-aged men who have been taught how to drive a tank.
Isn’t it more likely that rebels managed to capture a few Ukrainian T-64s from some poorly-guarded depot?
This I think is the most likely explanation for the supposed Russian tank invasion. What the feth could Putin hope to gain by sending tanks across the border? Its much easier to smuggle weapons and people across, then fething tanks. Someone as politically astute as Putin must know that he'd get caught.
NATO posted those images because those were taken via civilian satellites. They weren't identified "by NATO satellites".
(1). That didn't stop the anti-Russian side from whipping up a frenzy over a supposed Russian armoured invasion.
(2). I didn't remark on the satellites at all, so this is irrelevant to my point. What I was remarking on in this blog post was Hitchens' opinion that the tanks were likely looted by rebels from a depot in Ukraine, NOT supplied or sent by Russia as was the accusation. Also, Hitchens was simply commenting on the usefulness of Satellite imagery in general, not on the source of those images.
And he even appears to doubt that the photos came from NATO satellites.
‘Russian tanks’ seen in the Ukraine being supposedly identified by NATO satellite.
(3). My interpretation of the blog post was that Hitchens was saying that it was a contributor on the BBC who was making the connection between NATO satellites and the satellite images of the tanks, NOT Hitchens himself, and Hitchens was simply commenting on the usefulness of Satellite imagery in general.
A contributor referred to a BBC news account of the ‘Russian tanks’ seen in the Ukraine being supposedly identified by NATO satellite. He appeared to believe this settled the matter.
Nevermind. Reread it and realised Hitchens is referring to the contributor on Mashable, not BBC. Still, see (4).
(4). Frankly, it seems like you're nitpicking and seizing on a single minor detail and acting as though that discredits the entire point - that it could have been rebels driving a looted Ukranian tank, not Russian tanks sent over the border. The blog post was about the rebel tank theory, not satellites.
Also, a contributor on Hitchens' blog suggests a 3rd explanation...
Just to clarify, I sent you a link to Russian media proving on the 6th of June is was already reported these tanks were taken from the Ukranian military.
Please read my links when I send them. This is common knowledge of the CiF blog.
Automatically Appended Next Post: tbh, I don't see the problem.
NATO possessed satellite photos, released them and claimed it was evidence of Russian tanks crossing the border.
Where the photos came from is irrelevant. NATO produced them, and presented them as evidence.
So Hitchens didn't double check a minor point that he made an off hand reference to, and which wasn't the main subject of the blog post anyway. So what? The true source of the satellite images is a seperate issue altogether, and one which I was not commenting on (and which I wasn't even aware of until you brought it up).
NATO posted those images because those were taken via civilian satellites. They weren't identified "by NATO satellites".
1. That didn't stop the anti-Russian side from whipping up a frenzy over a supposed Russian armoured invasion.
Did you read the link? If not I highly suggest you do.
2. I didn't remark on the satellites at all, so this is irrelevant to my point. What I was remarking on in this blog post was Hitchens' opinion that the tanks were likely looted by rebels from a depot in Ukraine, NOT supplied or sent by Russia as was the accusation.
Except that doesn't line up with what trained NATO analysts and observers are saying.
Russia is the one who claims that the T-64s are "scheduled for scrapyards". Ukraine's tanks have identifying markers and camouflage schemes.
No identifying markings or camouflage schemes. It looks like it might have a pattern but depending on if the tank has extra armor plating intended to deflect/weaken impacts.
And honestly you did 'remark' on the satellites by simply posting the blog link of some goon who thinks he knows more than NATO's analysts.
3. My interpretation of the blog post was that Hitchens was saying that it was a contributor on the BBC who was making the connection between NATO satellites and the satellite images of the tanks, NOT Hitchens himself, and Hitchens was simply commenting on the usefulness of Satellite imagery in general.
A contributor referred to a BBC news account of the ‘Russian tanks’ seen in the Ukraine being supposedly identified by NATO satellite. He appeared to believe this settled the matter.
Frankly, it seems like you're nitpicking and seizing on a single minor detail and acting as though that discredits the entire point - that it could have been rebels driving a looted Ukranian tank, not Russian tanks sent over the border. The blog post was about the rebel tank theory, not satellites.
By "contributor" he is referring to someone posting on his blog, not "a contributor on the BBC".
Also, a contributor on Hitchens' blog suggests a 3rd explanation...
Just to clarify, I sent you a link to Russian media proving on the 6th of June is was already reported these tanks were taken from the Ukranian military.
Please read my links when I send them. This is common knowledge of the CiF blog.
Funny how these were "proven to be taken from the Ukrainian military on the 6th of June" when the satellite photos are sequenced initially on May 30th (showing a Russian army unit in position with large numbers of armoured vehicles but no tanks) and then on June 6th (showing the Russian army unit has largely pulled out but instead 8 tanks have arrived) and then finally on June 11th (ten tanks gathered; with several having been loaded on transporters indicating they are going to be moved).
Not to mention the fact that the satellite photos are taken inside of Russia itself, near Rostov-on-Don.
And honestly you did 'remark' on the satellites by simply posting the blog link of some goon who thinks he knows more than NATO's analysts.
No, I was not. I quoted the blog post for reference, and I was referring to one specific passage that I found interesting. Nowhere in my original post did I claim "the photos came from NATO satellites". The only part of the article I was referring to, until you started a petty argument over a trivial point that I was initially unaware of and was not remarking on, was the theory that the tanks were looted by Rebels.
So please stop trying to put words into my mouth.
Funny how these were "proven to be taken from the Ukrainian military on the 6th of June" when the satellite photos are sequenced initially on May 30th (showing a Russian army unit in position with large numbers of armoured vehicles but no tanks) and then on June 6th (showing the Russian army unit has largely pulled out but instead 8 tanks have arrived) and then finally on June 11th (ten tanks gathered; with several having been loaded on transporters indicating they are going to be moved).
Not to mention the fact that the satellite photos are taken inside of Russia itself, near Rostov-on-Don.
Right, well this is all news to me. No need to be sarcastic.
Assuming the photo above is genuine, that tank is most likely not Ukrainian. Not because of paint or anything like, but Ukrainian T-64s underwent a series of upgrades that were locally done post breakup into the T-64BM 'Bulat'.
That T-64 is not a 'Bulat'. The turret armor is wrong. There should be an armor skirt between the turret and hull, and a arch of Knozh above the gun mantlet.
The armor on the Ukrainian turret has a slightly smoother curve to it, where the ablative armor on this forms a sharper angle.
I'm gonna say the tank in the picture is a T-64 BV series. But it's hard to say for sure.
As to it's origin, it's hard to say. The Russians vented these by the score following the fall of the Soviet Union. They'll run you about $50k on the open market
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said he is halting a unilateral cease-fire in the conflict with pro-Russian separatists and says Ukrainian forces will go on the offensive against the rebels.
A statement from Poroshenko on his website early Tuesday said the cease-fire is being halted and that "we will attack and we will free our country."
The fragile cease-fire expired Monday night. The idea was to give rebels a chance to disarm and to start a broader peace process including an amnesty and new elections.
But rebels did not disarm, and the ceasefire was continually violated. Rebels did not comply with Poroshenko's latest push to get them to turn over key border crossings with Russia and permit international monitoring of the cease-fire.
"The unique chance to put the peace plan into practice was not realized," Poroshenko said in a speech prepared for delivery to the nation. "This happened because of the criminal actions of the fighters."
The recently elected Poroshenko had already extended the cease-fire from seven days as part of a plan to end the fighting that has killed more than 400 people since April.
Poroshenko's decision followed four-way talks in search of a solution with Russian President Vladimir Putin, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande on Monday as the deadline approached. He issued a statement after the talks ended, saying the key conditions needed to continue the ceasefire had not been met.
Poroshenko said he made the decision after a meeting of the national security council. "After discussion of the situation, I, as commander in chief, took the decision not to continue the unilateral cease-fire."
"Ending the cease-fire, this is our answer to terrorists, armed insurgents and looters, to all who mock the peaceful population, who are paralyzing the economy of the region ... who are depriving people of a normal, peaceful life," Poroshenko said in his speech.
European leaders and the U.S. have urged Russia to use its influence with the rebels to ease the bloodshed and have threatened to impose another round of economic sanctions against Moscow.
While Putin has expressed support for the cease-fire, the West has accused Russia of allowing weapons and fighters to flow across the border into Ukraine. Russia says any Russians there have gone as private citizens.
Tension between Russia and Ukraine escalated in February when protests by people who wanted closer ties with the European Union drove pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych from office. Russia called that an illegal coup and seized Ukraine's Crimea region, saying it was protecting the rights of people there who speak Russian as their main language.
The insurrection in the eastern regions near the Russian border started soon after, with separatists occupying buildings and declaring independence.
Poroshenko said he meant for a cease-fire to be followed by an amnesty for fighters who had not considered serious crimes, and political concessions such as early local and regional elections, protections for speakers of Russian and, in the longer term, changes to the constitution to decentralize power to the regions.
The end of the cease-fire raises the question of what action the Ukrainian military can take. It has so far been unable to dislodge rebels occupying the city of Slovyansk or to retake control of three key border crossings with Russia. At one point, the rebels shot down a government military transport, killing 49 service members.
Seven people, including a 5-year old boy were killed when bombs hit the tiny village of Kondrashovka. Kiev has said that the bombing was likely the result of 'pilot error'.
Lessons of a revolution from an Air Force pilot living in Ukraine
After having attended a prayer service for an adjunct history professor from my department at the Ukrainian Catholic University of Lviv, I boarded a plane to Kyiv.
A sniper there had killed the professor, Bohdan Solchanyk, two days earlier, along with almost eighty of his compatriots as they marched headlong into gunfire armed with nothing more than makeshift shields and construction helmets.
Russian propaganda had tried to spin the world’s impression of what was happening at the Maidan, labeling patriotic Ukrainians like Solchanyk as Nazis, fascists and even terrorists.
Despite the relative calm in Lviv, my superiors were concerned that, in the event of a further escalation of violence, they would have difficulty ensuring my safety. So they ordered me to Kyiv. While I didn’t exactly agree with the logic, I was keen on getting a closer view of the action and relished the opportunity to catch the current mood of the Maidan and of Kyiv in general. And I knew I wouldn’t be able to resist the opportunity to visit the Maidan again.
I had been on the Maidan several times before. I was there at the end of November four hours before the “berkut” dispersed (with the business end of a baton) a dwindling crowd of students for the first time. I was there the next couple of days when hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians showed up to protest the blatant use of violence on peaceful protestors.
I was there again in December to watch the statue of Lenin fall and see the menacing encirclement of the protests by riot police. I was also there in January to watch the steady buildup up of the barricades and to marvel at the self-organization of the camp and the resilience of the people within it, who were determined to remain entrenched despite the freezing temperatures and continued threat of violence.
This time would be more intense though; almost a hundred people had been killed so far, the trade union building was gutted by fire, and barricades set ablaze to repel the berkut forces. Hotel Ukraine (a hotel I’ve stayed at three times) had been used as a temporary field hospital and scores bled out in the reception area. It was a veritable war zone — I knew I had to see it.
Several days after arriving in Kyiv I ventured cautiously down to the Maidan; the news trickling out made it seem like the end of the world. There was indeed carnage everywhere, but I was surprised to find that after the flight of the Yanukovich government from Kyiv under cover of night and the disappearance of police forces, the Maidan (and Kyiv in general) surprisingly, felt safer than it ever had.
It was now full of men, women, children, the elderly, and all walks of life gathering to pay their respects, light candles, lay flowers, pray, and cry. It was a truly inspiring and emotional scene that I don’t think I’ll ever forget.
But it was far from the apocalyptic picture the international media was painting.
The mood was powerfully somber, tearful and reflective, but there was a perceptible sense of pride too, and a look of determination on people’s faces. However, there was also anxiety in those faces; it was widely understood that Putin would not suffer these events lightly and everyone seemed to nervously wait for what might happen next.
And now we know those anxieties were well founded.
Crimea happened, of course, so I spent the next month or so awaiting an impending evacuation of U.S. nationals and monitoring an endless stream of news. I pored over all sorts of sources (including the propaganda filth coming out of RT and Russia24 that would have made Goebbels blush) and continued to check the pulse of the Maidan and Kyiv while keeping tabs on events in Lviv and throughout the rest of Ukraine.
It was a chaotic, pivotal moment, and I was caught in the middle of it.
I talked to Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland at 3 a.m., just prior to her phone call to update the president. I watched in a hotel bar, dumbfounded as the former Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Leonid Kozhara (dismissed that morning), casually discussed with his European bankers how he was going to flee the country. I befriended a Russian journalist who had been fired, along with the rest of the journalists and editorial staff of Lenta.ru, for being too objective. I even had the opportunity to share some vodka with a bunch of Ukrainian colonels who had just accepted 330,000 MREs and were pleading the U.S. for more substantial assistance. It was — and still is — a fascinating, educational experience, and I have gleaned from it all a host of life-altering lessons and impressions. These are my primary takeaways:
First, people are people no matter where you live. They may look different, dress different and act different. But for the most part they all are just trying to get by. The majority of Ukrainians with whom I have had the opportunity to talk are just plain tired, and wearily doing their best to live a normal life and provide for their families despite a crumbling economy and crippling uncertainty.
Second, history matters. This is an important lesson for an American, for whom history can sometimes seem less relevant to contemporary issues. I’m risking an oversimplification here, but basically the people in the western regions of Ukraine inherited a greater sense of civic society and participatory politics through a longer experience as subjects of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Polish state (until 1939), while those in the south and east languished for far longer periods under tsarist and soviet domination. These variations in historical experience go a long way (much further than language or ethnicity) in explaining current events in the various regions of Ukraine.
Third, and almost as important as the actual experience of history, is the popular or remembered/manufactured conception of that history — the “spin.” Basically, Ukraine (and Russia too) is a post-genocidal society that has not yet come to grips with the realities of the crimes (committed by and against Ukrainians, Poles, Jews, and Russians) that have been perpetrated here (Bloodlands by Timothy Snyder is a good overview). Each group has its own preferred version of history and uses it to justify the means to achieve their own political ends. The virulently ethno-nationalist version of the Ukrainians is equally as troubling as that of the Russians.
Fourth, world news seems, to a large extent, to be written by uninformed journalists intent on under-analyzing and over-sensationalizing. While the scenes on the Maidan were often apocalyptic, even during the height of the violence just one block away everything was completely calm and normal. I took the picture above from my balcony in Lviv, and while it seems like anarchy, it was actually quite anticlimactic.
Fifth, and finally, Russia’s propaganda machine is incredible. This lesson is an infuriating one when you can see with your own eyes what is actually happening, But Russian propaganda is clearly effective on those who do not have access to other sources of information (and on lazy journalists not inclined to do their own research).
The discrepancy between what was described in Russian (and sometimes Western) media and what was actually occurring on the ground was staggering. The chaos in Kyiv was simply not occurring as the media described it. The fact that jewelry and clothing stores continued to operate uninterrupted from within the barricades should be evidence enough of this.
And as for the Nazis/fascists/terrorists in Lviv?
On my return flight to Lviv from Kyiv I conversed with a group of 25 Hassidic Jews. Apparently they had missed the latest news from Russia, and didn’t seem at all afraid to visit the supposed hotbed of banditry and anti-Semitism.
Lessons of a revolution from an Air Force pilot living in Ukraine
After having attended a prayer service for an adjunct history professor from my department at the Ukrainian Catholic University of Lviv, I boarded a plane to Kyiv.
A sniper there had killed the professor, Bohdan Solchanyk, two days earlier, along with almost eighty of his compatriots as they marched headlong into gunfire armed with nothing more than makeshift shields and construction helmets.
Russian propaganda had tried to spin the world’s impression of what was happening at the Maidan, labeling patriotic Ukrainians like Solchanyk as Nazis, fascists and even terrorists.
Despite the relative calm in Lviv, my superiors were concerned that, in the event of a further escalation of violence, they would have difficulty ensuring my safety. So they ordered me to Kyiv. While I didn’t exactly agree with the logic, I was keen on getting a closer view of the action and relished the opportunity to catch the current mood of the Maidan and of Kyiv in general. And I knew I wouldn’t be able to resist the opportunity to visit the Maidan again.
I had been on the Maidan several times before. I was there at the end of November four hours before the “berkut” dispersed (with the business end of a baton) a dwindling crowd of students for the first time. I was there the next couple of days when hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians showed up to protest the blatant use of violence on peaceful protestors.
I was there again in December to watch the statue of Lenin fall and see the menacing encirclement of the protests by riot police. I was also there in January to watch the steady buildup up of the barricades and to marvel at the self-organization of the camp and the resilience of the people within it, who were determined to remain entrenched despite the freezing temperatures and continued threat of violence.
This time would be more intense though; almost a hundred people had been killed so far, the trade union building was gutted by fire, and barricades set ablaze to repel the berkut forces. Hotel Ukraine (a hotel I’ve stayed at three times) had been used as a temporary field hospital and scores bled out in the reception area. It was a veritable war zone — I knew I had to see it.
Several days after arriving in Kyiv I ventured cautiously down to the Maidan; the news trickling out made it seem like the end of the world. There was indeed carnage everywhere, but I was surprised to find that after the flight of the Yanukovich government from Kyiv under cover of night and the disappearance of police forces, the Maidan (and Kyiv in general) surprisingly, felt safer than it ever had.
It was now full of men, women, children, the elderly, and all walks of life gathering to pay their respects, light candles, lay flowers, pray, and cry. It was a truly inspiring and emotional scene that I don’t think I’ll ever forget.
But it was far from the apocalyptic picture the international media was painting.
The mood was powerfully somber, tearful and reflective, but there was a perceptible sense of pride too, and a look of determination on people’s faces. However, there was also anxiety in those faces; it was widely understood that Putin would not suffer these events lightly and everyone seemed to nervously wait for what might happen next.
And now we know those anxieties were well founded.
Crimea happened, of course, so I spent the next month or so awaiting an impending evacuation of U.S. nationals and monitoring an endless stream of news. I pored over all sorts of sources (including the propaganda filth coming out of RT and Russia24 that would have made Goebbels blush) and continued to check the pulse of the Maidan and Kyiv while keeping tabs on events in Lviv and throughout the rest of Ukraine.
It was a chaotic, pivotal moment, and I was caught in the middle of it.
I talked to Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland at 3 a.m., just prior to her phone call to update the president. I watched in a hotel bar, dumbfounded as the former Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Leonid Kozhara (dismissed that morning), casually discussed with his European bankers how he was going to flee the country. I befriended a Russian journalist who had been fired, along with the rest of the journalists and editorial staff of Lenta.ru, for being too objective. I even had the opportunity to share some vodka with a bunch of Ukrainian colonels who had just accepted 330,000 MREs and were pleading the U.S. for more substantial assistance. It was — and still is — a fascinating, educational experience, and I have gleaned from it all a host of life-altering lessons and impressions. These are my primary takeaways:
First, people are people no matter where you live. They may look different, dress different and act different. But for the most part they all are just trying to get by. The majority of Ukrainians with whom I have had the opportunity to talk are just plain tired, and wearily doing their best to live a normal life and provide for their families despite a crumbling economy and crippling uncertainty.
Second, history matters. This is an important lesson for an American, for whom history can sometimes seem less relevant to contemporary issues. I’m risking an oversimplification here, but basically the people in the western regions of Ukraine inherited a greater sense of civic society and participatory politics through a longer experience as subjects of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Polish state (until 1939), while those in the south and east languished for far longer periods under tsarist and soviet domination. These variations in historical experience go a long way (much further than language or ethnicity) in explaining current events in the various regions of Ukraine.
Third, and almost as important as the actual experience of history, is the popular or remembered/manufactured conception of that history — the “spin.” Basically, Ukraine (and Russia too) is a post-genocidal society that has not yet come to grips with the realities of the crimes (committed by and against Ukrainians, Poles, Jews, and Russians) that have been perpetrated here (Bloodlands by Timothy Snyder is a good overview). Each group has its own preferred version of history and uses it to justify the means to achieve their own political ends. The virulently ethno-nationalist version of the Ukrainians is equally as troubling as that of the Russians.
Fourth, world news seems, to a large extent, to be written by uninformed journalists intent on under-analyzing and over-sensationalizing. While the scenes on the Maidan were often apocalyptic, even during the height of the violence just one block away everything was completely calm and normal. I took the picture above from my balcony in Lviv, and while it seems like anarchy, it was actually quite anticlimactic.
Fifth, and finally, Russia’s propaganda machine is incredible. This lesson is an infuriating one when you can see with your own eyes what is actually happening, But Russian propaganda is clearly effective on those who do not have access to other sources of information (and on lazy journalists not inclined to do their own research).
The discrepancy between what was described in Russian (and sometimes Western) media and what was actually occurring on the ground was staggering. The chaos in Kyiv was simply not occurring as the media described it. The fact that jewelry and clothing stores continued to operate uninterrupted from within the barricades should be evidence enough of this.
And as for the Nazis/fascists/terrorists in Lviv?
On my return flight to Lviv from Kyiv I conversed with a group of 25 Hassidic Jews. Apparently they had missed the latest news from Russia, and didn’t seem at all afraid to visit the supposed hotbed of banditry and anti-Semitism.
Well, I see the American/Ukrainian propaganda machine is still in overdrive...
They should either try harder and start writing believable propaganda or maybe they could for one time try to write an unbiased article. But that is probably asking for too much, unbiased media are nonexistent.
It would be nice though that when posting an article written by an American in Lvov, you would also post an article written by a Russian in Kharkov.
There is always two sides to a conflict, and one is not more valid than the other.
Given that blueforcetracker isn't exactly known for being a US propaganda piece (in fact its pretty much the opposite of that, most of the opinions expressed there are typically the opposite of that expressed through mainstream news sources, and if you bothered reading the article at all you would note he points out that western media misrepresented the situation as poorly as eastern media did), I'm going to chalk up your post to ignorance, small-mindedness, and a refusal to acknowledge the possibility that you're in the wrong.
MrDwhitey wrote: Well he is basically a shill for Russia, there's zero point debating with him.
I could say the same about you and several others who have posted in this thread. You are so stuck in your Western viewpoints you fail to see the other side of the argument.
chaos0xomega wrote:Find me an article written by a Russian in Lvov.
Given that blueforcetracker isn't exactly known for being a US propaganda piece (in fact its pretty much the opposite of that, most of the opinions expressed there are typically the opposite of that expressed through mainstream news sources, and if you bothered reading the article at all you would note he points out that western media misrepresented the situation as poorly as eastern media did), I'm going to chalk up your post to ignorance, small-mindedness, and a refusal to acknowledge the possibility that you're in the wrong.
I said Kharkov, not Lvov. Kharkov and Lvov are a country apart, not only in distance but also in culture, political attitudes and prosperity. I don't know his blueforcetracker, but it seems to be a site that is primarily about the US military. I am sorry, but I really don't expect unbiased stories from that corner. But if you can't see it, I will highlight it for you:
Red: biased statements Orange: annotations by yours truly, the right honourable Kirya (sorry if my comments might be a little sarcastic at times, but this guy annoys me)
Lessons of a revolution from an Air Force pilot living in Ukraine
After having attended a prayer service for an adjunct history professor from my department at the Ukrainian Catholic University of Lviv, I boarded a plane to Kyiv.
A sniper there had killed the professor, Bohdan Solchanyk, two days earlier, along with almost eighty of his compatriots as they marched headlong into gunfire armed with nothing more than makeshift shields and construction helmets.
Russian propaganda had tried to spin the world’s impression of what was happening at the Maidan, labeling patriotic Ukrainians like Solchanyk as Nazis, fascists and even terrorists. (The writer starts raging against Russian propaganda in the third sentence already. Now that would not be a bad thing, except for that he fails to mention that some of his 'patriotic Ukrainians' were in fact Nazis. Maybe professor Solchyank wasn't, but Pravyy Sektor and Svoboda certainly are, and they were one of the most important driving forces behind the Maidan-protests movement. "Russian propaganda may have exaggerated, but it certainly was not entirely wrong".)
Despite the relative calm in Lviv (The writer does not mention the mass protests, occupation of government buildings, ousting of governors and other violence that happened in Lvov and other Western cities. Not bias per se, but it needs to be mentioned), my superiors were concerned that, in the event of a further escalation of violence, they would have difficulty ensuring my safety. So they ordered me to Kyiv. While I didn’t exactly agree with the logic, I was keen on getting a closer view of the action and relished the opportunity to catch the current mood of the Maidan and of Kyiv in general. And I knew I wouldn’t be able to resist the opportunity to visit the Maidan again.
I had been on the Maidan several times before. I was there at the end of November four hours before the “berkut” dispersed (with the business end of a baton) (how should they have otherwise dispersed such an unruly crowd? While I don't approve of unnecessary violence, the methods used by the Berkut really weren't any different from methods used by riot police in other countries. Such superfluous remarks as the writer makes here unnecessarily and deliberately paint one side in a negative light) a dwindling crowd of students for the first time. I was there the next couple of days when hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians showed up to protest the blatant use of violence on peaceful protestors.
I was there again in December to watch the statue of Lenin fall and see the menacing encirclement of the protests by riot police. I was also there in January to watch the steady buildup up of the barricades and to marvel at the self-organization of the camp and the resilience of the people within it, who were determined to remain entrenched despite the freezing temperatures and continued threat of violence. (Here, the writer does not note any disapproval of the destruction of public property and a monument of historical (and to most Russians also emotional) value. No, in fact, he seems to approve of it, and then continues to describe the riot police in a negative light, despite the destruction of monuments and public property being a very good and legitimate reason for the riot police to move in. What would have happened if a bunch of protesters in the US would have pulled down that tall, white obelisk thing (either the Washington or Jefferson monument, I don't remember) that stands in Washington DC? Would authorities just sit by and let it happen?)
This time would be more intense though; almost a hundred people had been killed so far, the trade union building was gutted by fire, and barricades set ablaze to repel the berkut forces. Hotel Ukraine (a hotel I’ve stayed at three times) had been used as a temporary field hospital and scores bled out in the reception area. It was a veritable war zone — I knew I had to see it.
Several days after arriving in Kyiv I ventured cautiously down to the Maidan; the news trickling out made it seem like the end of the world. There was indeed carnage everywhere, but I was surprised to find that after the flight of the Yanukovich government from Kyiv under cover of night and the disappearance of police forces, the Maidan (and Kyiv in general) surprisingly, felt safer than it ever had.
It was now full of men, women, children, the elderly, and all walks of life gathering to pay their respects, light candles, lay flowers, pray, and cry. It was a truly inspiring and emotional scene that I don’t think I’ll ever forget.
But it was far from the apocalyptic picture the international media was painting.
The mood was powerfully somber, tearful and reflective, but there was a perceptible sense of pride too, and a look of determination on people’s faces. However, there was also anxiety in those faces; it was widely understood that Putin would not suffer these events lightly and everyone seemed to nervously wait for what might happen next.
And now we know those anxieties were well founded.
Crimea happened, of course, so I spent the next month or so awaiting an impending evacuation of U.S. nationals and monitoring an endless stream of news. I pored over all sorts of sources (including the propaganda filth coming out of RT and Russia24 that would have made Goebbels blush) (If I actually had to explain the bias in this, it would be very sad indeed. It is hardly possible to write in a more biased tone.)and continued to check the pulse of the Maidan and Kyiv while keeping tabs on events in Lviv and throughout the rest of Ukraine.
It was a chaotic, pivotal moment, and I was caught in the middle of it.
I talked to Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland at 3 a.m., just prior to her phone call to update the president. I watched in a hotel bar, dumbfounded as the former Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Leonid Kozhara (dismissed that morning), casually discussed with his European bankers how he was going to flee the country. I befriended a Russian journalist who had been fired, along with the rest of the journalists and editorial staff of Lenta.ru, for being too objective. I even had the opportunity to share some vodka with a bunch of Ukrainian colonels who had just accepted 330,000 MREs and were pleading the U.S. for more substantial assistance. It was — and still is — a fascinating, educational experience, and I have gleaned from it all a host of life-altering lessons and impressions. These are my primary takeaways:
First, people are people no matter where you live. They may look different, dress different and act different. But for the most part they all are just trying to get by. The majority of Ukrainians with whom I have had the opportunity to talk are just plain tired, and wearily doing their best to live a normal life and provide for their families despite a crumbling economy and crippling uncertainty. (Wow, Ukrainians are people too? I would never have guessed. And what does he say now? People everywhere are people? Oh boy, what an exciting world we live in! People are people no matter where their culture and location. Who would have ever guessed that?)
Second, history matters. (Wow he learned that history matters,even in the present day. This guy is a genius!) This is an important lesson for an American, for whom history can sometimes seem less relevant to contemporary issues. I’m risking an oversimplification here, but basically the people in the western regions of Ukraine inherited a greater sense of civic society and participatory politics through a longer experience as subjects of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Polish state (until 1939), while those in the south and east languished for far longer periods under tsarist and soviet domination. These variations in historical experience go a long way (much further than language or ethnicity) in explaining current events in the various regions of Ukraine. (Again, the bias in his words is clearly detectable. Russian rule is domination, Polish and Imperial Austrian rule is a way to inherit 'greater sense of civic society and participatory politics', no matter that the first two were just as autocratic and all three were more repressive towards ethnic Ukrainians than either the Russian Empire of Soviet Union. Why do Americans always give me the feel that they think Russia is the absolute epitome of repression and evil? The split between Russian and Polish rule however has been very important in the present-day division of Ukraine, but not in the way the writer explains it here. A gross oversimplification indeed.) Third, and almost as important as the actual experience of history, is the popular or remembered/manufactured conception of that history — the “spin.” Basically, Ukraine (and Russia too) is a post-genocidal society that has not yet come to grips with the realities of the crimes (committed by and against Ukrainians, Poles, Jews, and Russians) that have been perpetrated here (Bloodlands by Timothy Snyder is a good overview). Each group has its own preferred version of history and uses it to justify the means to achieve their own political ends. The virulently ethno-nationalist version of the Ukrainians is equally as troubling as that of the Russians. (*applause* Finally an intelligent, well observed and unbiased statement by the writer that I can agree with)
Fourth, world news seems, to a large extent, to be written by uninformed journalists intent on under-analyzing and over-sensationalizing. (That is probably true of all media, no matter in which country) While the scenes on the Maidan were often apocalyptic, even during the height of the violence just one block away everything was completely calm and normal. I took the picture above from my balcony in Lviv, and while it seems like anarchy, it was actually quite anticlimactic.
Fifth, and finally, Russia’s propaganda machine is incredible. This lesson is an infuriating one when you can see with your own eyes what is actually happening, But Russian propaganda is clearly effective on those who do not have access to other sources of information (and on lazy journalists not inclined to do their own research). (For those who might be inclinde to think that 'Russian propaganda' is my only source, you are wrong. I have lived in Ukraine (Sevastopol) for the greater part of my life and know people in Kiev and many other parts of Ukraine, with whom I have been keeping in close contact since the crisis started. I have plenty of primary sources located on both sides of the conflict.)
The discrepancy between what was described in Russian (and sometimes Western) Sure, Russian media is always wrong, Western media is only sometimes wrong. Great bias there. media and what was actually occurring on the ground was staggering. The chaos in Kyiv was simply not occurring as the media described it. The fact that jewelry and clothing stores continued to operate uninterrupted from within the barricades should be evidence enough of this.
And as for the Nazis/fascists/terrorists in Lviv?
On my return flight to Lviv from Kyiv I conversed with a group of 25 Hassidic Jews. Apparently they had missed the latest news from Russia, and didn’t seem at all afraid to visit the supposed hotbed of banditry and anti-Semitism. (Neither should they. Unlike what the writer is implying here, no Russian news ever implied Jews or any other groups are massacred on the streets of Lvov or anything like that. He should have spoke to a Russian citizen instead. They would have had more cause for concern.)
I've I had dug deeper, I could have highlighted even more bias, but I didn't feel like nitpicking, argueing semantics or philosophy. For an American article, this one is relatively well-informed, but it still clearly presents a very one-sided point of view. I think the writer should have spoken to a few Crimeans or Eastern Ukrainians before writing this.
MrDwhitey wrote: Well he is basically a shill for Russia, there's zero point debating with him.
I could say the same about you and several others who have posted in this thread. You are so stuck in your Western viewpoints you fail to see the other side of the argument.
I actually don't remember taking a side in this thread* bar mocking the repeated reliance and love of RT. *and if I did I would be wrong, seeing as pretty much all of us here have no fething clue what's really going on, you included
I also find most western media outlets so biased it's not even funny. "Western opinion" of Iran being a massive example of this.
However you seem to think that by taking the other side and just eating the message wholeheartedly from said other side is perfectly fine because people on western side also do it, instead of realising it's just as bad as those people, and you shouldn't be doing it. You seem blindly patriotic of a country, which is always fething stupid regardless of country. Every single country does absolute gak things. Some more than others, some less than others. People need to stop pretending their "favourite" country's gak smells of roses. This has turned into a more general "You" rather than just you, Iron.
MrDwhitey wrote: Well he is basically a shill for Russia, there's zero point debating with him.
I could say the same about you and several others who have posted in this thread. You are so stuck in your Western viewpoints you fail to see the other side of the argument.
I actually don't remember taking a side in this thread* bar mocking the repeated reliance and love of RT. *and if I did I would be wrong, seeing as pretty much all of us here have no fething clue what's really going on, you included
I also find most western media outlets so biased it's not even funny. "Western opinion" of Iran being a massive example of this.
However you seem to think that by taking the other side and just eating the message wholeheartedly from said other side is perfectly fine because people on western side also do it, instead of realising it's just as bad as those people, and you shouldn't be doing it. You seem blindly patriotic of a country, which is always fething stupid regardless of country. Every single country does absolute gak things. Some more than others, some less than others. Stop pretending one countries gak smells of roses.
Than why do you mock only those who adhere to the Russian viewpoint, and not those who blindly cling to CNN, the BBC or any other Western mouthpiece?
As I have stated many times before, I do not blindly cling or rely on RT, nor do I agree with everything they say (especially stuff regarding Russian politics). I also watch the NOS and BBC, and sometimes I even find myself agreeing with them more than with what RT or ITAR-TASS says.
Also, Russia's gak does not smell of roses, it smells of bear droppings
Mostly because I'm used to those viewpoints being spouted so much I barely even notice them, so in one respect I am used to western media.
I typically automatically ignore them or just end up researching for myself if the issue itself interests me enough. Frankly, seeing your posts is actually starting to make me re-realise just how absurd a lot of it is.
Yeah, Putin is a witch, and Russia has a tendency to be a bully (much like every country with power over its neighbours), but it's still a country. It's not some moustache twirling villain.
MrDwhitey wrote: Mostly because I'm used to those viewpoints being spouted so much I barely even notice them, so in one respect I am used to western media.
I typically automatically ignore them or just end up researching for myself if the issue itself interests me enough. Frankly, seeing your posts is actually starting to make me re-realise just how absurd a lot of it is.
Yeah, Putin is a witch, and Russia has a tendency to be a bully (much like every country with power over its neighbours), but it's still a country. It's not some moustache twirling villain.
Yeah, being too much used to Western viewpoints is a flaw I have noticed in many Westerners, and this flaw is equally present in Russians btw. I guess the familiarity with both sides is one of the few good things about being a Russian-Western hybrid.
I seem to have been mistake about you though. I thougt you were one of those blatant anti-Russians that has shown up in this thread before. It is easy to get wrong first impressions, especially on the internet. I am sorry.
I agree with your point about Russia. There is nothing that the Russians would want more than see the restoration of Russia to a Great Power like the Russian Empire and Soviet Union, and pushing around smaller neighbours unfortenately seems to be a part of being a Great Power.
I do like Putin though. He is kinda scary at times, and I don't always agree with him, but in the end, I trust him to have Russia's best interests at heart. He is the man who is responsible for rebuilding Russia after the ruination and disaster of the '90s, and he deserves much credit for that. He gave the Russians a new purpose and a new life. That goes a long way to explain his immense popularity among the Russians themselves. (It also helps that he looks like a badass spy and master manipulator )
Re Russia, I refer you all to Peter Hitchens. Hes an extremely well travelled foreign correspondent, and has lived in Russia (Moscow) both before and after the fall of the Soviet Union. Hes written extensively on how Russia has changed in the previous two and a half decades.
Though he is conservative, so a certain proportion of posters in this thread will no doubt dismiss him out of hand.
MrDwhitey wrote: Mostly because I'm used to those viewpoints being spouted so much I barely even notice them, so in one respect I am used to western media.
I typically automatically ignore them or just end up researching for myself if the issue itself interests me enough. Frankly, seeing your posts is actually starting to make me re-realise just how absurd a lot of it is.
Yeah, Putin is a witch, and Russia has a tendency to be a bully (much like every country with power over its neighbours), but it's still a country. It's not some moustache twirling villain.
Yeah, being too much used to Western viewpoints is a flaw I have noticed in many Westerners, and this flaw is equally present in Russians btw. I guess the familiarity with both sides is one of the few good things about being a Russian-Western hybrid.
I seem to have been mistake about you though. I thougt you were one of those blatant anti-Russians that has shown up in this thread before. It is easy to get wrong first impressions, especially on the internet. I am sorry.
I agree with your point about Russia. There is nothing that the Russians would want more than see the restoration of Russia to a Great Power like the Russian Empire and Soviet Union, and pushing around smaller neighbours unfortenately seems to be a part of being a Great Power.
I do like Putin though. He is kinda scary at times, and I don't always agree with him, but in the end, I trust him to have Russia's best interests at heart. He is the man who is responsible for rebuilding Russia after the ruination and disaster of the '90s, and he deserves much credit for that. He gave the Russians a new purpose and a new life. That goes a long way to explain his immense popularity among the Russians themselves. (It also helps that he looks like a badass spy and master manipulator )
I admire Putin for his ruthless pursuit of Russian national interests. But thats not to say that I like him - the guys a homophobic donkey-cave. Would that my own country's Prime Ministers were so ruthless when it came to defending British national interests against the EU.
MrDwhitey wrote: Unless Hitchens is spouting some pants on head nonsense, he shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
Stuff like "Homophobia is good", I mean.
When has he ever said that?
He knows and fully admits that social conservatism has totally lost on the issue and has no interest in fighting over it. His attitude is that the issue of homosexuality is frequently used to discriminate against Christians for their religious views, things like gay marriage are used to rile traditional conservatives up so they can be "jeered and howled at".
And in any case, "Homophobia" is a totally overused term almost completely devoid of meaning nowadays, much like "racism".
I said Kharkov, not Lvov. Kharkov and Lvov are a country apart, not only in distance but also in culture, political attitudes and prosperity.
Semantics, you understand full well what I meant.
don't know his blueforcetracker, but it seems to be a site that is primarily about the US military.
From their 'about page':
About
"America doesn't know its military and the United States military doesn't know America” — Adm. Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Let’s fix that.
In the military there is a tool called “blue force tracking,” which depicts with icons on a satellite image of the battlespace where every U.S. military unit is positioned.
We want to give the American people something similar. Our intent is to help close the growing civilian-military divide by giving our audience an unbiased, unfiltered and realistic account of what the military does and the world in which they operate — from writers who have "boots on the ground' experience.
Our team of journalists include veterans of the military, intelligence agencies, diplomatic corps, as well as other journalists who share in our vision and have unique, real-world experience on the topics and regions about which they report.
The voice of veterans and those who value unbiased journalism is underrepresented in the media. We aim to change that.
This project is a joint venture between two brothers who are both veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It was inspired by one of the brothers' return to the Afghanistan War in 2013 as a freelance war correspondent after a career as an Air Force Special Operations pilot. While embedded with frontline U.S. and Afghan combat units, that brother, Nolan Peterson, discovered his military background led him to report on the war differently than his colleagues, highlighting how military veterans, as well as veterans of intelligence agencies and diplomatic corps, have a unique credibility and expertise about the regions and issues with which most Americans are unfamiliar.
It's in no way, shape, or form an 'official' propaganda piece, many of the articles go against the 'party line', and some of those articles would result in a courts-martial were the given contributor an active duty servicemember.
In any case, I would school you on the rest of your post, but its plain that you actually have no idea what it is you're talking about, and also attributing 'bias' to factual statements that you just so happen to disagree with because you're too blind to reality.
As I have stated many times before, I do not blindly cling or rely on RT, nor do I agree with everything they say (especially stuff regarding Russian politics).
Yes you do, you totally do.
I admire Putin for his ruthless pursuit of Russian national interests. But thats not to say that I like him - the guys a homophobic donkey-cave. Would that my own country's Prime Ministers were so ruthless when it came to defending British national interests against the EU.
Agreed. If his domestic policy was more progressive and less authoritarian I would actually have to label him as an idol/role model, the guy is a ruthless bastard in all the best ways.
don't know his blueforcetracker, but it seems to be a site that is primarily about the US military.
From their 'about page':
About
"America doesn't know its military and the United States military doesn't know America” — Adm. Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Let’s fix that.
In the military there is a tool called “blue force tracking,” which depicts with icons on a satellite image of the battlespace where every U.S. military unit is positioned.
We want to give the American people something similar. Our intent is to help close the growing civilian-military divide by giving our audience an unbiased, unfiltered and realistic account of what the military does and the world in which they operate — from writers who have "boots on the ground' experience.
Our team of journalists include veterans of the military, intelligence agencies, diplomatic corps, as well as other journalists who share in our vision and have unique, real-world experience on the topics and regions about which they report.
The voice of veterans and those who value unbiased journalism is underrepresented in the media. We aim to change that.
This project is a joint venture between two brothers who are both veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It was inspired by one of the brothers' return to the Afghanistan War in 2013 as a freelance war correspondent after a career as an Air Force Special Operations pilot. While embedded with frontline U.S. and Afghan combat units, that brother, Nolan Peterson, discovered his military background led him to report on the war differently than his colleagues, highlighting how military veterans, as well as veterans of intelligence agencies and diplomatic corps, have a unique credibility and expertise about the regions and issues with which most Americans are unfamiliar.
It's in no way, shape, or form an 'official' propaganda piece, many of the articles go against the 'party line', and some of those articles would result in a courts-martial were the given contributor an active duty servicemember.
I remain unconvinced. Even if it is not 'an official propaganda piece', even if it is critical at times, it still is US military, and I expect little good and much bias from there regarding Russia. I would need to see a completely unbiased article or an article supportive of Russia in order to change my opinion.
chaos0xomega wrote: In any case, I would school you on the rest of your post, but its plain that you actually have no idea what it is you're talking about, and also attributing 'bias' to factual statements that you just so happen to disagree with because you're too blind to reality.
These are not factual statements: "Russian propaganda had tried to spin the world’s impression of what was happening at the Maidan" "(including the propaganda filth coming out of RT and Russia24 that would have made Goebbels blush)" And the worst: "I’m risking an oversimplification here, but basically the people in the western regions of Ukraine inherited a greater sense of civic society and participatory politics through a longer experience as subjects of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Polish state (until 1939), while those in the south and east languished for far longer periods under tsarist and soviet domination. These variations in historical experience go a long way (much further than language or ethnicity) in explaining current events in the various regions of Ukraine." Furthermore, there can be bias in factual statements as well. For example: "The discrepancy between what was described in Russian (and sometimes Western) media and what was actually occurring on the ground was staggering."
You can either respond normally to my arguments or admit that you have lost the discussion. Trying to get out of it using fallacious ad hominem arguments is not going to do you any good.
As I have stated many times before, I do not blindly cling or rely on RT, nor do I agree with everything they say (especially stuff regarding Russian politics).
Yes you do, you totally do.
No, I totally don't. You, on the other hand, seem to cling blindly only to Western sources. No wonder you can't detect the anti-Russian bias in those articles. Even when I actually highlight it and explain why it is biased, you still can't see it.
No I didn't. It is more than semantics. The difference between Lvov and Kharkov is of paramount importance to this whole conflict.
Nope, semantics. You understood that I was requesting you to provide me with the 'opposition' point of view article which you initially requested I provide, something which I have thus far been unable to find and something which you have thus far failed to produce. Whether or not that opposition viewpoint comes from Lvov or Kharkov is irrelevant, so long as you provide the opposition point of view.
I remain unconvinced. Even if it is not 'an official propaganda piece', even if it is critical at times, it still is US military, and I expect little good and much bias from there regarding Russia. I would need to see a completely unbiased article or an article supportive of Russia in order to change my opinion.
The journalists are military, yes, the source itself is not. AND LOL, an article supportive of Russia? Thats the opposite of 'unbiased', also you will no doubt find something to be biaed against because you dont *want* to believe that anything except Russian news sources could possibly be unbiased.
These are not factual statements: "Russian propaganda had tried to spin the world’s impression of what was happening at the Maidan"
That is factual. Russian news sources, which really are no different than propaganda mouthpieces, have tried to influence opinion on the Maidan. You cannot argue otherwise, as that is pretty much the purpose of all media in this modern day and age (sadly enough).
"(including the propaganda filth coming out of RT and Russia24 that would have made Goebbels blush)"
While the part about 'making Goebbels blush' is not factual and the result of artistic license, RT and Russia24 have most certainly been pumping out falsities about the situation (again, just like many western news sources), that is most certainly describable as 'propaganda filth', particularly when those media sources are describing things that contradicts someones first hand experience. Kinda like how you're doing, because you know you're totally in Kyiv and capable of making an assessment of whats going on over there, even though you've been living in The Netherlands for the past how many years now?
"I’m risking an oversimplification here, but basically the people in the western regions of Ukraine inherited a greater sense of civic society and participatory politics through a longer experience as subjects of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Polish state (until 1939), while those in the south and east languished for far longer periods under tsarist and soviet domination. These variations in historical experience go a long way (much further than language or ethnicity) in explaining current events in the various regions of Ukraine."
Factual, if you know anything about the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Polish state, and the late-period Austro-Hungarian Empire, you would know that they were far less centralized and authoritarian, if not democratic or borderline democratic, than Tsarist (and later Soviet) rule. Just because you're ignorant of historical governances of various now-defunct political entities does not make it any less true.
Furthermore, there can be bias in factual statements as well. For example: "The discrepancy between what was described in Russian (and sometimes Western) media and what was actually occurring on the ground was staggering."
Nope, thats actually pretty accurate. The only bias here is that he assumes that RT and Russia24 are the only media sources in Russia, which can be written off as ignorance on his part, whereas alternative media sources in the US are becoming increasingly prevalent, many of which produce more factual and accurate articles than the likes of CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc.
You can either respond normally to my arguments or admit that you have lost the discussion. Trying to get out of it using fallacious ad hominem arguments is not going to do you any good.
Bro, do you even know what ad hominem means? Because I haven't made any. Also, check mate.
No, I totally don't. You, on the other hand, seem to cling blindly only to Western sources. No wonder you can't detect the anti-Russian bias in those articles.
Even when I actually highlight it and explain why it is biased, you still can't see it.
No. You totally do. 90% of your posts featuring some source are exclusively Russian media outlets, which you uphold to be factual, more unbiased, and more accurate than any other form of source. If anything you're the one incapable of distinguished between unbiased and pro-Russian sources, and see anti-Russian sentiment even when there isn't any. The article itself isn't even *about* Russia, but rather a first hand account of whats occurring or what occurred there and how the media on both sides of the divide has misrepresented the situation.
BTW, you completely glossed over this bit:
I befriended a Russian journalist who had been fired, along with the rest of the journalists and editorial staff of Lenta.ru, for being too objective.
(I'll let you draw your own conclusions.)
Third, and almost as important as the actual experience of history, is the popular or remembered/manufactured conception of that history — the “spin.” Basically, Ukraine (and Russia too) is a post-genocidal society that has not yet come to grips with the realities of the crimes (committed by and against Ukrainians, Poles, Jews, and Russians) that have been perpetrated here (Bloodlands by Timothy Snyder is a good overview). Each group has its own preferred version of history and uses it to justify the means to achieve their own political ends. The virulently ethno-nationalist version of the Ukrainians is equally as troubling as that of the Russians.
(Uh huh, so he only has a bias against Russians, right?)
Fourth, world news seems, to a large extent, to be written by uninformed journalists intent on under-analyzing and over-sensationalizing. While the scenes on the Maidan were often apocalyptic, even during the height of the violence just one block away everything was completely calm and normal. I took the picture above from my balcony in Lviv, and while it seems like anarchy, it was actually quite anticlimactic.
("World News" is specifically Russian?)
Fifth, and finally, Russia’s propaganda machine is incredible. This lesson is an infuriating one when you can see with your own eyes what is actually happening, But Russian propaganda is clearly effective on those who do not have access to other sources of information (and on lazy journalists not inclined to do their own research).
(Contrast this to Western Media which is more diverse in that it has many 'alternative' outlets which are able to avoid being propaganda mouthpieces, something which Russias primarily state run and centrally controlled media has difficulty avoiding. This one is probably a bit biased, but I'm using this specifically as a dig against you)
The discrepancy between what was described in Russian (and sometimes Western) media and what was actually occurring on the ground was staggering. The chaos in Kyiv was simply not occurring as the media described it. The fact that jewelry and clothing stores continued to operate uninterrupted from within the barricades should be evidence enough of this.
Again, the mainstream Russian media has misrepresented the situation greatly, if there is an independent Russian media source that hasn't, I can't verify, because i don't speak Russian and it seems only the obviously biased sources are available in English, whereas (as an American) I have easy access to sources which aren't CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc. etc. etc.
Again, the mainstream Russian media has misrepresented the situation greatly, if there is an independent Russian media source that hasn't, I can't verify, because i don't speak Russian and it seems only the obviously biased sources are available in English, whereas (as an American) I have easy access to sources which aren't CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc. etc. etc.
He's not saying that Fox, CNN, MSNBC etc are unbiased. He's saying that he has easy access to multiple sources.
Again, the mainstream Russian media has misrepresented the situation greatly, if there is an independent Russian media source that hasn't, I can't verify, because i don't speak Russian and it seems only the obviously biased sources are available in English, whereas (as an American) I have easy access to sources which aren't CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc. etc. etc.
He's not saying that Fox, CNN, MSNBC etc are unbiased. He's saying that he has easy access to multiple sources.
Clearly I misread:
"I have easy access to sources which aren't CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc. etc. etc."
as
"I have easy access to sources which aren't [biased] : CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc. etc. etc."
Which totally changes the meaning.
All you needed to do was point out my mistake. Retorting "Did you really not just read what he posted?" was unnecessary.
Noam Chomsky on Propaganda
"The Big Idea" - a half hour interview between Noam Chomsky and British journalist Andrew Marr, first aired by the BBC in February 1996.
I have a strong urge to stop responding to you unless you stop using fallacious arguments, because so far, that is what most of your arguments come down to. Please read up on the list of fallacies and try to refrain from using them. It is hard, I am not faultless myself, but it is worth a try, because having a proper discussion with fallacies is very hard.
No I didn't. It is more than semantics. The difference between Lvov and Kharkov is of paramount importance to this whole conflict.
Nope, semantics. You understood that I was requesting you to provide me with the 'opposition' point of view article which you initially requested I provide, something which I have thus far been unable to find and something which you have thus far failed to produce. Whether or not that opposition viewpoint comes from Lvov or Kharkov is irrelevant, so long as you provide the opposition point of view.
I did not understand that, and I don't now. I said it would also be nice that when posting an article written by an American in Lvov, you also post an article written by a Russian in Kharkov. That way we get two sides of the conflict which will somewhat negate the bias that is present in both side's articles.
I remain unconvinced. Even if it is not 'an official propaganda piece', even if it is critical at times, it still is US military, and I expect little good and much bias from there regarding Russia. I would need to see a completely unbiased article or an article supportive of Russia in order to change my opinion.
The journalists are military, yes, the source itself is not. AND LOL, an article supportive of Russia? Thats the opposite of 'unbiased', also you will no doubt find something to be biaed against because you dont *want* to believe that anything except Russian news sources could possibly be unbiased.
The journalists are military or ex military, as is the source in this case. If they were to also post an article supportive of Russia, that would show that they are not biased against it. Highlighted in red is a fallacy. Your assumption is also false btw.
These are not factual statements: "Russian propaganda had tried to spin the world’s impression of what was happening at the Maidan"
That is factual. Russian news sources, which really are no different than propaganda mouthpieces, have tried to influence opinion on the Maidan. You cannot argue otherwise, as that is pretty much the purpose of all media in this modern day and age (sadly enough).
Looking it over again, it indeed is a factual statement. That does not change its biased nature however.
"(including the propaganda filth coming out of RT and Russia24 that would have made Goebbels blush)"
While the part about 'making Goebbels blush' is not factual and the result of artistic license, RT and Russia24 have most certainly been pumping out falsities about the situation (again, just like many western news sources), that is most certainly describable as 'propaganda filth', particularly when those media sources are describing things that contradicts someones first hand experience. Kinda like how you're doing, because you know you're totally in Kyiv and capable of making an assessment of whats going on over there, even though you've been living in The Netherlands for the past how many years now?
Yay! Keep the fallacies coming! Maybe I should start highlighting them too? The first part of what you write here I can actually agree with. It also shows much less bias than the original article as you mention that it is not only Russian sources doing that. However, after that you descend into a grossly incorrect fallacy. A pity. At no point did I presume to be able to make a full assessment of what is going on, unlike the author of the article, I might add. I only have what I can piece together from different news sources and family and friends in the Ukraine.
"I’m risking an oversimplification here, but basically the people in the western regions of Ukraine inherited a greater sense of civic society and participatory politics through a longer experience as subjects of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Polish state (until 1939), while those in the south and east languished for far longer periods under tsarist and soviet domination. These variations in historical experience go a long way (much further than language or ethnicity) in explaining current events in the various regions of Ukraine."
Factual, if you know anything about the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Polish state, and the late-period Austro-Hungarian Empire, you would know that they were far less centralized and authoritarian, if not democratic or borderline democratic, than Tsarist (and later Soviet) rule. Just because you're ignorant of historical governances of various now-defunct political entities does not make it any less true.
Fallacies highlighted in red. Trust me, I know plenty about the Austrian Empire and even more about the Commonwealth, and calling them 'borderline democratic' is quite laughable. The Austrian Empire was as autocratic as it gets, while the Commonwealth had a fair level of democracy on the top level (the king was elected, there was a parliament etc.), this was only for the nobility and it was not anywhere near democratic in the modern sense of the word. For the average peasant it really did not matter in which state they lived. There is also the fact that the Commonwealth and the Austrian Empire especially deliberately repressed Ukrainian culture and Orthodox religion in favour of Polish/German culture and Catholicism. Just look up a few articles on Polonisation in the Commonwealth and Germanisation in the Austrian Empire.
Furthermore, there can be bias in factual statements as well. For example: "The discrepancy between what was described in Russian (and sometimes Western) media and what was actually occurring on the ground was staggering."
Nope, thats actually pretty accurate. The only bias here is that he assumes that RT and Russia24 are the only media sources in Russia, which can be written off as ignorance on his part, whereas alternative media sources in the US are becoming increasingly prevalent, many of which produce more factual and accurate articles than the likes of CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc.
I did not dispute the accuracy of the statement. The bias, apart from what you mention here, is also that it implies that Russian media always has this discrepancy, while Western media only has it sometimes. Also, there are plenty of alternate, independent media sources in Russia as well.
You can either respond normally to my arguments or admit that you have lost the discussion. Trying to get out of it using fallacious ad hominem arguments is not going to do you any good.
Bro, do you even know what ad hominem means? Because I haven't made any. Also, check mate.
Argumentum ad hominem – the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent.
I would school you on the rest of your post, but its plain that you actually have no idea what it is you're talking about
This is a classical example of a ad hominem attack. You are evading the actual topic and having to respond to my arguments by saying I don't know anything about it. Lol. And this only one example, you have made many more of this kind of attacks.
No, I totally don't. You, on the other hand, seem to cling blindly only to Western sources. No wonder you can't detect the anti-Russian bias in those articles. Even when I actually highlight it and explain why it is biased, you still can't see it.
No. You totally do. 90% of your posts featuring some source are exclusively Russian media outlets, which you uphold to be factual, more unbiased, and more accurate than any other form of source. If anything you're the one incapable of distinguished between unbiased and pro-Russian sources, and see anti-Russian sentiment even when there isn't any. The article itself isn't even *about* Russia, but rather a first hand account of whats occurring or what occurred there and how the media on both sides of the divide has misrepresented the situation.
No, I totally don't. I have explained this before. Just because I sometimes post an RT article in this thread doesn't mean that RT is my only source of news. Please stop being childish and assuming that. Also, you are now just putting words in my mouth, as I have never claimed RT or any other Russian media outlet to be more factual and unbiased than mainstream Western media outlets. I am also perfectly capable of detecting pro-Russian bias. Just give me an article that you think has a pro-Russian bias and I will highlight it. And just because you don't see any anti-Russian bias in an article, doesn't mean it is not there. This anti-Russian bias is so common in the West most Westerners don't even notice it anymore. They are too used to it and see it as normal. The article is about Russia. Not about Russia as a country or nation, but it is about Russian media. About media misrepresentation, indeed, but it is biased in that it mostly mentions Russian media as being guilty of it, whereas Western and Ukrainian media really isn't any better.
I befriended a Russian journalist who had been fired, along with the rest of the journalists and editorial staff of Lenta.ru, for being too objective.
(I'll let you draw your own conclusions.) (He was too objective, but to what side? Was he too pro-Ukrainian? Or too pro-Russian? I don't know, the article doesn't mention it, and that is why I skipped it.) (Edit: I seem to have confused the words objective and subjective here, but I still don't really seen any bias here.
Third, and almost as important as the actual experience of history, is the popular or remembered/manufactured conception of that history — the “spin.” Basically, Ukraine (and Russia too) is a post-genocidal society that has not yet come to grips with the realities of the crimes (committed by and against Ukrainians, Poles, Jews, and Russians) that have been perpetrated here (Bloodlands by Timothy Snyder is a good overview). Each group has its own preferred version of history and uses it to justify the means to achieve their own political ends. The virulently ethno-nationalist version of the Ukrainians is equally as troubling as that of the Russians.
(Uh huh, so he only has a bias against Russians, right?) (No, this was actually a good statement that I fully agreed with)
Fourth, world news seems, to a large extent, to be written by uninformed journalists intent on under-analyzing and over-sensationalizing. While the scenes on the Maidan were often apocalyptic, even during the height of the violence just one block away everything was completely calm and normal. I took the picture above from my balcony in Lviv, and while it seems like anarchy, it was actually quite anticlimactic.
("World News" is specifically Russian?) (I am not sure I get this one. I thought he referred to world news in general and I skipped over it because I did not see any bias in it. I strongly agree with him though, I have also heard several times already that the whole protest looked worse in the media than that it really was.)
Fifth, and finally, Russia’s propaganda machine is incredible. This lesson is an infuriating one when you can see with your own eyes what is actually happening, But Russian propaganda is clearly effective on those who do not have access to other sources of information (and on lazy journalists not inclined to do their own research).
(Contrast this to Western Media which is more diverse in that it has many 'alternative' outlets which are able to avoid being propaganda mouthpieces, something which Russias primarily state run and centrally controlled media has difficulty avoiding. This one is probably a bit biased, but I'm using this specifically as a dig against you) (Russia has plenty of alternative and independent media outlets as well. But apart from the Moscow Times, all those I know of are in Russian and thus useless for posting on Dakka. I do read several of them though. The statement itself is not really that biased. But I would like to remark that however formidable the Russian propaganda machine is, the Western one is even better.)
The discrepancy between what was described in Russian (and sometimes Western) media and what was actually occurring on the ground was staggering. The chaos in Kyiv was simply not occurring as the media described it. The fact that jewelry and clothing stores continued to operate uninterrupted from within the barricades should be evidence enough of this.
Again, the mainstream Russian media has misrepresented the situation greatly, if there is an independent Russian media source that hasn't, I can't verify, because i don't speak Russian and it seems only the obviously biased sources are available in English, whereas (as an American) I have easy access to sources which aren't CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc. etc. etc. (Indeed it has. The Western mainstream media however has not been much better. The availibility of independent Russian news sources in English is quite sad indeed. The only Russian media that publishes in English does so for propaganda purposes, so I suppose on one hand you can't really blame people for thinking all Russian media is like that.)
You seem to not know what objective means based on "(He was too objective, but to what side? Was he too pro-Ukrainian? Or too pro-Russian? I don't know, the article doesn't mention it, and that is why I skipped it.)"
It would mean they're neither pro Russian or pro Ukrainian, but are in fact just trying to report the actual facts without trying to colour it favourably for a specific country.
I'll add just in case, if the journalists were objective to Russian interests and reported truthfully, but pro-Ukrainian and reported falsehoods to make them look better, they would not actually be being objective. They would just be being pro-Ukrainian.
When you say things like you just said, you sound like a caricature of a Soviet Commissar (the kind often shown in Western movies about WW2). I'm not even joking.
I said it would also be nice that when posting an article written by an American in Lvov, you also post an article written by a Russian in Kharkov.
I don't understand the idea that a Russian must be automatically pro-Russia and an American pro-America.
I also don't understand the idea that all Russian news sources are untrustworthy, or that the Western press is full of massive bias that Westerners cannot see.
MrDwhitey wrote: When you say things like you just said, you sound like a caricature of a Soviet Commissar (the kind often shown in Western movies about WW2). I'm not even joking.
Nah, no way I sound like a commissar.
To prove it I will upload a picture of my reaction when reading Dakka:
As you can see, I am absolutely no commissar.
I have a strong urge to stop responding to you unless you stop using fallacious arguments, because so far, that is what most of your arguments come down to.
Please read up on the list of fallacies and try to refrain from using them. It is hard, I am not faultless myself, but it is worth a try, because having a proper discussion with fallacies is very hard.
You're out of your league, I assure you I am FAR more familiar with logical fallacies than you are. I'd give you a list of all the fallacies which you yourself are subject to, but I'm at work and don't have the time to rewrite the Bible.
I did not understand that, and I don't now. I said it would also be nice that when posting an article written by an American in Lvov, you also post an article written by a Russian in Kharkov. That way we get two sides of the conflict which will somewhat negate the bias that is present in both side's articles.
Right, and I said provide me with the article written by a Russian in Kharkov (Lviv was typed in error) and I will. Once again, semantics. Speaking of fallacies, you realize of course that most of your posts only provide the perspective of Russian news media and don't include a Western media counterpart? A bit hypocritical don't ya think?
The journalists are military or ex military, as is the source in this case. If they were to also post an article supportive of Russia, that would show that they are not biased against it. Highlighted in red is a fallacy. Your assumption is also false btw.
That is neither a logical fallacy, nor is it a false assumption, as others have posted moderate views previously and you still found issue with them. There is seemingly no pleasing you unless someone agrees with you completely. Seemingly every other regular commentator in this thread has said as much already, at this point you're a troll and a nuisance, pretending to be the rider of a high horse and the voice of reason despite the obvious fact that you are guilty of everything you have accused others of, and are (at this point) simply projecting your own behaviors onto others.
Beyond that, your argument that "they post something supportive of Russia" implies that Russia has done something wholly positive in this situation, which it hasn't by any metric except that of the most ardent supporters and apologists viewpoint, at best Russia has done things which lie within the grey area of moral and legal ambiguity, as even their seemingly positive actions and behaviors all have underlying subtexts and motives behind them.
That does not change its biased nature however.
If its biased, its biased against propaganda, not Russia itself.
Yay! Keep the fallacies coming! Maybe I should start highlighting them too? The first part of what you write here I can actually agree with. It also shows much less bias than the original article as you mention that it is not only Russian sources doing that. However, after that you descend into a grossly incorrect fallacy. A pity. At no point did I presume to be able to make a full assessment of what is going on, unlike the author of the article, I might add. I only have what I can piece together from different news sources and family and friends in the Ukraine.
Once again, there isn't actually a logical fallacy in that statement... What did you learn what those were at school recently and now you consider yourself an expert in them or something? *Ahem*, so what you're saying is that you're arguing from a position of less than complete secondhand information drawn from largely biased sources, and claiming that your information and knowledge is not only more valid than a first hand account, but also more somehow more accurate and more informed? Theres a logical fallacy there...
Fallacies highlighted in red.
I'm starting to think that that word doesn't mean what you think it means...
Trust me, I know plenty about the Austrian Empire and even more about the Commonwealth, and calling them 'borderline democratic' is quite laughable. The Austrian Empire was as autocratic as it gets, while the Commonwealth had a fair level of democracy on the top level (the king was elected, there was a parliament etc.), this was only for the nobility and it was not anywhere near democratic in the modern sense of the word. For the average peasant it really did not matter in which state they lived. There is also the fact that the Commonwealth and the Austrian Empire especially deliberately repressed Ukrainian culture and Orthodox religion in favour of Polish/German culture and Catholicism. Just look up a few articles on Polonisation in the Commonwealth and Germanisation in the Austrian Empire.
What are they teaching kids in school these days? First, Austria-Hungary - Note that I said late period, implying somewhere in the mid-19th century to its dissolution. First this first, two separate semi-autonomous nations which shared a common monarch and several common institutions. Both Austria and Hungary extended varying degrees of autonomy to various regions with various ethnic majorities. Croatia, under Hungarian rule, received a considerable amount of political/governmental autonomy for example (and in fact there was a large element within the Austro-Hungarian government that was pushing for a triple-crown with Croatia). Numerous languages within Austria-Hungary were given official recognition to be used in official capacities in schools, offices, courts, the military, etc. and numerous officials were required to speak German, Hungarian, Czech, and further languages as a result. Serfdom was eliminated following the revolutions of 1848, and with the adoption of the February Patent of 1867 the bicameral Austrian Imperial Council (which applies only the Austrian sphere of influence, aka Cisleithania) provided for a parliament with a lower house elected by male tax-paying citizens. Hungary, on the other hand had the Diet which was also bicameral ala the British (and Austrian) parliamentary system, and also provided for a lower house elected by... well thats a complicated function of land ownership, taxes, profession, etc. but it allowed for civic participation. Beyond that, owing to the decentralized nature of the Austro-Hungarian government, numerous local governing bodies (the name and structure of which varied from town to town, region to region, etc.) allowed for elected officials. That doesn't even go into all the efforts that various elements within said government had gone through to further liberalize the government, had Archduke Franz Ferdinand not been assassinated, the intent was to remodel the Austro-Hungarian government largely after the United States. While perhaps not democratic, there was definitely room for participatory politics within Austria Hungary, at least for a reasonable chunk of the population.
The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is a similar dual crown system, and has long been regarded as one of the forerunners to the modern democracies and constitutional monarchies, and for the time period was extremely liberal and progressive. That alone should say plenty about the nature of their government. I believe official doctrine was something like "A republic under the presidency of the king", and while the bi/tricameral legislative body was appointed by the King (which in turn elected the King), candidates were put forward by local elected legislative bodies, so again, participatory politics. Beyond that, the "Golden Liberty" allowed for a rather considerable amount of freedoms and participation in civic society.
Now lets look at Tsarist Russia. Serfdom was a thing until 1861 (so no real participation whatsoever prior to that point), after which it was officially abolished, but was still functionally intact as a result of socio-economic realities (much like how after the abolition of slavery within the US, a functional equivalent was still in effect). It wasn't until 1906 that the mirs/volosts really held any meaning as a form of participatory politics, and prior to that point civic participation in the lower levels (read: vast majority) of Russian society revolved around communal farming in an attempt to eak out a meager living.
Soviet Russia, at least had universal suffrage and elected bodies, but participation was severely limited by Party politics, favoritism, nepotism, and all the other various 'isms' that put up effective barriers to participation for the general majority of the population, save those who were connected or fortunate enough to find themselves in the right place at the right time under the right circumstances. Beyond that, it was still a one-party system and single-candidate ballots were anything but uncommon.
As for Austria-Hungary and Poland-Lithuanias treatment of Ukrainians specifically, I can't really comment. What I do know is that 200-300 thousand Ukrainians volunteered for service in the Austro-Hungarian army during the First World War, and what I do know is that both Tsarist and Soviet Russia repressed Ukrainians in the extreme, even going so far as to create a man-made famine in an effort to exterminate Ukrainians via genocide. See also: Holodomor.
I did not dispute the accuracy of the statement. The bias, apart from what you mention here, is also that it implies that Russian media always has this discrepancy, while Western media only has it sometimes.
The 'sometimes' is used because the author is familiar with alternative western media sources, whereas the average American, myself included, is not familiar with the alternative Russian media sources.
This is a classical example of a ad hominem attack. You are evading the actual topic and having to respond to my arguments by saying I don't know anything about it. Lol.
And this only one example, you have made many more of this kind of attacks.
Not really, as I did address the actual points (despite disparaging remarks to the contrary) Technicalities my friend, technicalities.
No, I totally don't. I have explained this before. Just because I sometimes post an RT article in this thread doesn't mean that RT is my only source of news. Please stop being childish and assuming that.
Ever hear the phrase 'actions speak louder than words'?
Also, you are now just putting words in my mouth, as I have never claimed RT or any other Russian media outlet to be more factual and unbiased than mainstream Western media outlets.
Again, actions speak louder than words. You are generally, if not automatically, dismissive of any source that isn't Russian or pro-Russian, at least in relation to this specific topic. While you claim to take a moderate and unbiased approach, your behavior very much shows otherwise.
And just because you don't see any anti-Russian bias in an article, doesn't mean it is not there. This anti-Russian bias is so common in the West most Westerners don't even notice it anymore. They are too used to it and see it as normal.
The article is about Russia. Not about Russia as a country or nation, but it is about Russian media. About media misrepresentation, indeed, but it is biased in that it mostly mentions Russian media as being guilty of it, whereas Western and Ukrainian media really isn't any better.
No, the article is (again) a first hand account of the situation on the ground in the Ukraine and how it is *not* what it has been portrayed as internationally.
(Russia has plenty of alternative and independent media outlets as well. But apart from the Moscow Times, all those I know of are in Russian and thus useless for posting on Dakka. I do read several of them though. The statement itself is not really that biased. But I would like to remark that however formidable the Russian propaganda machine is, the Western one is even better.)
I would disagree, since the general consensus amongst the majority (like easily 90%) of the people I know is that the western media is bogus and not to be trusted for anything other than what Kim Kardashian wore to the Oscars... I *would* disagree, but despite that general consensus, somehow in the grand scheme of things it still manages to drive public opinion regardless.
When you say things like you just said, you sound like a caricature of a Soviet Commissar (the kind often shown in Western movies about WW2). I'm not even joking.
Agreed. I keep picturing him sitting there in a Budenovka and a fake Order of the Red Star medal pinned to his chest typing all this stuff while staring lovingly at a portrait of Stalin sitting on the corner of his desk and a copy of Pravda rolled up next to his keyboard.
Jihadin wrote: 1. How did Blue Force Tracker get involve in this?
I posted a link to a pretty good article by a contributor detailing a first-hand account of what was up, and Iron_Captain took offense.
MrDwhitey wrote: When you say things like you just said, you sound like a caricature of a Soviet Commissar (the kind often shown in Western movies about WW2). I'm not even joking.
Nah, no way I sound like a commissar.
To prove it I will upload a picture of my reaction when reading Dakka:
As you can see, I am absolutely no commissar.
I have a strong urge to stop responding to you unless you stop using fallacious arguments, because so far, that is what most of your arguments come down to.
Please read up on the list of fallacies and try to refrain from using them. It is hard, I am not faultless myself, but it is worth a try, because having a proper discussion with fallacies is very hard.
You're out of your league, I assure you I am FAR more familiar with logical fallacies than you are. I'd give you a list of all the fallacies which you yourself are subject to, but I'm at work and don't have the time to rewrite the Bible.
You don't need to give me a list, I can find one myself.
There are more fallacies than just logical fallacies and it is strange to assume you are more familiar with something than someone you don't even know is.
I did not understand that, and I don't now. I said it would also be nice that when posting an article written by an American in Lvov, you also post an article written by a Russian in Kharkov. That way we get two sides of the conflict which will somewhat negate the bias that is present in both side's articles.
Right, and I said provide me with the article written by a Russian in Kharkov (Lviv was typed in error) and I will. Once again, semantics. Speaking of fallacies, you realize of course that most of your posts only provide the perspective of Russian news media and don't include a Western media counterpart? A bit hypocritical don't ya think?
Ach so, than it was a simple misunderstanding. I shall look if I can find anything interesting in English.
And you are right, I am hypocrytical. The next time I post something from RT it is your full right to also request an article from 'the other side'. (I would like to note however, that I already have done so on several occasions)
The journalists are military or ex military, as is the source in this case. If they were to also post an article supportive of Russia, that would show that they are not biased against it. Highlighted in red is a fallacy. Your assumption is also false btw.
That is neither a logical fallacy, nor is it a false assumption, as others have posted moderate views previously and you still found issue with them. There is seemingly no pleasing you unless someone agrees with you completely. Seemingly every other regular commentator in this thread has said as much already, at this point you're a troll and a nuisance, pretending to be the rider of a high horse and the voice of reason despite the obvious fact that you are guilty of everything you have accused others of, and are (at this point) simply projecting your own behaviors onto others.
True, it was an informal fallacy, not a fallacy in logic. "Moderate" is a matter of opinion, and there have been many comments and commenters in this thread I have had zero issue with. And even with those I disagree with, I don't really have any issue. Everyone has a right to his/her own opinion, no?
chaos0xomega wrote: Beyond that, your argument that "they post something supportive of Russia" implies that Russia has done something wholly positive in this situation, which it hasn't by any metric except that of the most ardent supporters and apologists viewpoint, at best Russia has done things which lie within the grey area of moral and legal ambiguity, as even their seemingly positive actions and behaviors all have underlying subtexts and motives behind them.
"Something positive" is again a matter of opinion. To me, the Russian takeover of Crimea was incredibly positive.
But in any case, I was not just talking about the crisis here, but about Russia in general. Writing something positive about Russia's actions should not be thathard, Russia has done plenty of positive stuff in the past.
Yay! Keep the fallacies coming! Maybe I should start highlighting them too? The first part of what you write here I can actually agree with. It also shows much less bias than the original article as you mention that it is not only Russian sources doing that. However, after that you descend into a grossly incorrect fallacy. A pity. At no point did I presume to be able to make a full assessment of what is going on, unlike the author of the article, I might add. I only have what I can piece together from different news sources and family and friends in the Ukraine.
Once again, there isn't actually a logical fallacy in that statement... What did you learn what those were at school recently and now you consider yourself an expert in them or something? *Ahem*, so what you're saying is that you're arguing from a position of less than complete secondhand information drawn from largely biased sources, and claiming that your information and knowledge is not only more valid than a first hand account, but also more somehow more accurate and more informed? Theres a logical fallacy there...
Once again, logical fallacies are not the only kind of fallacy. And yes, I did have them at school not too long ago and it seems you could also use a lesson to refresh your memory here. Also, I do not recall claiming my account to be more accurate and informed. Are you putting words in my mouth again?
Trust me, I know plenty about the Austrian Empire and even more about the Commonwealth, and calling them 'borderline democratic' is quite laughable. The Austrian Empire was as autocratic as it gets, while the Commonwealth had a fair level of democracy on the top level (the king was elected, there was a parliament etc.), this was only for the nobility and it was not anywhere near democratic in the modern sense of the word. For the average peasant it really did not matter in which state they lived. There is also the fact that the Commonwealth and the Austrian Empire especially deliberately repressed Ukrainian culture and Orthodox religion in favour of Polish/German culture and Catholicism. Just look up a few articles on Polonisation in the Commonwealth and Germanisation in the Austrian Empire.
What are they teaching kids in school these days? First, Austria-Hungary - Note that I said late period, implying somewhere in the mid-19th century to its dissolution. First this first, two separate semi-autonomous nations which shared a common monarch and several common institutions. Both Austria and Hungary extended varying degrees of autonomy to various regions with various ethnic majorities. Croatia, under Hungarian rule, received a considerable amount of political/governmental autonomy for example (and in fact there was a large element within the Austro-Hungarian government that was pushing for a triple-crown with Croatia). Numerous languages within Austria-Hungary were given official recognition to be used in official capacities in schools, offices, courts, the military, etc. and numerous officials were required to speak German, Hungarian, Czech, and further languages as a result. Serfdom was eliminated following the revolutions of 1848, and with the adoption of the February Patent of 1867 the bicameral Austrian Imperial Council (which applies only the Austrian sphere of influence, aka Cisleithania) provided for a parliament with a lower house elected by male tax-paying citizens. Hungary, on the other hand had the Diet which was also bicameral ala the British (and Austrian) parliamentary system, and also provided for a lower house elected by... well thats a complicated function of land ownership, taxes, profession, etc. but it allowed for civic participation. Beyond that, owing to the decentralized nature of the Austro-Hungarian government, numerous local governing bodies (the name and structure of which varied from town to town, region to region, etc.) allowed for elected officials. That doesn't even go into all the efforts that various elements within said government had gone through to further liberalize the government, had Archduke Franz Ferdinand not been assassinated, the intent was to remodel the Austro-Hungarian government largely after the United States. While perhaps not democratic, there was definitely room for participatory politics within Austria Hungary, at least for a reasonable chunk of the population.
The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is a similar dual crown system, and has long been regarded as one of the forerunners to the modern democracies and constitutional monarchies, and for the time period was extremely liberal and progressive. That alone should say plenty about the nature of their government. I believe official doctrine was something like "A republic under the presidency of the king", and while the bi/tricameral legislative body was appointed by the King (which in turn elected the King), candidates were put forward by local elected legislative bodies, so again, participatory politics. Beyond that, the "Golden Liberty" allowed for a rather considerable amount of freedoms and participation in civic society.
Now lets look at Tsarist Russia. Serfdom was a thing until 1861 (so no real participation whatsoever prior to that point), after which it was officially abolished, but was still functionally intact as a result of socio-economic realities (much like how after the abolition of slavery within the US, a functional equivalent was still in effect). It wasn't until 1906 that the mirs/volosts really held any meaning as a form of participatory politics, and prior to that point civic participation in the lower levels (read: vast majority) of Russian society revolved around communal farming in an attempt to eak out a meager living.
Soviet Russia, at least had universal suffrage and elected bodies, but participation was severely limited by Party politics, favoritism, nepotism, and all the other various 'isms' that put up effective barriers to participation for the general majority of the population, save those who were connected or fortunate enough to find themselves in the right place at the right time under the right circumstances. Beyond that, it was still a one-party system and single-candidate ballots were anything but uncommon.
As for Austria-Hungary and Poland-Lithuanias treatment of Ukrainians specifically, I can't really comment. What I do know is that 200-300 thousand Ukrainians volunteered for service in the Austro-Hungarian army during the First World War, and what I do know is that both Tsarist and Soviet Russia repressed Ukrainians in the extreme, even going so far as to create a man-made famine in an effort to exterminate Ukrainians via genocide. See also: Holodomor.
Oh, you meant Austria-Hungary. I must have misread it then. Austria-Hungary is indeed quite different from the earlier Austrian Empire. Austria-Hungary was a lot less authoritarian than the earlier Empire even though Ukrainians were still second-class citizens.
I am not really an expert on Austria-Hungary as it is outside of my period of historical interest, so I am going to have to concede here.
The Commonwealth's democracy and Golden Liberty were still only beneficial to the wealthier, privileged (read: Polish) classes. Ukrainians were regarded as second-rate citizens and had little rights unless they converted to catholicism and spoke Polish.
The level of participation of the common man in his local government during the early Soviet Union was something that had never been seen before. Although on a national level the Soviet Union regressed into authorianism again after Lenin's death, on a local level, worker's councils could remain very influential.
In the Russian Empire, ethnic Ukrainians were regarded the same as ethnic Russians and many Ukrainians held high positions in government. In the Soviet Union, that was the same. Stalin's Holodomor was not specifically aimed at ethnic Ukrainians and was thus not a genocide. The same famine hit Russia as well, and many ethnic Russians died too. The Holodomor was aimed at the extermination of independent farmers in order to force people to live on collective farms, not at the extermination of Ukrainians (in that case, Stalin would have finished the job, he did not like half work).
I did not dispute the accuracy of the statement. The bias, apart from what you mention here, is also that it implies that Russian media always has this discrepancy, while Western media only has it sometimes.
The 'sometimes' is used because the author is familiar with alternative western media sources, whereas the average American, myself included, is not familiar with the alternative Russian media sources.
That is just an assumption, the author did not write that down anywhere. He either should have done so, or left out 'sometimes' entirely if he wanted to be unbiased.
This is a classical example of a ad hominem attack. You are evading the actual topic and having to respond to my arguments by saying I don't know anything about it. Lol.
And this only one example, you have made many more of this kind of attacks.
Not really, as I did address the actual points (despite disparaging remarks to the contrary) Technicalities my friend, technicalities.
The actual point was that I claimed the article to be biased, whereas you denied this to be so (while having to resort to insults and other childish behaviour). Therefore I proceeded to highlight the bias, and as of yet, you have not fully adressed the highlighted article.
No, I totally don't. I have explained this before. Just because I sometimes post an RT article in this thread doesn't mean that RT is my only source of news. Please stop being childish and assuming that.
Ever hear the phrase 'actions speak louder than words'?
What actions? We are on an internet forum. There is no action here, just words.
But if you want to see, I have quoted the BBC several times. Also, have you ever heard that you shouldn't judge too quickly?
Also, you are now just putting words in my mouth, as I have never claimed RT or any other Russian media outlet to be more factual and unbiased than mainstream Western media outlets.
Again, actions speak louder than words. You are generally, if not automatically, dismissive of any source that isn't Russian or pro-Russian, at least in relation to this specific topic. While you claim to take a moderate and unbiased approach, your behavior very much shows otherwise.
I am pro-Russian. Of course I am going to be dismissive of sources that are anti-Russian. When such a source is posted here, I will complain about bias. Anyone is free to either ignore that or engage in a discussion about it. Me being the little hypocrite I am, continue to post pro-Russian sources while not always providing an opposing viewpoint (sometimes I do) Anyone is free to call me out on it and highlight bias in any of the articles I post. At least I acknowledge being biased and hypocritical.
And just because you don't see any anti-Russian bias in an article, doesn't mean it is not there. This anti-Russian bias is so common in the West most Westerners don't even notice it anymore. They are too used to it and see it as normal.
The article is about Russia. Not about Russia as a country or nation, but it is about Russian media. About media misrepresentation, indeed, but it is biased in that it mostly mentions Russian media as being guilty of it, whereas Western and Ukrainian media really isn't any better.
No, the article is (again) a first hand account of the situation on the ground in the Ukraine and how it is *not* what it has been portrayed as internationally.
(Russia has plenty of alternative and independent media outlets as well. But apart from the Moscow Times, all those I know of are in Russian and thus useless for posting on Dakka. I do read several of them though. The statement itself is not really that biased. But I would like to remark that however formidable the Russian propaganda machine is, the Western one is even better.)
I would disagree, since the general consensus amongst the majority (like easily 90%) of the people I know is that the western media is bogus and not to be trusted for anything other than what Kim Kardashian wore to the Oscars... I *would* disagree, but despite that general consensus, somehow in the grand scheme of things it still manages to drive public opinion regardless.
Than the people you know must all be incredibly smart. Most people I know here in the Netherlands take everything NOS or RTL says for absolute truth and digest it like sweet cake. And as this is pretty much the same in Russia or Britain, I thought it to be the case everywhere. (that is a fallacy, I know)
When you say things like you just said, you sound like a caricature of a Soviet Commissar (the kind often shown in Western movies about WW2). I'm not even joking.
Agreed. I keep picturing him sitting there in a Budenovka and a fake Order of the Red Star medal pinned to his chest typing all this stuff while staring lovingly at a portrait of Stalin sitting on the corner of his desk and a copy of Pravda rolled up next to his keyboard.
I wish I had a Budenovka. I do have an Ushanka, does that count? I also have no fake medals (My uncle has a real one though). My father does keep a portrait of Stalin, though it is sitting in a box on the attic. And though I do read Pravda sometimes, it is not next to my keyboard.
Jihadin wrote: 1. How did Blue Force Tracker get involve in this?
I posted a link to a pretty good article by a contributor detailing a first-hand account of what was up, and Iron_Captain took offense.
I did not take offence to the posting of the article itself, but I did not like the slight but constant bias. It was not even this article per se, but it was this prejudiced tone, that is so prevalent in almost all Western publications on Russia or things that have to do with Russia.
I have a strong urge to stop responding to you unless you stop using fallacious arguments, because so far, that is what most of your arguments come down to.
Please read up on the list of fallacies and try to refrain from using them. It is hard, I am not faultless myself, but it is worth a try, because having a proper discussion with fallacies is very hard.
You're out of your league, I assure you I am FAR more familiar with logical fallacies than you are. I'd give you a list of all the fallacies which you yourself are subject to, but I'm at work and don't have the time to rewrite the Bible.
You don't need to give me a list, I can find one myself.
There are more fallacies than just logical fallacies and it is strange to assume you are more familiar with something than someone you don't even know is.
Considering I had to spend the better part of a semester preparing a term paper and hour long presentation on logical fallacies, forgive me if I feel like I'm a little more knowledgeable about the subject than you, particularly as you are like... 12? I mean, age isn't an indicator of anything, but I doubt you've studied logical fallacies to that level of depth at this point in your young life.
And you are right, I am hypocrytical. The next time I post something from RT it is your full right to also request an article from 'the other side'. (I would like to note however, that I already have done so on several occasions)
TBH, I can't remember, I took a break from this thread when it got to page 40 and didn't come back until like 6 pages ago lol
"Something positive" is again a matter of opinion. To me, the Russian takeover of Crimea was incredibly positive.
The net result might be a positive outcome, but they perpetrated several negative acts in the process. The ends dont necessarily justify the means.
But in any case, I was not just talking about the crisis here, but about Russia in general. Writing something positive about Russia's actions should not be thathard, Russia has done plenty of positive stuff in the past.
The site in general doesn't discuss Russia all that much, searching for 'Russia' comes up with two other stories, neither of which feature any sort of opinion whatsoever.
It is biased specifically against Russian propaganda.
Propaganda is bad no matter whos propaganda it is, is it not?
Once again, logical fallacies are not the only kind of fallacy. And yes, I did have them at school not too long ago and it seems you could also use a lesson to refresh your memory here. Also, I do not recall claiming my account to be more accurate and informed. Are you putting words in my mouth again?
Probably... more so simply stating the perception of your behavior.
Stalin's Holodomor was not specifically aimed at ethnic Ukrainians and was thus not a genocide. The same famine hit Russia as well, and many ethnic Russians died too. The Holodomor was aimed at the extermination of independent farmers in order to force people to live on collective farms, not at the extermination of Ukrainians (in that case, Stalin would have finished the job, he did not like half work).
I'm going to ignore the rest of your points, because I generally agree with you... but this one, this one is going to cause a lot of problems with a lot of people... The Holodomor largely and primarily affected the Ukrainian SSR, and very little beyond that, and this is telling in that the Ukrainian population dropped almost 10% while the Russian and Belarussian populations INCREASED by almost 15%. The overwhelming majority of the Holodomor's victims were Ukrainian, to the point that its difficult to argue that it was anything other than targeted at Ukrainians. The purpose might have been, as you say, to force collectivization, but Stalin achieved that end elsewhere *without* starving 5 million or so people to death via a manmade famine.
The actual point was that I claimed the article to be biased, whereas you denied this to be so (while having to resort to insults and other childish behaviour). Therefore I proceeded to highlight the bias, and as of yet, you have not fully adressed the highlighted article.
Haven't I?
What actions? We are on an internet forum. There is no action here, just words.
But if you want to see, I have quoted the BBC several times. Also, have you ever heard that you shouldn't judge too quickly?
Actions and behavior are the same.
I am pro-Russian. Of course I am going to be dismissive of sources that are anti-Russian. When such a source is posted here, I will complain about bias. Anyone is free to either ignore that or engage in a discussion about it. Me being the little hypocrite I am, continue to post pro-Russian sources while not always providing an opposing viewpoint (sometimes I do) Anyone is free to call me out on it and highlight bias in any of the articles I post. At least I acknowledge being biased and hypocritical.
You realize that I am *not* anti-Russian, right? I'm actually very much neutral on the whole affair, I'm one of those psycho's that sees a resurgent Russia as beneficial to American geopolitical interests and domestic policy.
While still being biased.
Is it really 'biased' when someone says, "Hey, so, I'm here, and seeing this with my own two eyes, and experiencing this with my own life, and what you're saying is happening, is NOT what is actually happening"?
Than the people you know must all be incredibly smart. Most people I know here in the Netherlands take everything NOS or RTL says for absolute truth and digest it like sweet cake. And as this is pretty much the same in Russia or Britain, I thought it to be the case everywhere. (that is a fallacy, I know)
Hmm I find that hard to believe, but perhaps Americans are (at this point) generally more cynical and jaded than the Dutch or English are?
I wish I had a Budenovka. I do have an Ushanka, does that count? I also have no fake medals (My uncle has a real one though). My father does keep a portrait of Stalin, though it is sitting in a box on the attic. And though I do read Pravda sometimes, it is not next to my keyboard.
I have a strong urge to stop responding to you unless you stop using fallacious arguments, because so far, that is what most of your arguments come down to.
Please read up on the list of fallacies and try to refrain from using them. It is hard, I am not faultless myself, but it is worth a try, because having a proper discussion with fallacies is very hard.
You're out of your league, I assure you I am FAR more familiar with logical fallacies than you are. I'd give you a list of all the fallacies which you yourself are subject to, but I'm at work and don't have the time to rewrite the Bible.
You don't need to give me a list, I can find one myself.
There are more fallacies than just logical fallacies and it is strange to assume you are more familiar with something than someone you don't even know is.
Considering I had to spend the better part of a semester preparing a term paper and hour long presentation on logical fallacies, forgive me if I feel like I'm a little more knowledgeable about the subject than you, particularly as you are like... 12? I mean, age isn't an indicator of anything, but I doubt you've studied logical fallacies to that level of depth at this point in your young life.
I will not dispute your expertise on logical fallacies. I was pointing out however that logical fallacies are not the only kind of fallacy, and not the kind I was referring to.
And you are right, I am hypocrytical. The next time I post something from RT it is your full right to also request an article from 'the other side'. (I would like to note however, that I already have done so on several occasions)
TBH, I can't remember, I took a break from this thread when it got to page 40 and didn't come back until like 6 pages ago lol
But in any case, I was not just talking about the crisis here, but about Russia in general. Writing something positive about Russia's actions should not be thathard, Russia has done plenty of positive stuff in the past.
The site in general doesn't discuss Russia all that much, searching for 'Russia' comes up with two other stories, neither of which feature any sort of opinion whatsoever.
Once again, logical fallacies are not the only kind of fallacy. And yes, I did have them at school not too long ago and it seems you could also use a lesson to refresh your memory here. Also, I do not recall claiming my account to be more accurate and informed. Are you putting words in my mouth again?
Probably... more so simply stating the perception of your behavior.
Stalin's Holodomor was not specifically aimed at ethnic Ukrainians and was thus not a genocide. The same famine hit Russia as well, and many ethnic Russians died too. The Holodomor was aimed at the extermination of independent farmers in order to force people to live on collective farms, not at the extermination of Ukrainians (in that case, Stalin would have finished the job, he did not like half work).
I'm going to ignore the rest of your points, because I generally agree with you... but this one, this one is going to cause a lot of problems with a lot of people... The Holodomor largely and primarily affected the Ukrainian SSR, and very little beyond that, and this is telling in that the Ukrainian population dropped almost 10% while the Russian and Belarussian populations INCREASED by almost 15%. The overwhelming majority of the Holodomor's victims were Ukrainian, to the point that its difficult to argue that it was anything other than targeted at Ukrainians. The purpose might have been, as you say, to force collectivization, but Stalin achieved that end elsewhere *without* starving 5 million or so people to death via a manmade famine.
True. The reason for that was that Ukraine was the primary agricultural area of the Russian Empire/Soviet Union. Most independent farmers that refused collectivisation were located there. In other areas, the farmers were less stubborn, less organised and less numerous. If Stalin had attempted the same methods in Ukraine as he attemped in most of Russia and Belarus, he would likely have had a full revolt on his hand. I won't dispute that the Holodomor hit the Ukrainian people very hard. It was a horrible crime and the main reason for my doubts about Stalin. It was however not an attempt to exterminate the Ukrainian people.
The actual point was that I claimed the article to be biased, whereas you denied this to be so (while having to resort to insults and other childish behaviour). Therefore I proceeded to highlight the bias, and as of yet, you have not fully adressed the highlighted article.
Haven't I?
You adressed some of my annotations, but not all of them.
I am pro-Russian. Of course I am going to be dismissive of sources that are anti-Russian. When such a source is posted here, I will complain about bias. Anyone is free to either ignore that or engage in a discussion about it. Me being the little hypocrite I am, continue to post pro-Russian sources while not always providing an opposing viewpoint (sometimes I do) Anyone is free to call me out on it and highlight bias in any of the articles I post. At least I acknowledge being biased and hypocritical.
You realize that I am *not* anti-Russian, right? I'm actually very much neutral on the whole affair, I'm one of those psycho's that sees a resurgent Russia as beneficial to American geopolitical interests and domestic policy.
Well, that is good to hear, altough I highly doubt the US government will agree with it. Interestingly, it is a point that I have heard Americans make before. I once read an interesting article that said something similar: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/23/i_miss_hating_the_soviet_union/
Is it really 'biased' when someone says, "Hey, so, I'm here, and seeing this with my own two eyes, and experiencing this with my own life, and what you're saying is happening, is NOT what is actually happening"?
Well, that would depend on the choice of words. The writer's message is not biased, in fact, it is a good message that needs to be told. It is his choice of words that is biased in some places.
Than the people you know must all be incredibly smart. Most people I know here in the Netherlands take everything NOS or RTL says for absolute truth and digest it like sweet cake. And as this is pretty much the same in Russia or Britain, I thought it to be the case everywhere. (that is a fallacy, I know)
Hmm I find that hard to believe, but perhaps Americans are (at this point) generally more cynical and jaded than the Dutch or English are?
That could be, thouch the Russians should still be the champions of cynicism. At least that is one of the first things I often hear when I ask people what they think about Russians.
I wish I had a Budenovka. I do have an Ushanka, does that count? I also have no fake medals (My uncle has a real one though). My father does keep a portrait of Stalin, though it is sitting in a box on the attic. And though I do read Pravda sometimes, it is not next to my keyboard.
The ends justify the means only so long as their is something that justifies the end.
That is a dangerous proposition. I am sure that no matter what the end is, there can always be found justification.
And as they say: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
Moscow is considering “surgical retaliatory strikes” on the Ukrainian territory after the standoff has led to first civilian victims among Russians on Russia’s territory, a Kremlin source told Kommersant Monday.
“Our patience is not boundless,” the source told the newspaper, stressing that “this means not a massive action but exclusively targeted single strikes on positions from which the Russian territory is fired at.”
The Russian side “knows for sure the site where the fire comes from,” the source said.
The proposed plan echoes a statement by a deputy speaker of Russia’s upper house, Yevgeniy Bushmin, who told RIA Novosti Sunday that using precision weapons in response to Ukraine’s shelling would prevent further Kiev’s attacks of Russia’s territory.
There is a feeling that if before firing was not aimed against Russian border guards, now provocations have been on the rise as there is no other means of forcing us to join in the standoff with Ukraine’s security troops," said Bushmin who represents Rostov Region in the Federation Council.
The only way to fight against this like civilized countries do, namely the US and the EU. We should use precision weapons, like Israel, to destroy those who fired this shell [on Russia’s Donetsk]," the lawmaker said.
On Sunday, one Russian citizen was killed when a shell exploded in a yard of a house in Donetsk, a town in southern Russia’s Rostov Region. Another shell hit a house, injuring two women, a 82-year-old mother and her daughter. The elderly woman was hospitalized with brain concussion and fractures.
The Russian Foreign Ministry announced Sunday it protests the shelling calling it a provocation that might have irreversible consequences. Deputy Russian Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin said earlier that Russia promises «harsh demarches» against Ukrainian authorities over the incident.
Rockets struck the town of Snizhne in Donetsk region around 07:00 (04:00 GMT), hitting a block of flats and a tax office.
The rebels blamed the attack on Ukraine's air force - a claim denied by Ukrainian sources.
Security forces have been pushing the rebels back to the city of Donetsk.
Fighting has also raged in the neighbouring region of Luhansk, with rockets hitting a southern suburb of Luhansk city on Monday.
Nato says it has observed a significant increase of Russian troops along the Ukrainian border, bringing their number to up to 12,000. Russia had an estimated 40,000 troops in the area two months ago before pulling them back.
Russia, which annexed Crimea from Ukraine after a disputed referendum in March, denies arming and facilitating the pro-Russian rebels.
Ukrainian officials have said that only Russia could have shot down a transport plane near the border on Monday but a Western defence expert cast doubt on the claim.
On Wednesday, EU leaders will discuss the possibility of further sanctions against Russia at their summit in Brussels.
Shattered homes
A video posted on YouTube on Tuesday shows men in what appears to be Snizhne sifting through the rubble of an apartment block. Among them are gunmen in camouflage gear.
Across the road is a lower building, also badly damaged.
The video shows a woman on the street beside a pile of bags. Identifying herself as a resident of the block that was destroyed, she says: "Snizhne was bombed this morning and my home was bombed to bits."
Accusing Ukrainian forces of attacking their own people, she calls on Russian President Vladimir Putin to send in troops to defend them.
Local officials said four people had been killed while a rebel spokesman told Russia's Interfax news agency that "about 10" civilians had been killed when a single Ukrainian jet fired five rockets.
Ukrainian Security Council spokesman Andriy Lysenko confirmed that the town had been bombed, with damage and casualties.
But he told reporters in Kiev that the town had been attacked by an unknown aircraft with the aim of discrediting Ukrainian government forces.
Ukrainian defence analyst Dmitry Tymchuk argued on Facebook that the attack could only have been carried out by Russian jets as Ukrainian planes had carried out no flights since the An-26 transport plane was downed on Monday.
It would be the first known occasion when a Russian warplane had become involved in the conflict, if true.
Plane dispute
In Monday's incident, Ukrainian officials said the An-26 had been hit at an altitude of 6,500m (21,325ft) and must have been targeted with "a more powerful missile" than a shoulder-carried missile, "probably fired" from Russia.
When fully loaded, the plane can fly at 7,600m.
However, defence analyst Charles Heyman, who edits a book called Armed Forces of the European Union, questioned the likelihood of the plane flying at high altitude.
He told the Associated Press news agency the missile was more likely to have been fired by rebels.
"I doubt the transport plane was flying at 6,500m," he said. "That doesn't make sense. The higher you fly, the more it costs, and the plane would have had to be pressurised. It was probably shot down using Sam-6 missiles owned by the rebels, which they have quite a few of."
Mr Lysenko said two of the plane's crew who survived appeared to have been captured by the rebels. Other members of the crew who did not manage to parachute to safety are believed to have been killed, with human remains found in the wreckage.
Rockets struck Luhansk's southern suburb of Mirny on Monday, setting cars on fire in a car park, as an unverified video posted on YouTube appears to show.
Both government and rebel forces are known to have multiple-rocket launchers in the region.
Russia should retaliate in the same way Israel retaliates when the Palestines fire rockets on its territory.
A boundary has been crossed here. I wonder how hypocritical the West is going to be over it though.
Assuming that Ukraine actually fired it. The Russians are relatively inscrutable, and not above a little judicious trickery where it suits their foreign policy purposes.
Iron_Captain wrote: Russia should retaliate in the same way Israel retaliates when the Palestines fire rockets on its territory.
Because Israel has had so much success with air strikes into Palestinian territories. After all, they've only ever had to do it once and it permanently stopped the PLO and Hamas from ever firing rockets into their territory again, right?
On a less serious note, Iron_Captain, can you please never ever change your avatar? You have picked the ultimate, the perfect, the ideal avatar to represent yourself. It has Putin in it, and a balloon animal; it captures both your love of Russia and the general good-natured attitude you have on the forum. If they gave out awards for avatars, you'd win first prize.
So, I've had the theme song to "Papers, Please" on infinite loop all day today at work, and Iron_Captain's avatar seemingly syncs up perfectly with the music... its mesmerizing...
squidhills wrote:On a less serious note, Iron_Captain, can you please never ever change your avatar? You have picked the ultimate, the perfect, the ideal avatar to represent yourself. It has Putin in it, and a balloon animal; it captures both your love of Russia and the general good-natured attitude you have on the forum. If they gave out awards for avatars, you'd win first prize.
Aw, thank you, you are too kind
chaos0xomega wrote:So, I've had the theme song to "Papers, Please" on infinite loop all day today at work, and Iron_Captain's avatar seemingly syncs up perfectly with the music... its mesmerizing...
Was reading a thread about recent videos surfacing showing GRAD launchers firing at Ukrainian positions from allegedly within the Russian border, and saw this delightful comment:
The people who believe Russia is actively instigating the crisis didn't need this video to confirm their beliefs. The people who don't believe the Russians are actively involved will start by asking for more credible sources. If the BBC picks it up, they will mention the biases of the Western media and their desire to bring Russia down. Only when Putin comes out and admit to lying will they finally start making excuses for his actions.
Boeing 777 with 280 passengers from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur crashed 50 kilometres from Russian border, in the Ukraine. Supposedly shot down but no confirmation yet.
Soladrin wrote: Just heard this on the news on the drive home:
Boeing 777 with 280 passengers from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur crashed 50 kilometres from Russian border, in the Ukraine. Supposedly shot down but no confirmation yet.
I just heard it as well. Seems like a very... convenient place to crash. Of all places in the world... It would be such a coincidence, it seems likely that it was shot down. But who would possess such a weapon? It could have been a S-300, but there are only six of those in operating condition in all Ukraine. It could also be a S-200, but those are very old and likely not operable anymore.
Also, does anyone think it is suspicous that within minutes of the crash, the Ukrainian government says that everyone on the plane is dead, they have nothing to do with it and that the seperatists are responsible?
ashikenshin wrote: I don't see how any side gains from killing innocent people and destroying a plane from a different country.
Just seems like Malasya airlines is really terrible with it's planes.
But if it was shot down, it wasn't really their fault. They had a good track record until that one aircraft mysteriously disappeared. One might question whether it is smart or not to fly over Eastern Ukraine though.
If it was indeed shot down, it was most likely mistaken for a military aircraft. Something like that happened before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007
Well, there's also the news that bodies(body parts) have been found up to 15 kilomtres from the crash site. This pretty much confirms it was severely damaged, either by bomb or shot down while in the air.
RIA NOVOSTI cites a source that claims the Ukrainians deployed Buk missile launchers to the Donetsk regio. Those would have the required range to take down the aircraft. The question is who fired them?
They've got tanks, but they don't have ancient SA-3s?
I doubt.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: RIA NOVOSTI cites a source that claims the Ukrainians used a Buk missile launchers to the Donetsk regio. Those would have the required range to take down the aircraft. The question is who fired them?
Will the UN finally grow some balls and step in now that something like this has happened?
Ah, yes. The UN Peacekeeping forces. With their blue helmets and unloaded weaponry with their rules of engagement typically preventing them from actually firing on anyone unless they, themselves are fired upon first.
The UN has an incredibly....meh record when it comes to stopping these kinds of disputes.
Will the UN finally grow some balls and step in now that something like this has happened?
Ah, yes. The UN Peacekeeping forces. With their blue helmets and unloaded weaponry with their rules of engagement typically preventing them from actually firing on anyone unless they, themselves are fired upon first.
The UN has an incredibly....meh record when it comes to stopping these kinds of disputes.
To be fair, it was never intended to really be something that physically got stuck into active fighting, that was by design.
What I'd like to know is, wtf were civilian aircraft doing flying through Ukrainian airspace? Its an active warzone, with GOVERNMENT aircraft being shot down left right and centre.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: What I'd like to know is, wtf were civilian aircraft doing flying through Ukrainian airspace? Its an active warzone, with GOVERNMENT aircraft being shot down left right and centre.
I read it's a popular international flight route. Very common use
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: What I'd like to know is, wtf were civilian aircraft doing flying through Ukrainian airspace? Its an active warzone, with GOVERNMENT aircraft being shot down left right and centre.
I read it's a popular international flight route. Very common use
Yes, but when missiles are filling the skies and government military aircraft are being shot down, surely it would be wise to close the airspace to civilian aircraft?
Jihadin wrote: Possible 23 Americans to. How tight is airport security in Amstradam? No one mention a possible terror group yet
Amsterdam is a major flight hub, been there four times, security is pretty good as far as I know. It doesn't feel like there was a bomb on board to me...the coincidence of a bomb going off EXACTLY over Ukrainian airspace? That seems to much like a Tom Clancy novel for me.
I'd like to note here that this analysis is purely speculative. With that stated....
As things stand, the Ukrainian Government said from the word go that the aircraft was flying at 33,000 feet. As someone else already said, that immediately removes it from the range of anything shoulder mounted. We're talking about vehicle mounted, ground based, or aircraft missiles here. If it's the first two, we'll know who it was soon enough, simply because the US satellites will have picked up the vapour trails, etc. With all that said, we can proceed along the following reasoning:-
-The Ukrainian Government, the Ukrainian Rebels, and Russia all have nothing to gain from shooting down this aircraft. The only even possible reasoning would be to blame the other side, and since missiles that aren't fired from aircraft are more or less traceable, the risk would be too high for Russia or Ukraine to fire off a land based missile deliberately. The Russians meanwhile, wouldn't fly an aircraft into Ukrainian airspace to do the deed in case it was detected. So that more or less rules out Russia
-The Ukrainians wouldn't be able to shoot it down with an air to air missile and blame it on the rebels (as they have no aircraft to speak of). So they wouldn't have done it with a military aircraft deliberately.
This leaves us with the following options:-
1. The Donetsk rebels have had anti-air missiles passed over the border. It wouldn't be S-75's, as they've long since been decommissioned, and even if found wouldn't have any operators in Ukraine, which means it would have to be S-200 rockets or SAM-300's. Using one of the two they've then targeted the first thing they saw and shot it down, not realising (being new to this game), it was a civilian aircraft.
2. A Ukrainian missile or aircraft operator picked up the civilian aircraft on radar, but due to an equipment malfunction, mistook it for a Russian aircraft, and opened fire.
I'd peg it down to a 50/50 at this stage. I'm not entirely seeing the Russians being happy passing SAM-300's over the border when they were cagey about even giving them to Syria, but at the same time, equipment malfunction and trigger-happiness is equally unlikely.
whembly wrote: Good lord... the debris field is seven miles wide, which certainly makes it more likely that it exploded in the air:
#BREAKING: Emergency Ministry official on site says body parts scattered around up to 15 km from crash site, at least 100 bodies seen
— Reuters Top News (@Reuters) July 17, 2014
Look at the top post on this page.
But yeah, it's pretty much a given at this point that it was shot down. Ukrainian flight control confirms the flight had no trouble prior to disapearing.
whembly wrote: Good lord... the debris field is seven miles wide, which certainly makes it more likely that it exploded in the air:
#BREAKING: Emergency Ministry official on site says body parts scattered around up to 15 km from crash site, at least 100 bodies seen
— Reuters Top News (@Reuters) July 17, 2014
Look at the top post on this page.
But yeah, it's pretty much a given at this point that it was shot down. Ukrainian flight control confirms the flight had no trouble prior to disapearing.
Sorry bro... I derped on "15 kilomtres" to "15 km".
First world countries- The ones which sided with 'Mur'ca during the cold war
second world countries- Comrades of Mother Russia during the cold war
Third world- the neutral countries during the cold war
I recall this, when some racist kid in high school said the whole 3rd world should be killed with fire, and i passed him the lighter and said, do it, burn the Croatia BACK TO TOPIC: I am REAAAAAAALLY sure that the USA will intervene, because Ukraine and Russia have lots of gas
20 Years ago, situation in Croatia was exactly like this except 10 times the worse, and because neither Croatia, Serbia nor ANY country in ex-Yugoslavia had oil or gas, no super power gave a flying Please don't bypass the language filter like this when posting in future. Reds8n . about Serbians killing Croatians, Croatians killing Serbians in retaliation, ethnical cleansing, and stuff best left undiscovered, so they just sent observers to see what is the situation(Read: Chill and talk while both sides were butchering each other)
Plane confirmed to have been broken in two before crashing.
Which still leaves two options (in my mind):
Terrorist group (possibly operating in the Jakarta area... since, terrorism isn't a regional thing) blows up plane. Missile from ground or air based systems (as has been talked about.
If it's the first, there are of course a huge number of possibilities ranging from:
-If it is some group that works/operates primarily from the Region in which this aircraft was headed (Jakarta), then why did it explode over Ukraine? Was it intended to merely get airborne and go off, or would it be meant to strike closer to the destination?
-If it was a group operating through Russia/Ukraine, and was intended to crash in/around the Ukrainian area... Then that was some seriously heavy duty math that went into the timing, was extremely lucky, or we're looking at some Tom Clancy (as someone else mentioned) Rainbow 6 level conspiracy here.
Aircraft has a time block to enter another country airspace, International Civilian flights. The aircraft is expected to be in the area. Malaysia it seemed was running 30 minute late so it would be appear like unconfirmed aircraft entering air space.
Jihadin wrote: Aircraft has a time block to enter another country airspace, International Civilian flights. The aircraft is expected to be in the area. Malaysia it seemed was running 30 minute late so it would be appear like unconfirmed aircraft entering air space.
Jihadin wrote: Aircraft has a time block to enter another country airspace, International Civilian flights. The aircraft is expected to be in the area. Malaysia it seemed was running 30 minute late so it would be appear like unconfirmed aircraft entering air space.
Jihadin wrote: Aircraft has a time block to enter another country airspace, International Civilian flights. The aircraft is expected to be in the area. Malaysia it seemed was running 30 minute late so it would be appear like unconfirmed aircraft entering air space.
Malaysia airlines = death huh?
Third time the charm?
Well, Dutch news just reported that Schiphol Airport (Amsterdam) had received no flight restrictions for the area so who the hell knows.
Don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but several other aircraft have gone down in the same area the past few days. Ukrainian craft that the Ukrainians say were shot down by the Russians, but there's apparently no evidence the Russians are the ones who shot those ones down. EDIT: Rebels have claimed responsibility for the aforementioned craft.
Jihadin wrote: Putin might be dusting off that book on what happen afterwards when Russia shot a South Korean airliner. Sep's have secured the site
There are reports that one of the Russian-backed separatists bragged about shooting down another Ukrainian plane, shortly before the crash. As always with these early reports, it's not been confirmed by objective sources as yet. But if so, this will have to bring in EU sanctions against Russia.
We need to keep in mind that these are suspicions of a shoot-down, but suspicions are only suspicions, and the Ukranians have an interest in suggesting Russian culpability.
Sigvatr wrote: Well, the terrorists themselves claim having it shot down.
The Ukrainian government claims having shot it down? Now that is news.
Donetsk People's Republic has stated its forces do not possess such military equipment.
I was just reading that initially separatist forces claimed responsibility for downing an aircraft online, but once it became known it was a civilian aircraft they deleted their post. So, it would most certainly seem they do possess such military equipment, chances are supplied by Russia, though I dont rule out the possibility that they raided a poorly defended Ukrainian arsenal either.
You posted something that wasn't Russian!! So proud of you!
2. A Ukrainian missile or aircraft operator picked up the civilian aircraft on radar, but due to an equipment malfunction, mistook it for a Russian aircraft, and opened fire.
I'd peg it down to a 50/50 at this stage. I'm not entirely seeing the Russians being happy passing SAM-300's over the border when they were cagey about even giving them to Syria, but at the same time, equipment malfunction and trigger-happiness is equally unlikely.
Generally speaking you don't shoot at an aircraft exiting your airspace unless its blown something up... so unless there was a report of non-ukrainian aircraft bombing ukraine earlier today, that seems unlikely.
Jihadin wrote: Whoa.....found out about Air Space permits....time block...and the aircraft was running 30 min left
Could you translate that to english?
If it makes you feel any better, I find most of Jihadins post to be largely unintelligible, almost stream-of-consciousness type ramblings... oddly enough I can still understand them. He's talking about whats basically a 'schedule' used internationally, basically a window in which an aircraft can enter into another countries airspace without air defenses freaking out (because they know in advance to expect the plane in the area). He's implying the reason for the shootdown may have been because the plane was 30 minutes late, but thats nonsensical, as the plane would have been over Ukrainian airspace for an hour or so by the time it was shot down, and considering it was shot down on exit rather than entry...
My take on this is that the pro-Russian separatists had got hold of high power AA missiles and the skills to launch them -- possibly supplied by Russia -- mistakenly thought the Malaysian Air liner was another Ukraine government plane, and shot it down. They are known to have shot down at least two Ukrainian aircraft previously.
It is too much of a coincidence to suppose that the airplane had a bomb on board or suffered such a catastrophic mechanical failure as to blow up and crash. Malaysia is a muslim country, and Schiphol is a highly advanced, major airport.
Kilkrazy wrote: My take on this is that the pro-Russian separatists had got hold of high power AA missiles and the skills to launch them -- possibly supplied by Russia -- mistakenly thought the Malaysian Air liner was another Ukraine government plane, and shot it down. They are known to have shot down at least two Ukrainian aircraft previously.
It is too much of a coincidence to suppose that the airplane had a bomb on board or suffered such a catastrophic mechanical failure as to blow up and crash. Malaysia is a muslim country, and Schiphol is a highly advanced, major airport.
All true enough, but, with how the situation there is, I'll still refrain from pointing fingers.
Meanwhile, looked at the ABC news stream for a bit. Wow, all they do is harp on about RUSSIAN missile systems and how terrible they are, as opposed to all those other missile systems.
Kilkrazy wrote: My take on this is that the pro-Russian separatists had got hold of high power AA missiles and the skills to launch them -- possibly supplied by Russia -- mistakenly thought the Malaysian Air liner was another Ukraine government plane, and shot it down. They are known to have shot down at least two Ukrainian aircraft previously.
Kilkrazy wrote: My take on this is that the pro-Russian separatists had got hold of high power AA missiles and the skills to launch them -- possibly supplied by Russia -- mistakenly thought the Malaysian Air liner was another Ukraine government plane, and shot it down. They are known to have shot down at least two Ukrainian aircraft previously.
It is too much of a coincidence to suppose that the airplane had a bomb on board or suffered such a catastrophic mechanical failure as to blow up and crash. Malaysia is a muslim country, and Schiphol is a highly advanced, major airport.
It is the most likely situation, although as there are several (somewhat unlikely) theories, I don't think it's worth jumping the gun just yet. If it were shot down with a Surface-to-air missile, it should be relatively straightforward to see where it came from, based on military satellite surveillance.
Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200 flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur was allegedly shot down by a group of Russian-backed Cossack militants near the village of Chornukhine, Luhansk Oblast, some 80 kilometers north-west of Donetsk, according to recordings of intercepted phone calls between Russian military intelligence officers and members of terrorist groups, released by the country’s security agency (SBU).
One phone call apparently was made at 4:40 p.m. Kyiv time, or 20 minutes after the plane crash, by Igor Bezler, who the SBU says is a Russian military intelligence officer and leading commander of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic. He reports to a person identified by Ukraine’s SBU as a colonel in the main intelligence department of the general headquarters of the armed forces of the Russian Federation Vasili Geranin regarding the shot down plane, which is about to be examined by the militants.
The second intercepted conversation released by the Security Service of Ukraine was apparently between militants nicknamed “Major” and “Greek” immediately upon inspection of the crash site.
“It’s 100 percent a passenger (civilian) aircraft,” Major is recorded as saying, as he admitted to seeing no weapons on site. “Absolutely nothing. Civilian items, medicinal stuff, towels, toilet paper.”
In the third part of conversation Cossack commander Nikolay Kozitsin talking to an unidentified militant cynically suggests that the Malaysia Airlines airplane could've been carrying spies, as, otherwise, it would have no business flying in that area.
Read the full transcript of an intercepted phone call below:
Igor Bezler: We have just shot down a plane. Group Minera. It fell down beyond Yenakievo (Donetsk Oblast).
Vasili Geranin: Pilots. Where are the pilots?
IB: Gone to search for and photograph the plane. Its smoking.
VG: How many minutes ago?
IB: About 30 minutes ago.
SBU comment: After examining the site of the plane the terrorists come to the conclusion that they have shot down a civilian plane. The next part of the conversation took place about 40 minutes later.
“Major”: These are Chernukhin folks who shot down the plane. From the Chernukhin check point. Those cossacks who are based in Chernukhino.
“Grek”: Yes, Major.
"Major": The plane fell apart in the air. In the area of Petropavlovskaya mine. The first “200” (code word for dead person). We have found the first “200”. A Civilian.
“Greek”: Well, what do you have there?
“Major”: In short, it was 100 percent a passenger (civilian) aircraft.
“Greek”: Are many people there?
“Major”: Holy sh__t! The debris fell right into the yards (of homes).
“Greek”: What kind of aircraft?
“Major”: I haven’t ascertained this. I haven’t been to the main sight. I am only surveying the scene where the first bodies fell. There are the remains of internal brackets, seats and bodies.
“Major”: Yes, of one Indonesian student. From a university in Thompson.
Militant: Regarding the plane shot down in the area of Snizhne-Torez. It’s a civilian one. Fell down near Grabove. There are lots of corpses of women and children. The Cossacks are out there looking at all this.
They say on TV it’s AN-26 transport plane, but they say it’s written Malaysia Airlines on the plane. What was it doing on Ukraine’s territory?
Nikolay Kozitsin (a Cossack commander): That means they were carrying spies. They shouldn’t be f…cking flying. There is a war going on.
whembly wrote: Is KyivPost just as biased as RT? How reliable are they as a source?
Kyiv Post is the RT of Ukraine, so arguably, they are even more biased because Ukraine is directly involved in this whereas Russia is not. Also note that it is the SBU that 'intercepted' this, which would be the same as the seperatists releasing an 'intercepted' phonecall that says Ukrainian authorities shot the plane down.
I am not saying it could not be authentic, but it should be taken with a grain of salt until more evidence comes along
Regarding the 'intercepted phone conversations', until further evidence comes along, I would treat them with a grain of salt. I don't exactly see how a recorded conversation between two unknown people proves anything in particular, to be honest.
Seems the Sep fired the missile being three Ukraine military aircraft was shot down in same AO. So not sure if the weapon system was captured by the Sep's at the base and moved or it was provided by the Putin/Russia and moved there.
LordofHats wrote: Things keep pointing towards the Pro-Russian separatists as I look into this as the most likely culprits.
I would call anyone 'the culprit', as it was undoubtedtly an accident. No side would gain anything from shooting down a civilian aircraft. It was probably mistaken for a military plane.
Still, the question is how the seperatists got such an advanced system. Such AA systems are not a matter of just having a vehicle and a manual. They require an extensive network of radar systems, launcher vehicles and advanced knowledge that should not be available to a bunch of rebels. A Buk AA missile system for example includes no less than 10 different vehicles. Whoever shot down that plane must have had a lot of prior experience with the system.
I also find it doubtful Russia would supply the seperatists with such advanced equipment. If Russia does turn out to have done so, I wonder what is next. Nuclear missiles?
Iron_Captain wrote: I would call anyone 'the culprit', as it was undoubtedtly an accident. No side would gain anything from shooting down a civilian aircraft. It was probably mistaken for a military plane.
Oh certainly. When I say culprit I merely mean as in 'who done it' not as an accusation that someone's trying to blast civies out of the sky. The most extreme groups on the planet don't even go there (except for that one time like, in the 80s or something).
LordofHats wrote: Things keep pointing towards the Pro-Russian separatists as I look into this as the most likely culprits.
I would call anyone 'the culprit', as it was undoubtedtly an accident. No side would gain anything from shooting down a civilian aircraft. It was probably mistaken for a military plane.
Still, the question is how the seperatists got such an advanced system. Such AA systems are not a matter of just having a vehicle and a manual. They require an extensive network of radar systems, launcher vehicles and advanced knowledge that should not be available to a bunch of rebels. A Buk AA missile system for example includes no less than 10 different vehicles. Whoever shot down that plane must have had a lot of prior experience with the system.
I also find it doubtful Russia would supply the seperatists with such advanced equipment. If Russia does turn out to have done so, I wonder what is next. Nuclear missiles?
A "-10" Operator Manual is also a trouble shooter. A "-10" Operator Manual also gives one with no experience an idea how the system works step by step page by page. Afterwards its trial and error. System component goes bad replace component, Error code = corrective action, red light = low on gas, etc etc etc
I can give you a -10 for a freaking Vulcan gun system and you can figure it out. Does not matter if your 14-15(?) you can figure it out
I can't tell if that last comment is sarcastic or not, LordofHats... while shooting a plane is quite hard, there have been plenty of attempts (and some notable ... incidents) to bring civilian planes down by other means.
LordofHats wrote: Things keep pointing towards the Pro-Russian separatists as I look into this as the most likely culprits.
I would call anyone 'the culprit', as it was undoubtedtly an accident. No side would gain anything from shooting down a civilian aircraft. It was probably mistaken for a military plane.
Still, the question is how the seperatists got such an advanced system. Such AA systems are not a matter of just having a vehicle and a manual. They require an extensive network of radar systems, launcher vehicles and advanced knowledge that should not be available to a bunch of rebels. A Buk AA missile system for example includes no less than 10 different vehicles. Whoever shot down that plane must have had a lot of prior experience with the system.
I also find it doubtful Russia would supply the seperatists with such advanced equipment. If Russia does turn out to have done so, I wonder what is next. Nuclear missiles?
A "-10" Operator Manual is also a trouble shooter. A "-10" Operator Manual also gives one with no experience an idea how the system works step by step page by page. Afterwards its trial and error. System component goes bad replace component, Error code = corrective action, red light = low on gas, etc etc etc
I can give you a -10 for a freaking Vulcan gun system and you can figure it out. Does not matter if your 14-15(?) you can figure it out
Now that I mention it. Why would a SA fire on it if the IFF transponder was broadcasting....
LordofHats wrote: Things keep pointing towards the Pro-Russian separatists as I look into this as the most likely culprits.
I would call anyone 'the culprit', as it was undoubtedtly an accident. No side would gain anything from shooting down a civilian aircraft. It was probably mistaken for a military plane. Still, the question is how the seperatists got such an advanced system. Such AA systems are not a matter of just having a vehicle and a manual. They require an extensive network of radar systems, launcher vehicles and advanced knowledge that should not be available to a bunch of rebels. A Buk AA missile system for example includes no less than 10 different vehicles. Whoever shot down that plane must have had a lot of prior experience with the system. I also find it doubtful Russia would supply the seperatists with such advanced equipment. If Russia does turn out to have done so, I wonder what is next. Nuclear missiles?
A "-10" Operator Manual is also a trouble shooter. A "-10" Operator Manual also gives one with no experience an idea how the system works step by step page by page. Afterwards its trial and error. System component goes bad replace component, Error code = corrective action, red light = low on gas, etc etc etc
I can give you a -10 for a freaking Vulcan gun system and you can figure it out. Does not matter if your 14-15(?) you can figure it out
Are you referring to the A-10 aircraft? I have no military experience, but I would think an A-10 (or a Vulcan gun system for that matter) is quite a bit simpler than an advanced anti-air missile system. An A-10 can be operated by just a single person who knows how to fly. A Buk system would require a lot of people (and materiel) and more know-how than can be gotten from a manual. The operators would have to be trained to use such systems.
LordofHats wrote: Things keep pointing towards the Pro-Russian separatists as I look into this as the most likely culprits.
I would call anyone 'the culprit', as it was undoubtedtly an accident. No side would gain anything from shooting down a civilian aircraft. It was probably mistaken for a military plane.
Still, the question is how the seperatists got such an advanced system. Such AA systems are not a matter of just having a vehicle and a manual. They require an extensive network of radar systems, launcher vehicles and advanced knowledge that should not be available to a bunch of rebels. A Buk AA missile system for example includes no less than 10 different vehicles. Whoever shot down that plane must have had a lot of prior experience with the system.
I also find it doubtful Russia would supply the seperatists with such advanced equipment. If Russia does turn out to have done so, I wonder what is next. Nuclear missiles?
A "-10" Operator Manual is also a trouble shooter. A "-10" Operator Manual also gives one with no experience an idea how the system works step by step page by page. Afterwards its trial and error. System component goes bad replace component, Error code = corrective action, red light = low on gas, etc etc etc
I can give you a -10 for a freaking Vulcan gun system and you can figure it out. Does not matter if your 14-15(?) you can figure it out
I have no military experience, but I would think an A-10 is quite a bit simpler than an advanced anti-air missile system. An A-10 can be operated by just a single person who knows how to fly. A Buk system would require a lot of people (and materiel) and more know-how than can be gotten from a manual. The operators would have to be trained to use such systems.
KK I see where I lost you
The Technical Manual (TM) is the operator's bible for maintenance of his vehicle. Each driver should spend some time looking through his vehicle's TM. The TM defines those procedures that you, the operator, are authorized to do at your level. The operator's manual is often called the -10 manual. This is because the last two digits of the TM number indicate the level of maintenance for which the manual is designed. -10 means that it is a guide for the vehicle user. Before attempting any questionable operation which is not specifically authorized in this manual, clearance must be obtained from your supervisor.
All technical manuals consist of the following basic sections as a minimum:
Front Cover. The front cover provides some very basic information. It identifies the vehicle to which the TM applies. It also displays a table of contents along the right-hand margin along with page numbers. The black markings to the extreme right of the page references line up with quick reference thumb tabs along the edge of the manual.
Warning Summary. The first thing you will turn to as you begin to leaf through the manual is the Warning Summary. This summary alerts you to potential danger to personnel and possible damage to equipment. It is important to familiarize yourself with the common dangers of the vehicle you are assigned to operate.
How to Use this Manual. This section teaches you how to use the manual, what each section of the manual is for, and how to find what you need in the manual.
General Information. This section provides general information about the vehicle, uncommon nomenclature, and abbreviations used in the TM.
Vehicle Description & Data. This section provides all of the stats on the vehicle.
Technical Principles of Operation. This section explains how specific systems on the vehicle work.
Operating Instructions. This section covers;
Controls & Indicators. Where things are on the vehicle and what they do.
PMCS (Preventive Maintenance Checks and Services). Provides a checklist of things to do to keep your vehicle in good condition.
Operation Under Usual Conditions.
Operation Under Unusual Conditions.
Operation of Special Purpose Kits.
Troubleshooting. This section provides guidance for identifying and correcting simple vehicle malfunctions.
Maintenance Procedures. Explains how to do common operator level maintenance procedures like how to change a tire, how to maintain the battery, and how to service the air cleaner.
References. This section lists all forms, field manuals, and technical manuals for associated with or referenced by the TM.
Basic Issue Items List. This section identifies the minimum essential items required to maintain the vehicle at the operator level. These are items that should be issued with the vehicle every time the vehicle is dispatched to you.
-Shrike- wrote: I can't tell if that last comment is sarcastic or not, LordofHats... while shooting a plane is quite hard, there have been plenty of attempts (and some notable ... incidents) to bring civilian planes down by other means.
Eh probably getting ahead of myself really I can't recall any specific instance of a group shooting a civilian liner out of the sky. Bombs on planes, and rockets shot over air strips I've heard of, but missiles blowing them away midflight? Feel free to inform me if you got anything. Aviation is not something I follow at all. I wanna say I vaguely remember something like it happening in Africa. EDIT: I found Iran Air 655 but that was a US feth up, not a terrorist act and I distinctly feel like the one I'm thinking of was a terrorist act.
The Technical Manual (TM) is the operator's bible for maintenance of his vehicle. Each driver should spend some time looking through his vehicle's TM. The TM defines those procedures that you, the operator, are authorized to do at your level. The operator's manual is often called the -10 manual. This is because the last two digits of the TM number indicate the level of maintenance for which the manual is designed. -10 means that it is a guide for the vehicle user. Before attempting any questionable operation which is not specifically authorized in this manual, clearance must be obtained from your supervisor.
All technical manuals consist of the following basic sections as a minimum:
Front Cover. The front cover provides some very basic information. It identifies the vehicle to which the TM applies. It also displays a table of contents along the right-hand margin along with page numbers. The black markings to the extreme right of the page references line up with quick reference thumb tabs along the edge of the manual.
Warning Summary. The first thing you will turn to as you begin to leaf through the manual is the Warning Summary. This summary alerts you to potential danger to personnel and possible damage to equipment. It is important to familiarize yourself with the common dangers of the vehicle you are assigned to operate.
How to Use this Manual. This section teaches you how to use the manual, what each section of the manual is for, and how to find what you need in the manual.
General Information. This section provides general information about the vehicle, uncommon nomenclature, and abbreviations used in the TM.
Vehicle Description & Data. This section provides all of the stats on the vehicle.
Technical Principles of Operation. This section explains how specific systems on the vehicle work.
Operating Instructions. This section covers;
Controls & Indicators. Where things are on the vehicle and what they do.
PMCS (Preventive Maintenance Checks and Services). Provides a checklist of things to do to keep your vehicle in good condition.
Operation Under Usual Conditions.
Operation Under Unusual Conditions.
Operation of Special Purpose Kits.
Troubleshooting. This section provides guidance for identifying and correcting simple vehicle malfunctions.
Maintenance Procedures. Explains how to do common operator level maintenance procedures like how to change a tire, how to maintain the battery, and how to service the air cleaner.
References. This section lists all forms, field manuals, and technical manuals for associated with or referenced by the TM.
Basic Issue Items List. This section identifies the minimum essential items required to maintain the vehicle at the operator level. These are items that should be issued with the vehicle every time the vehicle is dispatched to you.
Ach so. But I still highly doubt you can learn how to operate an advanced anti-air missile system from a manual.
-Shrike- wrote: I can't tell if that last comment is sarcastic or not, LordofHats... while shooting a plane is quite hard, there have been plenty of attempts (and some notable ... incidents) to bring civilian planes down by other means.
Eh probably getting ahead of myself really I can't recall any specific instance of a group shooting a civilian liner out of the sky. Bombs on planes, and rockets shot over air strips I've heard of, but missiles blowing them away midflight? Feel free to inform me if you got anything. Aviation is not something I follow at all. I wanna say I vaguely remember something like it happening in Africa.
The Technical Manual (TM) is the operator's bible for maintenance of his vehicle. Each driver should spend some time looking through his vehicle's TM. The TM defines those procedures that you, the operator, are authorized to do at your level. The operator's manual is often called the -10 manual. This is because the last two digits of the TM number indicate the level of maintenance for which the manual is designed. -10 means that it is a guide for the vehicle user. Before attempting any questionable operation which is not specifically authorized in this manual, clearance must be obtained from your supervisor.
All technical manuals consist of the following basic sections as a minimum:
Front Cover. The front cover provides some very basic information. It identifies the vehicle to which the TM applies. It also displays a table of contents along the right-hand margin along with page numbers. The black markings to the extreme right of the page references line up with quick reference thumb tabs along the edge of the manual.
Warning Summary. The first thing you will turn to as you begin to leaf through the manual is the Warning Summary. This summary alerts you to potential danger to personnel and possible damage to equipment. It is important to familiarize yourself with the common dangers of the vehicle you are assigned to operate.
How to Use this Manual. This section teaches you how to use the manual, what each section of the manual is for, and how to find what you need in the manual.
General Information. This section provides general information about the vehicle, uncommon nomenclature, and abbreviations used in the TM.
Vehicle Description & Data. This section provides all of the stats on the vehicle.
Technical Principles of Operation. This section explains how specific systems on the vehicle work.
Operating Instructions. This section covers;
Controls & Indicators. Where things are on the vehicle and what they do.
PMCS (Preventive Maintenance Checks and Services). Provides a checklist of things to do to keep your vehicle in good condition.
Operation Under Usual Conditions.
Operation Under Unusual Conditions.
Operation of Special Purpose Kits.
Troubleshooting. This section provides guidance for identifying and correcting simple vehicle malfunctions.
Maintenance Procedures. Explains how to do common operator level maintenance procedures like how to change a tire, how to maintain the battery, and how to service the air cleaner.
References. This section lists all forms, field manuals, and technical manuals for associated with or referenced by the TM.
Basic Issue Items List. This section identifies the minimum essential items required to maintain the vehicle at the operator level. These are items that should be issued with the vehicle every time the vehicle is dispatched to you.
Ach so.
But I still highly doubt you can learn how to operate an advanced anti-air missile system from a manual.
As mentioned before: Separatists had at least one BUK mobile launcher they were "given" or acquired from a captured AA facility. It was located in Donetsk, near where this aircraft was shot down.
The leader of the Separatist group posted on Twitter, boasting about having shot down an AN-26 belonging to the Ukraine just 20 minutes after the Malaysian airliner went down, and gave the same location. He mentioned that they warned not to fly in their skies.
Apparently after receiving notice that the plane was a civilian airliner, all those posts were scrubbed from the internet.
And there are plenty of Russian advisors on the ground there.
I've a feeling no advisors was with the vehicle if it was the system that claimed the Malaysia aircraft. Strong indication it was but that .01% lingers
Iron_Captain wrote: Such AA systems are not a matter of just having a vehicle and a manual. They require an extensive network of radar systems, launcher vehicles and advanced knowledge that should not be available to a bunch of rebels. A Buk AA missile system for example includes no less than 10 different vehicles. Whoever shot down that plane must have had a lot of prior experience with the system.
I also find it doubtful Russia would supply the seperatists with such advanced equipment. If Russia does turn out to have done so, I wonder what is next. Nuclear missiles?
According to a commentator from Jane's on the BBC, although the Buk system generally operates in a network of three vehicles with a separate, more powerful radar, the missile-launcher vehicle has its own, more limited forward-facing radar. It can operate independently.
The BBC carried early reports from the US that satellites have identified where the missile came from, geographically, which should help identify the culprit.
As always, Russia Today is a real treat. Check out their take on this here. Note how they never use the word "killed" or "dead", and never even mention that every single person on board died. On the other hand the Ukrainian government almost definitely shot it down...despite the fact that they'd have no need whatsoever to deploy anti-aircraft missiles, let alone indiscriminately firing one at a civilian airliner
Iron. If I had a English version of a Dash 10. I would more likely have it moved, emplaced, and combat operational under maybe six hours. Longer if I have to put up camo nets
Well this a dramatic but i don't think it changes anything. Not like Europe is going to enact sanctions for the same reasons they're not right now. They would do more harm to them than Russia. Just can't really think of any change this incident would start. 295 people are dead but the war goes on.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Well this a dramatic but i don't think it changes anything. Not like Europe is going to enact sanctions for the same reasons they're not right now. They would do more harm to them than Russia. Just can't really think of any change this incident would start. 295 people are dead but the war goes on.
We'll see, won't we, but I would guess that if the early evidence that Russian-backed rebels were responsible is borne out, then this is a game -changer. There were 140 Dutch, plus many other Europeans on that flight; tougher sanctions or embargoes look inevitable.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Well this a dramatic but i don't think it changes anything. Not like Europe is going to enact sanctions for the same reasons they're not right now. They would do more harm to them than Russia. Just can't really think of any change this incident would start. 295 people are dead but the war goes on.
On the contrary. Russia is almost definitely in a recession, those Western sanctions threaten the sort of middle-class jobs that Putin was credited with bringing the Russian people their recent prosperity. If large modern Russian corporations start having to slash a few thousand middle-class jobs, that could make Putin rather worried. They can play the nationalism card all they want, but this isn't the Russia of the 80s that could survive alone against the world, sustained on its own goods and services. This is a new, richer Russia. They need the EU and the US if they want to raise themselves up to our living standards, they certainly aren't going to get anywhere selling coal and oil to the Chinese.
KommissarKarl wrote: As always, Russia Today is a real treat. Check out their take on this here. Note how they never use the word "killed" or "dead", and never even mention that every single person on board died. On the other hand the Ukrainian government almost definitely shot it down...despite the fact that they'd have no need whatsoever to deploy anti-aircraft missiles, let alone indiscriminately firing one at a civilian airliner
That is at least better than some other Russian media sources, who claim the plane was shot down on orders of the US. But one should not expect impartiality from RT, no? They are no more impartial than Ukrainian media is, who shout that Russia has shot down the plane. It is also true that the Ukrainian government deployed Buk missile launchers in the area. Of course, that does not mean that they were the ones to accidently shoot the plane down. The launcher could have been captured by seperatists just as well. Still wonder how they fired it though.
Jihadin wrote: Iron. If I had a English version of a Dash 10. I would more likely have it moved, emplaced, and combat operational under maybe six hours. Longer if I have to put up camo nets
I still highly doubt it, but I believe you have military experience, whereas I do not, so I will take your word for it.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Well this a dramatic but i don't think it changes anything. Not like Europe is going to enact sanctions for the same reasons they're not right now. They would do more harm to them than Russia. Just can't really think of any change this incident would start. 295 people are dead but the war goes on.
On the contrary. Russia is almost definitely in a recession, those Western sanctions threaten the sort of middle-class jobs that Putin was credited with bringing the Russian people their recent prosperity. If large modern Russian corporations start having to slash a few thousand middle-class jobs, that could make Putin rather worried. They can play the nationalism card all they want, but this isn't the Russia of the 80s that could survive alone against the world, sustained on its own goods and services. This is a new, richer Russia. They need the EU and the US if they want to raise themselves up to our living standards, they certainly aren't going to get anywhere selling coal and oil to the Chinese.
They just banned imports of Kalashnikov Concern products to the US, which AFAIK were its lifeline for the time being. If that goes under, that certainly won't look good, unless they want to spend a lot of money maintaining an idle arms factory, which isn't good either.
That said, I still want my SGL-31, so am hoping that gets reversed at some point.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Well this a dramatic but i don't think it changes anything. Not like Europe is going to enact sanctions for the same reasons they're not right now. They would do more harm to them than Russia. Just can't really think of any change this incident would start. 295 people are dead but the war goes on.
On the contrary. Russia is almost definitely in a recession, those Western sanctions threaten the sort of middle-class jobs that Putin was credited with bringing the Russian people their recent prosperity. If large modern Russian corporations start having to slash a few thousand middle-class jobs, that could make Putin rather worried. They can play the nationalism card all they want, but this isn't the Russia of the 80s that could survive alone against the world, sustained on its own goods and services. This is a new, richer Russia. They need the EU and the US if they want to raise themselves up to our living standards, they certainly aren't going to get anywhere selling coal and oil to the Chinese.
Well, the US sanctions really are not doing much. Russia barely has any economic contacts with the US. The EU sanctions on the other hand are rather painful. Russia has a lot of trade with the EU (and the Netherlands especially), it makes up over half of Russia's total trade. Of course, the EU sanctions work both ways, but the EU has more available alternatives and a stronger internal market than Russia has. Still, it is not a real recession, the Russian economy is still growing, albeit much slower than before. The Russian economy is more in danger of the other issues *cough*corruption*cough* listed in the article than it is has to fear any kind of sanctions.
KommissarKarl wrote: As always, Russia Today is a real treat. Check out their take on this here. Note how they never use the word "killed" or "dead", and never even mention that every single person on board died. On the other hand the Ukrainian government almost definitely shot it down...despite the fact that they'd have no need whatsoever to deploy anti-aircraft missiles, let alone indiscriminately firing one at a civilian airliner
it mentions several times that they are all dead in the video at the top of that report.
the top picture has dead people in the wreckage, i wouldn't exactly call that proof of your conspiracy to cover something up.
pretty convenient that a twitter account claims its a separatist and claims responsibility just in time, because twitter is totally like, OMG credible!
official separatist channels deny involvement, they have no reason to shoot civy aircraft.
TLDR
BBC says the separatists did it perhaps even backed by russia. Then convenient things like the twitter post mentioned happen. All this on the tail of russia being shelled, which is a slap to the face on russia. you dont advance the nato alliance to their front door, put anti ballisic missiles in their front door, and so on for no reason.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28354856 "Analysis: Jonathan Marcus, BBC News
If it does turn out that the Boeing 777 was shot down by the separatists - with weaponry supplied by Moscow - then it could significantly alter the terms of the whole debate surrounding the Ukraine crisis."
TLDR RT says "both sides accuse each other" but its was kievs forces what done it and give some fairly reasonable reasons why. oh and BTW we actually asked the guys in charge of the separatists, and the do not claim responsibility for it.
That russian sources are able to find a specific force capable of shooting down the plane that we can identify as in the area, as compared to wildly accusing a force that in all likelihood does not have that equipment.
"
Donetsk People's Republic PM Aleksandr Boroday has called the incident a “provocation by the Ukrainian military”.
“We confirm that the plane crashed not far from Donetsk,” Boroday said. “Representatives of Donetsk People's Republic have headed to the scene of the plane search.”
“Self-defense forces have no air-defense, which could target transport aircraft at that height,” he told Interfax.
“We have only MANPADs (portable anti-aircraft missile complex) which hit targets at 3-4 kilometers,” Sergey Kavtaradze, representative for Donetsk People’s Republic PM, also told journalists.
Russia’s military also says none of its military planes have been flying close to the Russia-Ukraine border on Thursday, RIA Novosti reported citing a military official.
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has not ruled out that a Malaysian plane has been shot down.
“We don’t rule out that this plane was shot down and stress that Ukrainian forces did not fulfill any actions targeting in the air,” Poroshenko said. He added that an investigation commission will be launched.
At the same time, Anton Geraschenko said on his Facebook page that the plane was targeted from the air defense missile complex "Buk".
RIA Novosti is citing its source who said that Kiev indeed deployed “Buk” in the Donetsk region.
“According to the system of objective control, "Buk" division of the armed forces of Ukraine was relocated to Donetsk region on Wednesday. Now in Kharkov another division is being prepared,” the source said.
The sources stressed that aircraft flying at an altitude of over 10 kilometers can only be targeted by C-300 class weapons or ‘Buk”. "
see its on facebook, that cool enough as twitter to be legit right?
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Well this a dramatic but i don't think it changes anything. Not like Europe is going to enact sanctions for the same reasons they're not right now. They would do more harm to them than Russia. Just can't really think of any change this incident would start. 295 people are dead but the war goes on.
On the contrary. Russia is almost definitely in a recession, those Western sanctions threaten the sort of middle-class jobs that Putin was credited with bringing the Russian people their recent prosperity. If large modern Russian corporations start having to slash a few thousand middle-class jobs, that could make Putin rather worried. They can play the nationalism card all they want, but this isn't the Russia of the 80s that could survive alone against the world, sustained on its own goods and services. This is a new, richer Russia. They need the EU and the US if they want to raise themselves up to our living standards, they certainly aren't going to get anywhere selling coal and oil to the Chinese.
Well, the US sanctions really are not doing much. Russia barely has any economic contacts with the US. The EU sanctions on the other hand are rather painful. Russia has a lot of trade with the EU (and the Netherlands especially), it makes up over half of Russia's total trade. Of course, the EU sanctions work both ways, but the EU has more available alternatives and a stronger internal market than Russia has.
Still, it is not a real recession, the Russian economy is still growing, albeit much slower than before. The Russian economy is more in danger of the other issues *cough*corruption*cough* listed in the article than it is has to fear any kind of sanctions.
Oh aye. The EU has a stranglehold on Russia - we're the only place that they can buy first-world commodities - high-end tech from northern Europe, financial services from London - but anything we buy from Russia we can buy elsewhere, even if it does hit our pockets. It may hurt, but nothing like it would hurt Russia if all trade were to be suspended. And the Russian people would know exactly who to blame, too. Easy access to free media outlets means it's unlikely the Kremlin could pull off such a lie that had such huge ramifications.
So, do you get paid by the Kremlin to make posts by this or do they repay you in kind?
so do you have anything other then wild conspiracy theories that Im a paid kremlen goon,
or are you too busy with being uninformed and so brainwashed that you just accused an article of "covering up" the fact that people died, despite the article clearly stating everyone died.
You would never ever think that somehow you were only looking at one side of the story, because that makes you a lousy putinista-nazi robot right?
beside which, my services of correcting you when you are wrong are free of charge, its a public service up here in canukistan. they do ration it a bit like health care, but grease the wheels with a few molsens and beaver pelts, and you can always get more.
I've had to delete several posts for an off-topic line of discussion. Please also keep in mind that sexism is a line we try to stay very far from on Dakka. This is a real conflict being discussed and making light of the humanitarian issues involved can lead to at best a flame war. Please try to be sensitive to the issues at hand in posts / lines of discussion going forward, so that this thread can remain open.
Jihadin wrote: Iron. If I had a English version of a Dash 10. I would more likely have it moved, emplaced, and combat operational under maybe six hours. Longer if I have to put up camo nets
I still highly doubt it, but I believe you have military experience, whereas I do not, so I will take your word for it.
If this AA system is a piece of military hardware (which it is) the Technical Manual for it is almost always written in such a way that ANYONE can pick up the book, look in the table of contents, see the section that reads "Operations" flip there, and read/do each thing step by step, as it's read.
I know that US TMs are written to an "8th grade reading level" so I can only assume that other nations have done similar with their military equipment. This is especially true if this is Soviet era equipment, as that stuff was sold to all kinds of "uneducated" militant types.
Jihadin wrote: Iron. If I had a English version of a Dash 10. I would more likely have it moved, emplaced, and combat operational under maybe six hours. Longer if I have to put up camo nets
I still highly doubt it, but I believe you have military experience, whereas I do not, so I will take your word for it.
If this AA system is a piece of military hardware (which it is) the Technical Manual for it is almost always written in such a way that ANYONE can pick up the book, look in the table of contents, see the section that reads "Operations" flip there, and read/do each thing step by step, as it's read.
I know that US TMs are written to an "8th grade reading level" so I can only assume that other nations have done similar with their military equipment. This is especially true if this is Soviet era equipment, as that stuff was sold to all kinds of "uneducated" militant types.
I noticing that its not being mention in the news at all. Even those with military backgrounds seemed to have brain dump that piece of info
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Well this a dramatic but i don't think it changes anything. Not like Europe is going to enact sanctions for the same reasons they're not right now. They would do more harm to them than Russia. Just can't really think of any change this incident would start. 295 people are dead but the war goes on.
We'll see, won't we, but I would guess that if the early evidence that Russian-backed rebels were responsible is borne out, then this is a game -changer. There were 140 Dutch, plus many other Europeans on that flight; tougher sanctions or embargoes look inevitable.
How though? Like even if they find a smoking gun or Putin'a signature in the missile or something like that aren't sanctions a two edged sword? Doesn't Europe get almost all it's energy from Russia? Other than being angrier what can the West do?
that they might have one or two guys who can set it up yeah, but a stolen BUK would have been reported, or ukraine would be blaring a list of stolen ones by now, the only confirmed hardware in the region capable of it is in the hands of kievs military.
easysauce wrote: that they might have one or two guys who can set it up yeah, but a stolen BUK would have been reported, or ukraine would be blaring a list of stolen ones by now, the only confirmed hardware in the region capable of it is in the hands of kievs military.
No, there's quite a lot of it in the hands of Russia's military as well.
And a suspicious amount of equipment does seem to be walking out of Russian inventory and into the rebels'.
easysauce wrote: that they might have one or two guys who can set it up yeah, but a stolen BUK would have been reported, or ukraine would be blaring a list of stolen ones by now, the only confirmed hardware in the region capable of it is in the hands of kievs military.
Why would they report it, and openly admit such failure? That would destroy their entire propaganda effort. It is not like they have reported on all the hardware that went missing previously. And besides that, old hardware has been "disappearing" from Ukrainian and Russian stockpiles for years. It is extremely easy to get a tank in Ukraine. Tank graveyards like this one:
Spoiler:
can be found all over the country, and they are usually very badly guarded, if at all.
Seaward wrote: And a suspicious amount of equipment does seem to be walking out of Russian inventory and into the rebels'.
That is still unproven, unless you are referring to the former Ukrainian equipment on Crimea that mysteriously 'found its way' to Eastern Ukraine.
Oh aye. The EU has a stranglehold on Russia - we're the only place that they can buy first-world commodities - high-end tech from northern Europe, financial services from London - but anything we buy from Russia we can buy elsewhere, even if it does hit our pockets. It may hurt, but nothing like it would hurt Russia if all trade were to be suspended. And the Russian people would know exactly who to blame, too. Easy access to free media outlets means it's unlikely the Kremlin could pull off such a lie that had such huge ramifications.
What a load of rubbish. Have you ever looked on the back of these first world commodities. ?
Hint they're all made in china, or with Chinese parts. Anything they want or need can be bought from china.
That electricity you're using to post on dakka, generated using Russian gas. That computer you're using, Chinese parts.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Well this a dramatic but i don't think it changes anything. Not like Europe is going to enact sanctions for the same reasons they're not right now. They would do more harm to them than Russia. Just can't really think of any change this incident would start. 295 people are dead but the war goes on.
We'll see, won't we, but I would guess that if the early evidence that Russian-backed rebels were responsible is borne out, then this is a game -changer. There were 140 Dutch, plus many other Europeans on that flight; tougher sanctions or embargoes look inevitable.
Europe won't do squat. They never do squat. What can they do exactly?
Black box(es) are reported to have gone to Russia on CNN.
Oh aye. The EU has a stranglehold on Russia - we're the only place that they can buy first-world commodities - high-end tech from northern Europe, financial services from London - but anything we buy from Russia we can buy elsewhere, even if it does hit our pockets. It may hurt, but nothing like it would hurt Russia if all trade were to be suspended. And the Russian people would know exactly who to blame, too. Easy access to free media outlets means it's unlikely the Kremlin could pull off such a lie that had such huge ramifications.
What a load of rubbish. Have you ever looked on the back of these first world commodities. ?
Hint they're all made in china, or with Chinese parts. Anything they want or need can be bought from china.
That electricity you're using to post on dakka, generated using Russian gas. That computer you're using, Chinese parts.
Lol. China do not make the high-tech machine tools that Germany/Europe makes, nor can they provide the financial services that the Russian middle class need. They are also a much smaller market than Europe/the USA.
Jihadin wrote: Iron. If I had a English version of a Dash 10. I would more likely have it moved, emplaced, and combat operational under maybe six hours. Longer if I have to put up camo nets
I still highly doubt it, but I believe you have military experience, whereas I do not, so I will take your word for it.
If this AA system is a piece of military hardware (which it is) the Technical Manual for it is almost always written in such a way that ANYONE can pick up the book, look in the table of contents, see the section that reads "Operations" flip there, and read/do each thing step by step, as it's read.
I know that US TMs are written to an "8th grade reading level" so I can only assume that other nations have done similar with their military equipment. This is especially true if this is Soviet era equipment, as that stuff was sold to all kinds of "uneducated" militant types.
I noticing that its not being mention in the news at all. Even those with military backgrounds seemed to have brain dump that piece of info
In some ways it makes more sense that a bunch of untrained guerillas working from a cartoon manual would shoot down a civilian airliner, mistaking it for a military transport. They probably would have no idea what the IFF transponder codes of the Boeing 777 mean. Just see a big target and hit the firing button.
Sigvatr wrote: Seriously? The black box was given to RUSSIA? This is just beyond stupid.
Turns out, it was a US missile started from Washington to shoot it down.
Goddarn.
The boxes weren't given to Russia. Russia simply took them.
Expect conclusive evidence that it was an Ukrainian missile that downed the airliner within three weeks.
loki old fart wrote: That electricity you're using to post on dakka, generated using Russian gas. That computer you're using, Chinese parts.
Less than a third of Europe's electricity is gas derived and those computer parts come from Taiwan, not mainland China. Assembling components is not the same as actually making them.
Sigvatr wrote: Seriously? The black box was given to RUSSIA? This is just beyond stupid.
Turns out, it was a US missile started from Washington to shoot it down.
Goddarn.
The boxes weren't given to Russia. Russia simply took them.
Expect conclusive evidence that it was an Ukrainian missile that downed the airliner within three weeks.
Russia denies having black boxes or plans to seize them.
The seperatists have previously claimed to have found the flight recorders, but now the prime minister of Donetsk, Aleksandr Boroday, has just stated that whatever it was that his men found, it likely isn't the black box. Looks like it hasn't been found after all, and I am starting to suspect that our brave guerillas have no clue as to what a black box actually looks like. Maybe they think it is actually black?
loki old fart wrote: That electricity you're using to post on dakka, generated using Russian gas. That computer you're using, Chinese parts.
Less than a third of Europe's electricity is gas derived and those computer parts come from Taiwan, not mainland China. Assembling components is not the same as actually making them.
But you will have a hard time using that computer without someone to assemble it. And you can't deny the fact that a staggering amount of products in daily use has 'made in China' written on it.
Sigvatr wrote: Seriously? The black box was given to RUSSIA? This is just beyond stupid.
Turns out, it was a US missile started from Washington to shoot it down.
Goddarn.
The boxes weren't given to Russia. Russia simply took them.
Expect conclusive evidence that it was an Ukrainian missile that downed the airliner within three weeks.
I like their theory of the US trying to shoot down the Russian president's jet.
So, besides killing Ukrainian soldiers and sacrificing civilians for their purposes, the terrorists now even have about 300 dead civilians on their bill.
Kilkrazy wrote: In some ways it makes more sense that a bunch of untrained guerillas working from a cartoon manual would shoot down a civilian airliner, mistaking it for a military transport. They probably would have no idea what the IFF transponder codes of the Boeing 777 mean. Just see a big target and hit the firing button.
Especially since they've already shot down two Ukrainian military planes over the past week, though Ukraine is accusing Russia of downing their fighter with an air-to-air missile.
Seaward wrote: The rebels have plenty of army deserters. The idea that they'd have guys who know how to run BUKs isn't exactly far-fetched.
Indeedy. In fact given that consciption has been on the go in that region for years, and that the Soviets and their predecessors had a sizeable air defence contingent in their military, there are probably quite a few people in that area who are knowledgeable on the use of such weapons.
If memory serves me correctly, pretty much all of the missile systems that can reach that altitude have to use radar guidance at least until the terminal stage. I might be wrong on this, but I seem to recollect that if you switch a radar to target illumination mode then the emissions are quite distinctive and travel a hell of a long way. I'm pretty sure there are enough countries keeping an eye on that area of the world to pick these emissions up.
Iron_Captain wrote: Russia denies having black boxes or plans to seize them.
The seperatists have previously claimed to have found the flight recorders, but now the prime minister of Donetsk, Aleksandr Boroday, has just stated that whatever it was that his men found, it likely isn't the black box. Looks like it hasn't been found after all, and I am starting to suspect that our brave guerillas have no clue as to what a black box actually looks like. Maybe they think it is actually black?
Let me rephrase. IF Russia has the boxes, it's because it decided to take them in spite of international law.
Iron_Captain wrote: But you will have a hard time using that computer without someone to assemble it. And you can't deny the fact that a staggering amount of products in daily use has 'made in China' written on it.
I would not deny it. But that was not the point. Those components can be assembled anywhere in the world. It's just a matter of money.
Values like respect for the truth. Of course she is obviously British or American and therefore has the great disadvantage of having grown up in a country where liberal democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law are still considered slightly more important than further enrichment of billionaire oligarchs.
KommissarKarl wrote: As always, Russia Today is a real treat. Check out their take on this here. Note how they never use the word "killed" or "dead", and never even mention that every single person on board died. On the other hand the Ukrainian government almost definitely shot it down...despite the fact that they'd have no need whatsoever to deploy anti-aircraft missiles, let alone indiscriminately firing one at a civilian airliner
Wow, amazing article, no bias there at all, right Iron_Captain?
Jihadin wrote: Iron. If I had a English version of a Dash 10. I would more likely have it moved, emplaced, and combat operational under maybe six hours. Longer if I have to put up camo nets
SIX hours? You're slacking Jihadin.
They are no more impartial than Ukrainian media is, who shout that Russia has shot down the plane.
Most Ukrainian sources i've seen are saying that it was the rebels, not Russia, and a few throw in that its possible it was a mistake on the part of Ukrainian forces, though since the 'leak' of the recorded conversation and the revelation that the separatists initially took responsibility for shooting down a non-civilian aircraft in the same area within 30 minutes of the event occurring, and that once word broke that a civilian airliner went down they removed it... and no Ukrainian military aircraft were shot down yesterday... it seems that is the primary target for Ukrainian media, and indeed 99% likely they are in fact the guilty party.
Well, the US sanctions really are not doing much. Russia barely has any economic contacts with the US. The EU sanctions on the other hand are rather painful. Russia has a lot of trade with the EU (and the Netherlands especially), it makes up over half of Russia's total trade. Of course, the EU sanctions work both ways, but the EU has more available alternatives and a stronger internal market than Russia has.
At least until winter when it turns out there is a gas shortage, unless EU governments are smart and start stockpiling heating fuel from alternative sources in advance... winter is coming...
Still, it is not a real recession, the Russian economy is still growing, albeit much slower than before. The Russian economy is more in danger of the other issues *cough*corruption*cough* listed in the article than it is has to fear any kind of sanctions.
Err... you don't know what a recession is? A decline in GDP over two successive quarters (which Russia is on track to do) = a recession. And I'll give you a hint, the fact that Russia's GDP declined last quarter, and is on track to decline this quarter as well, means that Russias economy isn't growing... in fact its doing the opposite of that.
so do you have anything other then wild conspiracy theories that Im a paid kremlen goon,
or are you too busy with being uninformed and so brainwashed that you just accused an article of "covering up" the fact that people died, despite the article clearly stating everyone died.
You would never ever think that somehow you were only looking at one side of the story, because that makes you a lousy putinista-nazi robot right?
beside which, my services of correcting you when you are wrong are free of charge, its a public service up here in canukistan. they do ration it a bit like health care, but grease the wheels with a few molsens and beaver pelts, and you can always get more.
You are aware that the Ukrainian rebels have already shot down a couple larger aircraft comparable to this one, yes? And that there are photographs showing them being in possession of an AA missile system that would be capable of firing on this airliner, which was itself reportedly in the area of the shootdown the day prior? Beyond that, thankfully the Ukrainian military being a government organization has accountability, if they were responsible, we would know, as someone somewhere would have knoweldge of it. Thus far there is no indication of Ukraine being less one anti-aircraft missiles and the official line is that they didn't fire any yesterday ( http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/18/ukraine-crisis-missiles-idUSL6N0PT33A20140718 ). Yes, they are capable of lying, but chances are someone somewhere with knowledge of this would feel guilty enough to come forward and claim that that is a lie. You are also aware that the only ones claiming that there were Ukrainian missile batteries within range to shoot down the aircraft is Russia right? And that a month ago, the Ukrainian separatists were claiming they were in possession of Buks themselves (http://en.itar-tass.com/world/738262http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_06_29/Donetsk-militia-takes-control-of-Ukrainian-anti-air-installation-1561/)?
that they might have one or two guys who can set it up yeah, but a stolen BUK would have been reported, or ukraine would be blaring a list of stolen ones by now, the only confirmed hardware in the region capable of it is in the hands of kievs military.
Either you're not very familiar with whats been going on or you're very willfully ignorant.
MrDwhitey wrote: I think the most pathetic, tasteless things that people could respond to that would be calling her "infected by western values/morals" or some gak.
This goes beyond the "I'm Pro Eastern!" or "I'm Pro Western!" bs.
The Ukrainians bribed her to quit. By order of the CIA! It is all a conspiracy against Great Glorious Mother Russia!
Iron_Captain wrote: Russia denies having black boxes or plans to seize them. The seperatists have previously claimed to have found the flight recorders, but now the prime minister of Donetsk, Aleksandr Boroday, has just stated that whatever it was that his men found, it likely isn't the black box. Looks like it hasn't been found after all, and I am starting to suspect that our brave guerillas have no clue as to what a black box actually looks like. Maybe they think it is actually black?
Let me rephrase. IF Russia has the boxes, it's because it decided to take them in spite of international law.
But why would Russia even want those boxes? It would be bad for their reputation, and I doubt those recorders contain any sensitive information. It is not like the pilots had a chance to see where the missile was coming from or something like that.
KommissarKarl wrote: As always, Russia Today is a real treat. Check out their take on this here. Note how they never use the word "killed" or "dead", and never even mention that every single person on board died. On the other hand the Ukrainian government almost definitely shot it down...despite the fact that they'd have no need whatsoever to deploy anti-aircraft missiles, let alone indiscriminately firing one at a civilian airliner
Wow, amazing article, no bias there at all, right Iron_Captain?
Lots of bias. BIAS OVERLOAD!!!!!!!!!!! Russian media sometimes wants to make me facepalm. Western media too, but this time it is the Russian media's propaganda that starts to annoy me. The aircraft being accidently shot down by seperatists is pretty much the most logical conclusion. The seperatists don't have any military aircraft for the Ukrainians to confuse with, and they wouldn't dare to shoot down a Russian plane, as that could be the end of Ukraine. Yet somehow, Russian media stoically refuses to mention the possiblity that the seperatists did it, while constantly suggesting it was probably the Ukrainians. I am pro-Russian, but this propaganda is going too far for me. They are lowering themselves to the Ukrainian's level now.
Damn, what a bunch of snakes, that's what came to mind when the Russian ambassador to the UN finished his spiel. Naturally they have to deny they were involved with the plane crash, but hell, I guess the Russian government has so little respect for the international community that they can start calling them all liars as well. The Americans pointed out that the separatists immediately after the crash were on social media gloating about shooting down yet another military transport plane, but as soon as it came out it was a civilian one instead (and with advice from their Russian handlers) they removed those posts. Seeing a Russian launcher heading from the area sans a few missiles apparently isn't proof either (though the Russians are good at hiding evidence aren't they). It is a rather sorry state of affairs that people can lie through their teeth so blatantly (not just on this matter, the Russians have been at it throughout the whole war) and not have anything meaningful done to them that'll prove to be a deterrent. I suppose people don't want the Russians to be outright excluded from being a part of these discussions, despite them being the primary reason why nothing's been done in this situation through their vetos, as that would alienate the Russians further. I mean the Russian government aren't nice people at all (both on the foreign stage with their handling of Ukraine and Iran, and domestically with political repression and human rights abuses), but further limiting them on the world stage would just give Putin another excuse to set up the suedo empire he's been pandering after. The Western powers don't want a war, so we fall back to appeasement, but it is a rather odd to think countries can get away with this kind of crap, though I suppose that's more like the status quo (its not like the fall of the Eastern Bloc meant countries would suddenly stop being donkey caves to each other, or even would do it behind closed doors more often). Meh.
Wyrmalla wrote: Damn, what a bunch of snakes, that's what came to mind when the Russian ambassador to the UN finished his spiel. Naturally they have to deny they were involved with the plane crash, but hell, I guess the Russian government has so little respect for the international community that they can start calling them all liars as well.
Aren't they? I am pretty sure the US, UK and other nations frequently tell lies as well.
Wyrmalla wrote: The Americans pointed out that the separatists immediately after the crash were on social media gloating about shooting down yet another military transport plane, but as soon as it came out it was a civilian one instead (and with advice from their Russian handlers) they removed those posts. Seeing a Russian launcher heading from the area sans a few missiles apparently isn't proof either (though the Russians are good at hiding evidence aren't they).
What Russian 'handlers'? What empty missile launcher? So far there is zero evidence for those accusations.
Wyrmalla wrote: It is a rather sorry state of affairs that people can lie through their teeth so blatantly (not just on this matter, the Russians have been at it throughout the whole war)
As have the Ukrainians.
Wyrmalla wrote: I mean the Russian government aren't nice people at all (both on the foreign stage with their handling of Ukraine and Iran, and domestically with political repression and human rights abuses)
They are very nice for Russians. The so-called repression and human rights abuses only target fringe elements of society and enjoy the support of a large majority of Russians.
Wyrmalla wrote: but it is a rather odd to think countries can get away with this kind of crap
Wyrmalla wrote: The Americans pointed out that the separatists immediately after the crash were on social media gloating about shooting down yet another military transport plane, but as soon as it came out it was a civilian one instead (and with advice from their Russian handlers) they removed those posts. Seeing a Russian launcher heading from the area sans a few missiles apparently isn't proof either (though the Russians are good at hiding evidence aren't they).
What Russian 'handlers'? What empty missile launcher? So far there is zero evidence for those accusations.
I find it interesting that you don't address the social media posts. I guess it's hard to address them since there were screen captures made of those posts by many different media outlets before they were deleted.
But why would Russia even want those boxes? It would be bad for their reputation, and I doubt those recorders contain any sensitive information. It is not like the pilots had a chance to see where the missile was coming from or something like that.
Thats a good point, the flight recorder wouldnt be able to provide any truly useful information I don't think, short of showing the precise position of the aircraft when it was hit, which itself would only be useful as a way to determine whos missiles it might have been in range of when it was hit. The one possible exception to this is that if somehow it was shot down by an air to air missile, the recorder may contain information pertaining to attempts to communicate with the aircraft it launched from, but it seems pretty unlikely that it was an AAM rather than an SAM.
Lots of bias. BIAS OVERLOAD!!!!!!!!!!!
Russian media sometimes wants to make me facepalm. Western media too, but this time it is the Russian media's propaganda that starts to annoy me. The aircraft being accidently shot down by seperatists is pretty much the most logical conclusion. The seperatists don't have any military aircraft for the Ukrainians to confuse with, and they wouldn't dare to shoot down a Russian plane, as that could be the end of Ukraine.
Yet somehow, Russian media stoically refuses to mention the possiblity that the seperatists did it, while constantly suggesting it was probably the Ukrainians.
I am pro-Russian, but this propaganda is going too far for me. They are lowering themselves to the Ukrainian's level now.
There is some hope for you after all.
Wyrmalla wrote: Damn, what a bunch of snakes, that's what came to mind when the Russian ambassador to the UN finished his spiel. Naturally they have to deny they were involved with the plane crash, but hell, I guess the Russian government has so little respect for the international community that they can start calling them all liars as well. The Americans pointed out that the separatists immediately after the crash were on social media gloating about shooting down yet another military transport plane, but as soon as it came out it was a civilian one instead (and with advice from their Russian handlers) they removed those posts. Seeing a Russian launcher heading from the area sans a few missiles apparently isn't proof either (though the Russians are good at hiding evidence aren't they). It is a rather sorry state of affairs that people can lie through their teeth so blatantly (not just on this matter, the Russians have been at it throughout the whole war) and not have anything meaningful done to them that'll prove to be a deterrent. I suppose people don't want the Russians to be outright excluded from being a part of these discussions, despite them being the primary reason why nothing's been done in this situation through their vetos, as that would alienate the Russians further. I mean the Russian government aren't nice people at all (both on the foreign stage with their handling of Ukraine and Iran, and domestically with political repression and human rights abuses), but further limiting them on the world stage would just give Putin another excuse to set up the suedo empire he's been pandering after. The Western powers don't want a war, so we fall back to appeasement, but it is a rather odd to think countries can get away with this kind of crap, though I suppose that's more like the status quo (its not like the fall of the Eastern Bloc meant countries would suddenly stop being donkey caves to each other, or even would do it behind closed doors more often). Meh.
To be fair, the ambassador probably is just as clueless as any of us and was told to repeat what he was told.
Wyrmalla wrote: Damn, what a bunch of snakes, that's what came to mind when the Russian ambassador to the UN finished his spiel. Naturally they have to deny they were involved with the plane crash, but hell, I guess the Russian government has so little respect for the international community that they can start calling them all liars as well.
Aren't they? I am pretty sure the US, UK and other nations frequently tell lies as well.
Yeah, but its easier to support the lies that the politicians you support are saying than those on the other side. =P
Wyrmalla wrote: The Americans pointed out that the separatists immediately after the crash were on social media gloating about shooting down yet another military transport plane, but as soon as it came out it was a civilian one instead (and with advice from their Russian handlers) they removed those posts. Seeing a Russian launcher heading from the area sans a few missiles apparently isn't proof either (though the Russians are good at hiding evidence aren't they).
What Russian 'handlers'? What empty missile launcher? So far there is zero evidence for those accusations.
That sounds a lot like the Russian line, I mean when they aren't just saying, "nah, nah, nah, can't hear you. The Ukrainians are evil". There's a video, unconfirmed naturally, of a launcher being driven away from the scene into Russian territory. It being now in Russia naturally means it no longer exists. The whole Russian tactic throughout this whole affair is to say "prove it", and well that seems to have worked given that they can still pull that crap even if there's overwhelming unconfirmed evidence (even if there was clear evidence the Russians would just say "oh that wasn't us, yeah the others guys just painted the thing up in Russian colours and put on Muscovite accents"). Meh, such is the state of things.
Wyrmalla wrote: It is a rather sorry state of affairs that people can lie through their teeth so blatantly (not just on this matter, the Russians have been at it throughout the whole war)
As have the Ukrainians.
Yeah, but again I think the Russian government are a bunch of baby eating gakheads, so its easier for me to put up with the lies of the pro-western Kiev government.
Wyrmalla wrote: I mean the Russian government aren't nice people at all (both on the foreign stage with their handling of Ukraine and Iran, and domestically with political repression and human rights abuses)
They are very nice for Russians. The so-called repression and human rights abuses only target fringe elements of society and enjoy the support of a large majority of Russians.
Uh, so its all right for a country to repress "fringe elements"? I mean I suppose it is apparently as its still going on there. I don't agree that those groups should be victimised because the government's just looking for a scapegoat to project their problems on (oh people can claim that these tendencies are bred in the culture there, I'm referring to the anti-Semitism, but its more like successive governments have just used them as an excuse so long that people believe that crap). Just because the current population apparently as a whole discriminate against a particular group doesn't make it right. Rather if the government actually cared about equality they'd call those idiots that support the discrimination out on their actions, but given that they also feel that way isn't going to change anything. Whatever, I'll just call Putin's government Fascists again and drop the matter (though hell, thanks for saying that the average Russian is mighty ignorant, I just won't mention my own family's background or my sexual preferences to them in case I wind up being lynched in the town square).
That a lot of people support something terrible does not make it good.
People (and they are people, not "fringe groups") being assaulted in the street because of their sexual preference is disgusting and there is no excuse that any decent human being can give to justify it.
Here’s what the shootdown of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 means: Russia, with Vladimir Putin at the wheel, just drove off the edge of a cliff.
Now, by this I don’t mean that the United States and the European Union are going to charge in with a new round of sanctions, provide lethal aid to Ukraine, patrol the skies of Ukraine, or anything of that nature. The West didn’t react in time, or with enough resolve, to the initial invasion and partition of Ukraine last spring, and there’s no reason to think our reaction will be any more effective or resolute this time. It would be reassuring to think America and Europe will now fully engage on the problem of Russian aggression, but it’s unlikely.
As far as Russia’s future is concerned, however, it doesn’t matter. The moment Flight 17 exploded was the moment that Putin’s foreign policy officially went over the ledge, and with it his dreams of restored Russian greatness.
Until now, Moscow claimed it was protecting the interests of Russian-speakers in eastern Ukraine. That was nonsense right from the start, but it was nonsense the Americans and Europeans decided they could live with, as galling as it was. (Who, after all, protects the rights of Russians in Russia? Certainly not Putin.) The West looked away as Putin seized Crimea, as we conveniently convinced ourselves that this was some odd ethnic quarrel in which we had no say. Now that a civilian airliner has been blown out of the sky by a Russian missile, however, there can be no further denial that Russia is actively pursuing a major proxy war against its neighbor in the center of Europe, and with a brutality that would make the now-departed marshals of the old Soviet high command smile with approval. This is no longer a war on Ukraine, but a war on the entire post-Cold War international order.
Putin, for his part, has already blamed Ukraine for the loss of the airliner in a careful, weird statement that makes no sense. His complaint, essentially, is that the authorities in Kyiv had the temerity to defend their country against Russia’s invasion and the daily, piecemeal dismantling of the Ukrainian state. With the exception of the usual Kremlin apologists (Professor Stephen Cohen dutifully carried this argument forward the night of the shootdown on Al Jazeera), no one is going to take that position seriously with 300 innocent people strewn all over the fields of eastern Ukraine.
Putin is deflecting blame, of course. He has no choice: he armed, paid, and unleashed a ragtag army of goons in eastern Ukraine, under the command of a Russian intelligence officer who was supposed to provide some adult supervision. Now they’ve betrayed the Kremlin and screwed up.
This leaves Putin with few options. He could admit that the plane was destroyed by the separatists he supports with weapons he provided, and thus confess that Russia itself is complicit in mass murder. Or he can claim that the downing took place without his knowledge or control, which means he will have to cop to providing sophisticated arms to a bunch of bloodthirsty stooges who don’t care who gets hurt. For now, he may have to cut the Russian separatists loose from Moscow, but given Putin’s history, he might also double down and dig in. Either way, the stink of this act will now irrevocably cling to the Russian Federation for as long as Putin is in charge, no matter what his rationalizations.
The Soviet Union – Putin’s first love – likewise never escaped the stain of the downing of a Korean passenger jet in 1983. Just as the Russian separatists are doing now, the Soviets tried to prevent access to the crash area, lied about their own actions, and then blamed others. Although the West imposed some nominal sanctions, the real price was paid in public diplomacy, because the Soviets never recovered an ability to push any further propaganda about their commitment to peace after an act of such savagery. Indeed, when the world erupted in anger, Soviet leader (and former KGB chief) Yuri Andropov was genuinely shocked. Like Putin, he and his comrades lived in a bubble in Moscow, and the public outcry only cemented the Soviet leadership’s paranoid conviction that the world was out to get the USSR. Putin, a typical and mediocre product of Andropov’s KGB, will likely react the same way.
Andropov didn’t have to live with opprobrium for long: he passed away less than six months after the KAL 007 disaster. Putin, however, is a relatively young, healthy man, and he will continue to occupy the world stage as Russia’s supreme ruler. But he will never again be able to portray himself as a savvy, cool broker in international affairs, nor Russia as just another great power. Now, he’s just another Soviet-era thug, a perception that was already growing before the Malaysian airliner plunged out of the sky. No matter how the current crisis ends, Putin’s name will forever be tied to this outrage, and his personal bid to create a more respected Russia through violence and intimidation is permanently defunct.
In the short term, the international community may not manage to muster sanctions against Russia that are any more effective than those imposed on the old USSR. But over the longer term, Putin has done far worse to his own country than any punishment we can levy. He has returned Russia to its cursed role as an international pariah, a country incapable of conducting itself without brutality and conquest. Putin’s Kremlin will likely pay only a modest price for now, but Russia and its people will have to bear the brunt of an increasing and corrosive isolation thrust upon them by their leader and his outdated Soviet fears and insecurities. If the Russian people one day find that NATO has renewed its purpose and that the globalized world community has moved on without them, they will have only Vladimir Putin to blame.
Painfully (if you're Iron_Captain) biased, but an interesting read. I don't necessarily agree with all the conclusions drawn, and some of the 'facts' presented are a bit dubious, but good nonetheless.
OK, so maybe Putin isn't some badass tiger-shooting warlord. At least he's the kind of leader who stands the ever-loving gak on his ground, unlike our pussy-ass president, who barely ever invades sovereign nations with no provocation.
It's been, like, a decade since any president did that.
Putin doesn't give an inch, and you have to respect him for that. Well, unless you're Chechnyan rebel leader Akhmad Kadyrov. Then Putin gives you a gakload of money in exchange for not fighting his soldiers anymore. American presidents in movies won't negotiate with terrorists, but Vladimir Putin is all about that gak. Alas, more than $100 billion in promised aid wasn't enough to buy Putin much of anything: Kadyrov was assassinated in 2004. Apparently paying off one angry guy doesn't make his still-poor friends any less angry.
You can slap together as many macros as you want, but it won't change the fact that Vladimir Putin has exactly two strategies for dealing with adversity: throwing money at it, and throwing the Russian army at it. Yes, "the Russian army" sounds terrifying -- if you're anything like me*, you read those words in the voice of Patrick Swayze's character from Red Dawn, and you briefly hallucinated newsreel footage of the Red Army's endless columns of tanks and infantry.
*If you are anything like me, that happens on a regular basis no matter what you do.
Well the Russian army still has those big columns of men and tanks, and that's sort of exactly the damn problem. Putin's military is built around fighting the kind of war we fought in 1945, and billions of dollars in reform haven't fixed that yet. Russia still drafts, because she "cannot afford to create a fully professional army." That quote comes from Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, not some foreign journalists, although those journalists did talk to a soldier in one of Russia's few elite "professional" soldiering units, who reported an astonishing two shooting drills per year.
Putin has a scary-looking face and billions of dollars in PR to make him look the part of a proper Bond villain. But remember: fething Hollywood invented Bond villains.
lots of pure speculation being touted as facts there... there isnt any proof the russians supplied the equiptment, if you are going to blatently disregard all the opposing sides speculation, you best do the same for your sides speculation. if there was proof, there would be official sources stating it, as opposed to the official sources just "implying it", wording things so that they have plausable deniability, and leaving the public to make up their mind on tertiary sources that require 0 vetting and can just speculate wildly and have it accepted as fact.
lots of people are pretending that their emperors magic clothes are real while the other emperors magic clothes are imaginary and see through.
.
).
Technicalities my friend, technicalities.
