we're misled by the mainstream media, and all i can see at the moment ist that they prepare us for a war. these type of texts i posted, an acknowledgement of the russian point of view, a reflection of the past and the actions by us, the west, which invoke that kind of russian reaction, are very rare.
In your previous post you had a link to an article in TIME. Isn’t TIME a very mainstream media source? Regardless, it offers a viewpoint with which you agree and there’s no problem with that. I think if you look at mainstream Russian media, you'd really get a sickener and see plenty of talk of war.
In many ways the TIME article featuring a former US Senator was not what I would have expected. It's certainly worth a discussion. The first thing that strikes me about what Bill Bradley says is his criticism of Poroshenko’s decision to give former Georgian President Saakashvili Ukrainian citizenship and make him the Governor of Odessa region which the DPR really want so that they could 'create' a bridge for their operations. He calls it provocative. Why? No real reason given.
Saakashvili has a lot going for him, but he is one of a revolving cabinet of notorious public enemies in Putin’s eyes, since he, like three of Ukraine's recent presidents, also refused to bow down to Moscow’s increasingly authoritarian control and was subsequently ‘rewarded’ by Putin with his country being invaded in 2008. Sound familiar? Putin is said to have wanted Saakashvili hanged “by the balls” years ago. I reckon he does even more so now that he’s a Ukrainian citizen determined to help the country retake Crimea.
Bradley is certainly correct about Western feck-ups with Kosovo and Libya, I'll certainly grant him that, but it’s only the former which had a real influence on Russian politics and rightly so. Why? Because it came at the expense of another good client state...
Bradley is also correct in stating that “Russian forces” exist in Ukraine. He might want to reinforce the existence of Russian troops further by saying this is only possible because of Putin and the Russian approved paramilitary leadership operating in the so-called DPR, the same crowd who accuse Ukraine of being currently run by “miserable representatives of the great Jewish people”. It is actually the DPR, the self-gloryfying separatists, and its 'leadership' who are anti-Semitic, sectarian, racist, homophobic and anti-Ukrainian. The United Nations, Amnesty and Human Rights Watch have all passed comment on this. It isn't some fabrication of anti-Russian propaganda.
Back to the article, I don’t think Bradley can, however, rightly emphasise “the importance of self-determination by the Ukrainian people”, then disregard that by claiming Ukraine “would never agree to join NATO”. By putting preconditions on the table, you are actually eroding self-determination outright. Ukraine wants NATO membership; Georgia wants NATO membership. The reasons are obvious: no one fostered this upon them – they see the benefits that its members have.
Some further points to the article:
1. Russia had already agreed to accept Ukraine’s borders in a binding treaty back in the 1990s. It has since violated that on several occasions, particularly since its client, Yanukovych, was given the bum’s rush out of town last year. No one wants him back and his political party belongs to the pages of history. Russia refused to accept Ukraine’s territorial integrity outright, because Ukraine had the ‘audacity’ to prefer a closer alliance with Europe. Had Yanukovych been deposed in favour of someone linked to the DPR, Moscow wouldn't have shown the slightest sign of disapproval. The fact is, and the Presidential elections confirmed it, Ukraine wants a closer relationship with the West.
2. Ukraine wants to join NATO and has been a member of PfP for a long time. Is it supposed to turn its back, simply because Putin doesn’t like that?
3. Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia have been offered membership of both the EU and EEU to various extents. All three are only interested in the EU and do not want to be part of Putin’s master plan to recreate the Russian Empire. Don’t forget that Yanukovych’s decision to abandon the EU deal and focus only on one with the EEU galvanised Euromaidan and led to his, and his party's, downfall. Putin pulled the strings on that, too, but failed to see it would cost his client his job.
4. Any proposed referendum on Crimea’s constitutional status would have to satisfy the conditions of the Ukrainian constitution – not the conditions the West or Russia wants – and only that. Bradley is certainly right about last year’s “phony democracy”, aka the fear-mongering referendum in Crimea which attempted to paint Ukrainians simultaneously as both Nazis and Jew-loving Zionists of the highest order. How ironic is that? The DPR tries to do likewise.
Russia under Putin simply dislikes any former 'colony' which has the temerity to challenge Moscow’s increasing authoritarianism, especially if that involves a closer relationship with the West.
Maybe lending an ear to Russian dissidents and the various political opposition movements, many of which are underground at this stage, would do more to shed light on such events than simply thinking Putin is a victim of anti-Russian propaganda fuelled by inept Western leaders who really aren’t interested in standing up to him. Putin certainly knows that all too well at this stage. Failing that, there’s always a critical examination of Russian media to explore…
