Ukraine Watch...

[PS_RalphW]

Nato warns Russia may be preparing to invade Ukraine

20,000 combat ready soldiers on the border.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/08/0 ... Y620140806

[Little John]

Nato warns Russia may be preparing to invade Ukraine

20,000 combat ready soldiers on the border.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/08/0 ... Y620140806

No, Russia is preparing to respond to the fact that the US and EU have ever so quietly dropped the sanctions on supplying weapons to Kiev, in turn, massively escalating the conflict and allowing Kiev to continue with its massacres of ethnic Russian speakers in the east of Ukraine. All of which, of course, they have been accusing the Russians of doing, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever. The hypocrisy and lies now being engaged in by our governments and MSM is quite simply staggering.

http://rt.com/news/177552-eu-kiev-weapons-export/

Or hadn't you heard?

No, of course you hadn't. You weren't supposed to.

In any event, there is, as ever, NO EVIDENCE of Russia "amassing" 20,000 "combat ready" troops on the border just as there has been NO EVIDENCE to support any of the bullshit streaming out of the US and UK governments and their compliant MSM.

Ralph, on this issue you are either a credulous fool or you have an unstated agenda.

[clv101]

I broadly agree with you Steve, however, I don't think your continual claim of 'no evidence' is very helpful. None of us have any primary evidence, we basically never do about any geopolitical events. It's very easy to cry no evidence at pretty much everything we read about but that doesn't get us very far.

I certainly don't think the BBC are presenting the whole truth or nothing but the truth, the bias is plainly evident in a lot of coverage; however, I certainly consider RT a less reliable source. In my opinion RT are analogous to Fox News. It's a refreshingly different point of view, but if one were any to 'fact check' the their coverage, I suspect it wouldn't be as accurate as the beeb. I'd be interested to hear if and how you think RT is more reliable than traditional western media.

[biffvernon]

I think the trouble (and sometimes the strength) with the Beeb is that what comes out has gone through a lengthy editorial process in which anything vaguely dodgy is filtered out and the biasses of editors, who tend to be pretty establishment background people who have got to where they have by not upsetting other establishment people, is added. Of course there may be conspirational puppet-masters in the background, but I rather doubt it. Cock-ups and plain old stupidity can explain most things.

If you follow on twitter the various BBC correspondents in the field you get a fresher, less filtered, and perhaps more accurate account of what's going on. You can then add your own editorial control to suit.

[Tarrel]

I think the trouble (and sometimes the strength) with the Beeb is that what comes out has gone through a lengthy editorial process in which anything vaguely dodgy is filtered out and the biasses of editors, who tend to be pretty establishment background people who have got to where they have by not upsetting other establishment people, is added. Of course there may be conspirational puppet-masters in the background, but I rather doubt it. Cock-ups and plain old stupidity can explain most things.

If you follow on twitter the various BBC correspondents in the field you get a fresher, less filtered, and perhaps more accurate account of what's going on. You can then add your own editorial control to suit.

Good idea.

[Mr. Fox]

'Anything' or 'anyone', Biff.

Chomsky's take in 5 secs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... upow#t=666

Marr's face @ 11:16 never fails to make me smile.

[Mr. Fox]

Deleted Double post

[Little John]

I broadly agree with you Steve, however, I don't think your continual claim of 'no evidence' is very helpful. None of us have any primary evidence, we basically never do about any geopolitical events. It's very easy to cry no evidence at pretty much everything we read about but that doesn't get us very far.

I certainly don't think the BBC are presenting the whole truth or nothing but the truth, the bias is plainly evident in a lot of coverage; however, I certainly consider RT a less reliable source. In my opinion RT are analogous to Fox News. It's a refreshingly different point of view, but if one were any to 'fact check' the their coverage, I suspect it wouldn't be as accurate as the beeb. I'd be interested to hear if and how you think RT is more reliable than traditional western media.

It's not now merely a question of editorial bias. The BBC are lying, flat out. On that basis, right now, while I do not trust any media outlet at face value, I trust RT's coverage more than I do the BBC's until, that is, they demonstrate themselves to have lied flat out which, on this issue, they have not. The reason they have not is because they have not made outlandish accusations in the absence of evidence. Which is precisely what the BBC has done and continues to do. Just today, the BBC R4 news at 5pm reported the EU sanctions as being "in response" to Russia’s "military assistance" to the "Pro-Russia rebels" and to their "possible" involvement in the downing of flight MH17. Firstly, to repeat, there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of Russian military assistance to the East of Ukraine, at least thus far. Secondly, the BBC keeps referring to the the Eastern Ukrainians as "pro-Russian" rebels and not what they are, which is Ukrainian ethnic Russian speakers" since that would, of course paint an entirely different complexion to that which we are supposed to imbibe from such reports. Additionally, the BBC persists in referring to Crimea's democratically chosen cessation from Ukraine as a Russian imposed annexation. That is, quite simply, a lie.

With regards flight MH17 and the BBC's coverage there is, yet again, NO EVIDENCE. of Russian involvement and a good deal of evidence that the Kiev authorities and/or the Yanks were involved. And uyet, the BBC has fastidiously avoided any line to address such evidence. Why? To repeat, yet again, since you seem to have forgotten, just some of the questions not asked by the BBC include:

It is known and acknowledged that MH17 plane left the international corridor it was supposed to use prior to the crash after it reached Donetsk. Why? This question could easily be answered by Dnepropetrovsk air traffic control. However, they will not release the information. Again, why? Also, the BBC has not thought fit to ask Kiev authorities about this. Why? Was MH17 leaving the route a navigation mistake or was the crew following instructions by Ukrainian air traffic controllers in Dnepropetrovsk? All of the above can be answered immediately by Kiev releasing the data. This has been the case from the start.

The Russians released, within a day of the crash, radar data they had regarding flight MH17. This confirmed the maximum deviation from the left border of the corridor by the plane was 14 km. Following that, the plane manoeuvred to return to the corridor, yet the Malaysian crew did not get a chance to complete the manoeuvre. At 17.20, the plane began to lose speed, and at 17.23 it disappeared from Russian radars. The Yanks and Kiev have not disputed this radar data. They have also not responded in any way to it. Again, silence from the BBC.

It has been confirmed that a large group of Ukrainian air defence systems were deployed to the militia-held area in the days leading up to the crash. Why, if the self-defence forces have no planes? Again, silence from the BBC.

The Ukrainian military had three or four air defence battalions equipped with Buk-M1 SAM systems deployed in the vicinity of Donetsk on the day of the crash. This system is capable of hitting targets within the range of 35 km at the altitude of up to 22 km. The rebels have no such system Why exactly did Kiev deploy BUK missile systems on the edge of militia-controlled zones directly before the tragedy? Guess what? Silence from the BBC.

Russian radar and a significant number of eye witnesses at the site of the crash have confirmed that MH17 was being closely accompanied by at least one, or possibly two military jets immediately prior to the crash. What was a military jet doing on the route intended for civilian flights? Why was the military jet flying at so close to a passenger plane?

Given the USA had satellites over that part of the world that day, they will have documentary evidence of precisely what happened to the plane. Why have they refused to release it? Why is the BBC not asking why?

This has got F--k all to do with primary, secondary or any other kind of evidence. You don't suppose that if there was even the merest shred of it, we wouldn’t be getting it blasted at us wall to wall?

THERE ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL.

We've been led into several major conflicts on the basis of blatant lies in just the last decade. Just how many times, exactly, do you need to be lied to before you before you finally make the entirely reasonable decision to assume you are being lied to unless you are provided with evidence.

Wake the F--k up for God's sake.

[biffvernon]

And furthermore:

[clv101]

I don't think there's any evidence for that... maybe he's on holiday?

[Little John]

Jesus, don't even get me started on the BBC coverage of Gaza

[biffvernon]

It is, however, not true.

Jeremy Bowen did write that he had seen no evidence of Hamas using civilians as human shields, but the reason he’s not in Gaza right now is much simpler - he’s on holiday.
Head of BBC News Gathering:

Jonathan Munro @jonathancmunro
Follow
Nonsense that @BowenBBC left Gaza under Israeli pressure. After Syria, Iraq, Israel & Gaza he's on holiday, returning to Mid East v soon.
9:59 AM - 4 Aug 2014

[clv101]

Wake the **** up for God's sake.

Steve, as I said above, I broadly agree with you!

[Little John]

Meanwhile, the USA has taken a missile cruiser into the black sea. This is verifiable and has happened.

http://rt.com/news/178584-us-navy-black-sea/

At which point, Russia is going to have to respond militarily. Which, of course, will then allow the Yanks to scream hysterically that they were right all along about the Russians militarily deploying in the area.

Oh, and the latest from the BBC is that they are no longer dishonestly referring to the Crimean referendum to secede from Ukraine as a Russian "annexation" of the Crimea. Instead, last night on the 10pm news, they outrageously referred to it as a Russian "seizure" of the Crimean peninsula". All very cleverly done, mind you. It was a rent-a-commentator who made the outrageous lie. But, the lie went totally unchallenged by the interviewer. This will be now be allowed to continue for a week or two in order for it to seep into the broader narrative. At which point, the term "seizure" will no doubt begin to be used by the broadcasters themselves. That's how it works. We'll also be told, no doubt, in due course about how Russian soldiers eat Ukrainian babies.

[Little John]

The Lithuanian first minister has indicated that he may ask the EU to consider lodging a WTO appeal against Russian food bans on those countries that have imposed trade sanctions against them. Presumably, his country is one of them.

http://rt.com/business/178672-eu-russia-wto-food/

The European Union is likely to consider filing appeals with the World Trade Organization (WTO) after Russia announced import bans on products from the EU, Lithuania’s Foreign Minister Linas Linkevicius said Thursday.

It's not April the first is it?....