Ukraine Watch...

[oobers]

This thread has mostly asserted that our politicians and the mainstream media are complicit in concealing the truth about events in Ukraine. What has confused me is how any of you can be certain that your alternative sources of information are any more reliable and that the alternative picture they build up has any credibility either? This is not a criticism, but a genuine interest in what is happening and who if anyone to believe. I ask this because I have found myself in conversations where the other persons are persuaded that, variously, Russia invaded Ukraine, that the Crimeans vote to side with Russia was not verifiable, that John Pilger used unreliable sources for his assertions about what has happened in Ukraine and that rebels shot down MH17 with at least some level of intervention from Russia. I would like to counter with some confidence but actually I have no idea what happened. How can I?

[Little John]

This thread has mostly asserted that our politicians and the mainstream media are complicit in concealing the truth about events in Ukraine. What has confused me is how any of you can be certain that your alternative sources of information are any more reliable and that the alternative picture they build up has any credibility either? This is not a criticism, but a genuine interest in what is happening and who if anyone to believe. I ask this because I have found myself in conversations where the other persons are persuaded that, variously, Russia invaded Ukraine, that the Crimeans vote to side with Russia was not verifiable, that John Pilger used unreliable sources for his assertions about what has happened in Ukraine and that rebels shot down MH17 with at least some level of intervention from Russia. I would like to counter with some confidence but actually I have no idea what happened. How can I?

Evidence of Russian annexation of Crimea? None

Evidence of direct Russian military involvement, either in the form of troops or military equipment, in the current fighting in East Ukraine? None

Evidence of Russian responsibility, either direct or indirect, in the downing of Malaysian flight 17? None

Unless, of course, you are privy to such evidence. In which case please share it here

In other words, the burden of evidential proof is on those who make the accusations and who impose sanctions on the back of those accusations.

However, I should note, despite there being no evidence of any of the above, as already stated, with the exception of the downing of flight 17 Russia has, arguably, every right to militarily intervene in East Ukraine for two reasons. Firstly, to protect ethnic Russians from being slaughtered and oppressed by a fascist junta in Kiev who are in power only as a consequence of a coup that overthrew a democratically elected government. Secondly, because Nato and the West have already broken faith with Russia by attempting to extend their political, economic and military influence right up to the borders of Russia in direct contravention of an agreement between Russia and Western Europe/USA. This has already happened in Poland (again, in direct contravention of that agreement) with the installation of missile bases capable of striking into the heart of Russia and Russia has every good reason to suspect the same may happen in Ukraine.

[oobers]

Unless, of course, you are privy to such evidence. In which case please share it here.

That's my point I suppose. I am not privy to any first hand evidence, and I assume you aren't either. We only have various media sources and blogs. Which can we trust?

[Little John]

Unless, of course, you are privy to such evidence. In which case please share it here.

That's my point I suppose. I am not privy to any first hand evidence, and I assume you aren't either. We only have various media sources and blogs. Which can we trust?

Absolute nonsense. You are trying to suggest that there should be a requirement for the provision of evidence to refute an accusation that has no evidence to support it and, if such refutational evidence is not present, then such a position is as equally invalid as the evidentless accusation. It's akin to person A making an accusation that Person B has committed a crime without a shred of evidence to back that accusation up and then further suggesting that person B's potential guilt is evidenced by their lack of an evidentially based refutation. Person B doesn't need evidence. That's person A's responsibility.

Pack it in and provide evidence, any evidence, (and enough with the requirement for "first-hand" evidence diversion. Simply verifiable will do) to back up the accusations made against Russia. But, then, we know there isn't any don't we, because if there was even a shred of it, it would be wall to wall across our MSM instead of the fact-free bullshit we have been subjected to thus far.

I also note you have singularly failed to address the second part of my previous post. To repeat:

However, I should note, despite there being no evidence of any of the above, as already stated, with the exception of the downing of flight 17 Russia has, arguably, every right to militarily intervene in East Ukraine for two reasons. Firstly, to protect ethnic Russians from being slaughtered and oppressed by a fascist junta in Kiev who are in power only as a consequence of a coup that overthrew a democratically elected government. Secondly, because Nato and the West have already broken faith with Russia by attempting to extend their political, economic and military influence right up to the borders of Russia in direct contravention of an agreement between Russia and Western Europe/USA. This has already happened in Poland (again, in direct contravention of that agreement) with the installation of missile bases capable of striking into the heart of Russia and Russia has every good reason to suspect the same may happen in Ukraine.

Now, I am going to assume, for the moment, that you are simply misinformed and/or have been sucked in the by relentless propaganda that has been pushed down all our throats for the last several weeks and months. However, if you continue to maintain this line of non-argument for much longer, I am going to begin to suspect that you are more than merely misinformed and have an unstated agenda to push.

[Little John]

​"Over 400 Ukrainian troops cross into Russia for refuge"

More than 400 Ukrainian troops have been allowed to cross into Russia on Sunday night after they requested sanctuary, Russian border guards reported.

According to the Rostov Region’s border guard spokesman Vasily Malaev, a total of 438 soldiers, including 164 Ukrainian border guards, have been allowed into Russia.

Kiev officials confirmed the Russian report....

Rest of the article can be found here:

http://rt.com/news/177740-ukrainian-mil ... ia-refuge/

[Little John]

"EU sanctions: Moscow disappointed by EU’s inability to act independently of US"

Moscow is disappointed by the EU’s inability to act independently from Washington’s dictation in the international arena, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in response to the new package of sanctions.....

Rest of the article can be found here:

http://rt.com/news/176736-eu-russia-ukraine-sanctions/


The EU government structures are now acting in the interest a cabal of global elites and are acting directly against the interests of the people of Europe.

[raspberry-blower]

To get a handle on what’s really going on, we have to understand that Ukraine is not just another bloody afterthought like Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria, none of which would dramatically impact the US’s role as the world’s only superpower. Ukraine is different. Ukraine is an essential part of Washington’s plan to pivot to Asia. If Washington is unable to achieve its objectives in Ukraine — create a chokepoint for vital resources flowing from Russia to the EU, establish NATO bases in the heart of Eurasia, and drive a wedge between Moscow and Brussels — then the plan to maintain US global hegemony for the next century will fail. And if the plan fails, then China will gradually become the world’s biggest and most powerful economy, economic ties between Moscow and Europe grow stronger, and the US will slide into irreversible decline. Get the picture?

This is the scenario that Washington wants to avoid at all cost. That’s why the anti-Russia hysteria in the media has been so ferocious and unrelenting. That’s why the State Department assisted in the coup d’état that toppled the Ukrainian government and triggered the crisis. And that’s why ruling elites of all stripes have thrown their support behind a policy that recklessly pits one nuclear-armed adversary against another. It’s because the bigshot money-guys who run this country are bound and determined to be the Kingfish for the next hundred years even if it means plunging the world into the abyss of a third world war. That’s just a chance they’re willing to take.

The Unanswered Questions of MH17

Washington is leading the rest of NATO up a very dangerous and foolish path here. Not that Cameron et al are passive bystanders either..

[raspberry-blower]

Whist on this matter:

The crisis in Ukraine will continue to Russia’s and all of humanity’s cost until Russia explains to the stupid, arrogant, hubris-filled West that the West’s criminal and aggressive actions against Russia bear a real cost, and that Russia is prepared to impose the cost.

The propagandized people in the West have no idea of the fate toward which their demented governments are driving them. Russia needs to make it clear to the brainwashed propagandized peoples in the West that Russia is not going to be a puppet state of the West or to accept gratuitous aggression from the White House Fool.

It would help to save life on Earth if China also made this clear.

The sooner the better.

Unless the world reins in the demented criminals in Washington, the world has signed its own death warrant.

"Intelligent American" is an Oxymoron

How do we rein in our demented leaders without bloodshed?
The voting system (in both the UK & US) are rigged in favour of big business..

[Little John]

blood on the streets and quite a lot of it probably

[oobers]

I also note you have singularly failed to address the second part of my previous post.

Steve, you have put much effort into responding to my post - thank you. But I don't think you have understood. I am not looking to debate with you your position vs my position as I don't have one. I don't feel I can because there are such differing reports in different media sources. My problem is knowing which sources to trust in getting to the truth. For example, there are lots of articles from RT.com. As I understand it, they are a nonprofit independent organisation but some have accused them of being a mouthpiece for the Kremlin. The BBC is often cited on this forum as a reliable information source but on this issue they are accused of propaganda. Perhaps I should just go and do a GCSE in media studies and that would teach me how to verify media accounts but I was rather hoping others here would have suggestions

[vtsnowedin]

Oobers;
There is no such thing as an unbiased completely correct source. The writers after all are human and have grown up with their own biases and are working for a boss with his own plus the desires of the advertisers to attract a given audience.
To find out the truth you need to gather info from several sources and compare them. After a while you will be able to assign a bias lean to any given source and apply the right numbers or salt grains to what they say. First look for facts, things that either did happen or did not. If both sides say these are the facts then they probably are (baring hidden evidence by those being reported on). Then look at what each source tells you the facts mean, there you start to see the difference between them.
A truly biased source will conveniently forget to report some of the facts to make there point of view seem more correct. Others will harp on a story day after day trying to churn it into a crisis when there is no new news on that front. Others will report some other off topic story to reduce the air time of what is really going on.
Record a couple of news casts on the same night. see what both reported and what one side or the other left out. Are they reporting the news from the same planet on the same day? One side or the other chooses to leave out this and harp on that. Why?
It can be an interesting game trying to read between the lines and get to the bottom of an issue. Watch out for your own bias clouding your perception of what you see and read.

[Little John]

I also note you have singularly failed to address the second part of my previous post.

Steve, you have put much effort into responding to my post - thank you. But I don't think you have understood. I am not looking to debate with you your position vs my position as I don't have one. I don't feel I can because there are such differing reports in different media sources. My problem is knowing which sources to trust in getting to the truth. For example, there are lots of articles from RT.com. As I understand it, they are a nonprofit independent organisation but some have accused them of being a mouthpiece for the Kremlin. The BBC is often cited on this forum as a reliable information source but on this issue they are accused of propaganda. Perhaps I should just go and do a GCSE in media studies and that would teach me how to verify media accounts but I was rather hoping others here would have suggestions

Oobers, you don't need a qualification in media studies, you just need to discount any accusation that is not backed up by actual evidence. Let's state the known facts:

Crimea voted in overwhelming numbers for cessation from Ukraine. Around 80% of a 90% turnout in fact. They did so in response to the ousting, in Kiev, of a democratically elected President and government. Russia did not annex Crimea, as is persistently stated by our governments and by our MSM. That is a bald lie, plain and simple, and repetition of a lie does not make it true. What it should do at the very least, however, is make you question everything else that is put out by our MSM on this issue.

There is no evidence whatsoever, not a shred, of Russian military involvement in the current conflict in the East of Ukraine. I repeat, not a shred. If there was, you can be sure we would have had it blasted at us via the MSM. Instead, we have had a continual stream of evidence-free accusations of it. The USA has high-tech satellites over Ukraine. These bloody things can virtually read a number plate. Do you think, if there was actual evidence of Russian military assistance to the Eastern rebels, those satellite would not have picked at least a single example of it happening. Just one would have been enough for our governments to have gone into paroxysms of hysteria. But no. Nothing. Nada. Ziltch.

Finally with regards to flight MH17

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?

There's more, but is it really necessary Oobers?

[RenewableCandy]

Ah you've beaten me to it with the details and all, Steve.

I was actually going to say, simply, that a lot of the stuff we are hearing very probably isn't true because, if it were, evidence for it would be being shouted from the media's collective rooftops.

Regarding the Crimea election: apparently the UN refused to send in Observers because they reckoned the said election was invalid from the start, on the grounds of not enough notice having been given to the Crimean people. Assuming that the vast majority of people who should do so had registered to vote, (you know how it is, you sometimes let this lapse if you don't reckon there's an election in the offing...), the result wouldn't have been much different had the "correct" amount of notice been given. But yes, for those who don't like Russia, the election was technically a cheat.

[Little John]

Ah you've beaten me to it with the details and all, Steve.

I was actually going to say, simply, that a lot of the stuff we are hearing very probably isn't true because, if it were, evidence for it would be being shouted from the media's collective rooftops.

Regarding the Crimea election: apparently the UN refused to send in Observers because they reckoned the said election was invalid from the start, on the grounds of not enough notice having been given to the Crimean people. Assuming that the vast majority of people who should do so had registered to vote, (you know how it is, you sometimes let this lapse if you don't reckon there's an election in the offing...), the result wouldn't have been much different had the "correct" amount of notice been given. But yes, for those who don't like Russia, the election was technically a cheat.

Yes to all that.

I would also add that, all things considered, given the extraordinary political circumstances under which that referendum took place, it was a remarkably civilised affair.

[lancasterlad]

Putin orders retaliatory sanctions - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28680656