7 ms·

You don't think that 600 Ukrainian and western sources only tell one side of the story though? I went down the list. All the Russian sources are actually Ukra

by nzmsv 5y ago

You don't think that 600 Ukrainian and western sources only tell one side of the story though? I went down the list. All the Russian sources are actually Ukrainian (in Russian language). Just because you disagree with a perspective doesn't mean it should be censored. Look at the "reactions in Russia" section. There is not a single positive sentiment expressed there about the situation in Crimea. I guarantee you that this is not representative of the the public opinion in Russia (whether or not you agree with it). All citations are from opposition people nobody has ever heard of. Not a single one from the official media? That's neutral? Really? If all the people in Crimea are victims and are controlled by evil bad Russia, how come Ukraine turned off their water supply? The one they didn't build. Don't they want those poor oppressed souls to come back into the fold? Where's that reference in the article? And in the interest of keeping an open mind: here come the downvotes! The people clicking that arrow probably think of themselves as very open minded too.

Const-me 5y ago
> You don't think that 600 Ukrainian and western sources only tell one side of the story though? These sources aren’t exclusively western, e.g. Al Jazeera is based in Qatar. Another thing, I have some sources outside of the Internets. I personally know a few people who fought the war, and many civilians who fled the war. Their stories match these 600 sources of the English version of Wikipedia.
- nzmsv 5y ago
  I know some people who fled the war as well, to Russia. Not liking war doesn't necessarily mean supporting handing Ukraine over to the USA. This part is completely lost in the "Russia bad" narrative though.
  - nemothekid 5y ago
    I'm not sure what your anecdotes have to do with the matter being discussed. Regardless of the fact if you support the war, the truth remains that the war is happening between Ukraine and Russia. For Russian wikipedia to conceal that fact is censorship.
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      "the truth remains that the war is happening between Ukraine and Russia." Interesting point to illustrate, why wikipedia's articles are not as good as the scientific ones. Because don't you think, this truth is a matter of perspective? Because to my understanding, a real war between Ukraine and Russia would look a bit different and would have been over long ago. There are definitely strong elements of a civil war, despite russias covert and open engagement. And with the US and EU involvment on the pro west Ukrainian side - it is complicated geopolitics. Hard to find simple truths there, when all involved sides are engaged with disinformation and propaganda.
      - nemothekid 5y ago
        I'm not sure what you mean by a "real war". Is it just because there aren't fighter jets and nukes involved that makes it a fake war? If there are Russian soldiers firing guns and occupying Ukrainian territory then it's not a "matter of perspective"; it's an act of war.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - Const-me 5y ago
    Apparently, we have very different political positions. But that should not be relevant. Wikipedia’s declared goal is not about politics. It’s about preserving knowledge about notable enough subjects. Russians have started the war, and have been fighting the war from the very beginning in March 2012. That’s not a controversial theory, but a well-established fact with verifiable references all over the internets. Yet Russian version of Wikipedia seems unaware.
  - visarga 5y ago
    > supporting handing Ukraine over to the USA That's up for Ukrainians to decide, not Russia.
    - arp242 5y ago
      It continues to surprise me how many people don't seem to recognize the basic right of self-determination – ranging from the status of Ukraine to Scotland to Puerto Rico – from all sorts of different ideologies. e.g. non-Puerto Ricans argueing in favour of statehood well before it was clear the population actually wanted it (only since Nov 2020 is there a referendum with a small majority in favour of it).
  - scottrogowski 5y ago
    I upvoted your first comment because I felt that you were making a valid if controversial point. But the concept of "handing over" Ukraine really underlines why the rest of the world views Russia as such a threat to world peace. Ukrainians should decide their own future. It's not Russia's to hand over nor is it America's to take. Sometimes you hear quotes by high ranking Russian military officials and it feels like there is this persistent belief that NATO somehow "stole" Eastern Europe from Russia when the reality was that Eastern Europe fled to NATO to deter Russia after several brutal decades in the Soviet sphere of influence. Certainly the concept of some countries being good and others being bad is outdated. The West has engaged in more than it's share of evil. But that doesn't justify moral relativism in international affairs. Nor does it allow one country to attempt annexation of another against its will.
    - nzmsv 5y ago
      So, hypothetically, let's say Canada decided to elect a Communist government tomorrow. Do you honestly think the USA would let Canadians decide their fate?
      - arp242 5y ago
        A contrived comparison as nothing close to this happened in Ukraine.
        nzmsv 5y ago
        Yeah, Ukrainians only elected a hostile (to Russia) government that would threaten the viability of a major gas pipeline to Europe. These exports are basically the only real means of income for Russia. At the same time Russia would lose access to the Black Sea. Like it or not, a military's job is the preservation of the well-being of their country. If they had allowed this to happen they'd have been asleep at the switch. Also, it's funny how all the countries suddenly wanting to change things up government-wise just happen to be on the path of major gas pipelines from Russia. Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia. A coincidence, that. Environmentalists also spoke up about the dangers of undersea pipelines with perfect timing (see Nort Stream 2). And so you have a country whose power structure is literally facing an existential threat. Now, maybe you think that Russian power structure really is better off disappearing into the sunset (and I may even agree with you). But to think it'll do so without a fight is naive. This thing is bigger than Ukraine. This is a well-orchestrated multi-year operation to change the balance of power in Europe and potentially force a regime change in Russia. Ukrainians have their dreams and admirable spirit, but I think when the dust settles they will be disappointed to find themselves to have been used as pawns in a much bigger game.
  - Kim_Bruning 5y ago
    I'm from the EU/NATO side of this. It does help to understand how the other side in a conflict thinks! It helps to establish context. From Russia's perspective NATO has been progressively taking over countries that were previously part of Russia's safety buffer. Ukraine entering talks to join the NATO sphere of influence was one step too far for them. Russia has a major naval base at Sevastopol that threatened to "fall into NATO hands." From their own strategic viewpoint they could never allow this to happen without a fight! And of course, everyone is the good guy in their own story.
- leephillips 5y ago
  Al Jazeera is is not just based in Qatar, it is Qatari state media.
  - bscphil 5y ago
    At least officially, the situation is similar to that of the BBC. Both AJ and the BBC are government funded, but both have editorial independence of their local government. Both have been accused of bias in favor of their funding governments.
    - leephillips 5y ago
      You can not discuss these things without taking into account the nature of the respective governments. Under an authoritarian regime, one should at least be skeptical of the concept of a government funded news organization with editorial independence. You might find this interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iWJVXaFTxo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iWJVXaFTxo
      - naturalauction 5y ago
        Not saying that Al-Jazeera is unbiased at all and the differing content on the Arabic and English channels does seem to be quite concerning. That being said, the guy behind Nas Daily is paid by the UAE government not only for tourism work (sponsored videos) but also as an instructor for a government run/funded media academy [1]. The UAE obviously has a bone to pick with Al-Jazeera and Qatar. Nas Daily itself has some received some criticism about their coverage of Israel, see [2]. While the accusation that he is an official part of Israeli propaganda seems a bit unfounded, there does seem to be more to the story than what meets the eye. [1] https://newmediaacademy.ae/ar-digital-creator/#pll_switcher https://newmediaacademy.ae/ar-digital-creator/#pll_switcher [2] https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/nas-daily-israel-palestine-uae-bds-boycott-normalisation https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/nas-daily-israel-palestin...
        leephillips 5y ago

by nzmsv 5y ago

Const-me 5y ago

> You don't think that 600 Ukrainian and western sources only tell one side of the story though? These sources aren’t exclusively western, e.g. Al Jazeera is based in Qatar. Another thing, I have some sources outside of the Internets. I personally know a few people who fought the war, and many civilians who fled the war. Their stories match these 600 sources of the English version of Wikipedia.

nzmsv 5y ago
I know some people who fled the war as well, to Russia. Not liking war doesn't necessarily mean supporting handing Ukraine over to the USA. This part is completely lost in the "Russia bad" narrative though.
- nemothekid 5y ago
  I'm not sure what your anecdotes have to do with the matter being discussed. Regardless of the fact if you support the war, the truth remains that the war is happening between Ukraine and Russia. For Russian wikipedia to conceal that fact is censorship.
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    "the truth remains that the war is happening between Ukraine and Russia." Interesting point to illustrate, why wikipedia's articles are not as good as the scientific ones. Because don't you think, this truth is a matter of perspective? Because to my understanding, a real war between Ukraine and Russia would look a bit different and would have been over long ago. There are definitely strong elements of a civil war, despite russias covert and open engagement. And with the US and EU involvment on the pro west Ukrainian side - it is complicated geopolitics. Hard to find simple truths there, when all involved sides are engaged with disinformation and propaganda.
    - nemothekid 5y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean by a "real war". Is it just because there aren't fighter jets and nukes involved that makes it a fake war? If there are Russian soldiers firing guns and occupying Ukrainian territory then it's not a "matter of perspective"; it's an act of war.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- Const-me 5y ago
  Apparently, we have very different political positions. But that should not be relevant. Wikipedia’s declared goal is not about politics. It’s about preserving knowledge about notable enough subjects. Russians have started the war, and have been fighting the war from the very beginning in March 2012. That’s not a controversial theory, but a well-established fact with verifiable references all over the internets. Yet Russian version of Wikipedia seems unaware.
- visarga 5y ago
  > supporting handing Ukraine over to the USA That's up for Ukrainians to decide, not Russia.
  - arp242 5y ago
    It continues to surprise me how many people don't seem to recognize the basic right of self-determination – ranging from the status of Ukraine to Scotland to Puerto Rico – from all sorts of different ideologies. e.g. non-Puerto Ricans argueing in favour of statehood well before it was clear the population actually wanted it (only since Nov 2020 is there a referendum with a small majority in favour of it).
- scottrogowski 5y ago
  I upvoted your first comment because I felt that you were making a valid if controversial point. But the concept of "handing over" Ukraine really underlines why the rest of the world views Russia as such a threat to world peace. Ukrainians should decide their own future. It's not Russia's to hand over nor is it America's to take. Sometimes you hear quotes by high ranking Russian military officials and it feels like there is this persistent belief that NATO somehow "stole" Eastern Europe from Russia when the reality was that Eastern Europe fled to NATO to deter Russia after several brutal decades in the Soviet sphere of influence. Certainly the concept of some countries being good and others being bad is outdated. The West has engaged in more than it's share of evil. But that doesn't justify moral relativism in international affairs. Nor does it allow one country to attempt annexation of another against its will.
  - nzmsv 5y ago
    So, hypothetically, let's say Canada decided to elect a Communist government tomorrow. Do you honestly think the USA would let Canadians decide their fate?
    - arp242 5y ago
      A contrived comparison as nothing close to this happened in Ukraine.
      - nzmsv 5y ago
        Yeah, Ukrainians only elected a hostile (to Russia) government that would threaten the viability of a major gas pipeline to Europe. These exports are basically the only real means of income for Russia. At the same time Russia would lose access to the Black Sea. Like it or not, a military's job is the preservation of the well-being of their country. If they had allowed this to happen they'd have been asleep at the switch. Also, it's funny how all the countries suddenly wanting to change things up government-wise just happen to be on the path of major gas pipelines from Russia. Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia. A coincidence, that. Environmentalists also spoke up about the dangers of undersea pipelines with perfect timing (see Nort Stream 2). And so you have a country whose power structure is literally facing an existential threat. Now, maybe you think that Russian power structure really is better off disappearing into the sunset (and I may even agree with you). But to think it'll do so without a fight is naive. This thing is bigger than Ukraine. This is a well-orchestrated multi-year operation to change the balance of power in Europe and potentially force a regime change in Russia. Ukrainians have their dreams and admirable spirit, but I think when the dust settles they will be disappointed to find themselves to have been used as pawns in a much bigger game.
- Kim_Bruning 5y ago
  I'm from the EU/NATO side of this. It does help to understand how the other side in a conflict thinks! It helps to establish context. From Russia's perspective NATO has been progressively taking over countries that were previously part of Russia's safety buffer. Ukraine entering talks to join the NATO sphere of influence was one step too far for them. Russia has a major naval base at Sevastopol that threatened to "fall into NATO hands." From their own strategic viewpoint they could never allow this to happen without a fight! And of course, everyone is the good guy in their own story.
leephillips 5y ago
Al Jazeera is is not just based in Qatar, it is Qatari state media.
- bscphil 5y ago
  At least officially, the situation is similar to that of the BBC. Both AJ and the BBC are government funded, but both have editorial independence of their local government. Both have been accused of bias in favor of their funding governments.
  - leephillips 5y ago
    You can not discuss these things without taking into account the nature of the respective governments. Under an authoritarian regime, one should at least be skeptical of the concept of a government funded news organization with editorial independence. You might find this interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iWJVXaFTxo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iWJVXaFTxo
    - naturalauction 5y ago
      Not saying that Al-Jazeera is unbiased at all and the differing content on the Arabic and English channels does seem to be quite concerning. That being said, the guy behind Nas Daily is paid by the UAE government not only for tourism work (sponsored videos) but also as an instructor for a government run/funded media academy [1]. The UAE obviously has a bone to pick with Al-Jazeera and Qatar. Nas Daily itself has some received some criticism about their coverage of Israel, see [2]. While the accusation that he is an official part of Israeli propaganda seems a bit unfounded, there does seem to be more to the story than what meets the eye. [1] https://newmediaacademy.ae/ar-digital-creator/#pll_switcher https://newmediaacademy.ae/ar-digital-creator/#pll_switcher [2] https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/nas-daily-israel-palestine-uae-bds-boycott-normalisation https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/nas-daily-israel-palestin...
      - leephillips 5y ago