9 ms·

I'm in a position where I'm mostly exposed to non-western information regarding the situation in Ukraine, since my girlfriend is Russian. It's funny to see the

by zorbo 12y ago

I'm in a position where I'm mostly exposed to non-western information regarding the situation in Ukraine, since my girlfriend is Russian. It's funny to see the exact opposite story as the western media is giving. Stories about pro-russians being harassed by pro-western Urkainians and the government were (and are) abundant. From their point of view, a pro-russian government was illegitimately overthrown. General opinion seems to be that democracy only matters to the west as long as it's not too inconvenient to them. Constant allegations and sanctions against Russia while they feel they have very little influence on what pro-russians are doing in Ukraine. Mostly, it seems like there's a feeling of pro-russian sentiments being repressed, the west not giving a damn and Russia's hand being tied via international pressure. Meanwhile, when I look at the western media, it honestly disgusts me. While pro-russian media generally seems to ignore a lot of stories that put them in a negative light, the western media seems to actively be painting pro-russian and Russia in a bad light. It's a general trend I've noticed in where western media is often on the offensive, and the "counter-party" on the defensive. I guess it's a cultural thing. Regardless, the Ukrainian government has been making a fool of itself in both the western and eastern media. Since this whole thing started, they've done nothing but make unfounded allegations, trying to "poke the bear" (Russia) and instigate unrest. I feel that they're responsible for a large part of the needless escalation in this conflict. PS: Your use of the word "propaganda" is an excellent example of how we view things. Everything the "other" side says is propaganda, anything "our" side says is necessarily the truth. This happens on both sides of the conflict, and I think it's a large barrier to actually start solving the problems. Rather than claiming "propaganda", we should consider it points-of-view, and the first thing we should do is ask ourselves: why does the other side hold this point of view, and how come they view it as a completely legitimate moral view to have? PPS: My girlfriend is, at times, greatly distressed by this whole thing. Like many Russians, almost half her family is in fact Ukrainian. Surprisingly, this seems to cause feelings of sympathy for those family members by both sides, yet they remain quite harsh against other Ukrainian or Russian viewpoints.

varsketiz 12y ago
The "counter-party", which is Russian media is on the defensive for a good reason. They have a lot to be defensive about, ie http://www.businessinsider.com/nato-satellite-photo-evidence-russia-lying-about-ukraine-2014-8 http://www.businessinsider.com/nato-satellite-photo-evidence... Russia is offensive in their actions and defensive in the words covering it up. Would you like to provide examples of Ukraine's unfounded allegations against Russia? Would you like to explain how this is needless escalation, when part of Ukraine is occupied by Russia?
- zorbo 12y ago
  > needless escalation, when part of Ukraine is occupied by Russia? The occupation of Ukraine is something that's only happening as of just now. Before that, the situation in Ukraine was much more akin to a civil war. The escalations by the Ukrainian government have been happening since the beginning of this whole thing.
  - vdaniuk 12y ago
    Conveniently forgetting about Crimea, aren't you?
  - varsketiz 12y ago
    Are you saying Crimea is not occupied, or are you calling what happened months ago "now"? Would you care to provide specific examples of the escalations?
  - xi 12y ago
    Crimea was occupied by Russian forces in February. Military hostilities in mainland Ukraine started in April when Sloviansk has been captured by Russian ex-FSB officer Igor Girkin and his gang of Russian ultranationalists.
thenmar 12y ago
So would you disagree with the general sentiment in the west that most Russian media is state controlled and relatively unfree compared to most western media?
- zorbo 12y ago
  I don't agree or disagree, because I honestly have no idea, because I don't think I've been getting much official Russian media information. It don't think it's much different then it is over here in the west. People get their information from all over the place. I'm guessing there's national Russian media (which is state controlled, biased and in general not to be trusted), but there's also plenty of pro-russian international media, which is not bound by whatever the Russian government dictates. So in short, I think (but am not sure) that the whole concept of "State controlled Russian media" is a fallacy. Even if there's an agency that's state controlled, it doesn't matter. It would be like Fox news being owned by the U.S. government.
  - varsketiz 12y ago
    That is a very western-ish view of how things in Russia are. You judge them by your own ideals. Yes, there might be some pro-russian international media that is not controlled by Kremlin, but most of the time you can trace the money to Russia. We can discuss any specific examples that you want - I'm not claiming knowledge here, but I don't want to do a lot of research for a HN comment. I'll give one example - rt.com. I mean, you "think" that is a fallacy, but what do you base it on? Do you think things like this don't indicate a thing? http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php I'm not claiming there is no pro-russian international media that is not funded by Russia. I am saying it will be difficult to find it. Imagine all the TV be like Fox News and actually controlled by the Government. You will get closer to Russian reality. You also have to understand that whatever you read in english, that comes from things like rt.com is adapted to a broader and more intelligent audience and to foreigners. What you get in russian is different. Disclaimer - I am a lithuanian, I am exposed to lithuanian media which covers things from Ukrainian perspective, sometimes covers news from the Separatist side; I am exposed to western media. Sadly, my russian is quite poor, so I'm not exposed to russian media in russian much.
IgorPartola 12y ago
I appreciate a reasoned response. However: 1. Propaganda: in Russia, the media is very tightly controlled by the Kremlin. This is not the case in the US and most Western countries. Russia can use propaganda easily, and it is in their interest. The stories come out of their media are suspiciously different from any other stories from anywhere else. Simplest explanation: they are using propaganda, or at least coloring stories for their benefit. 2. The Ukrainian government is a joke. It was a joke when Yanukovych was in power too. It will continue being a joke until Ukraine is left alone to figure its shit out. You cannot expect a country that's been independent for under 25 years to do things perfectly. For a great example of countries that are democratic, yet get stuff wrong all the time see most Western countries. 3. The Ukrainian government did not cause all of this. Putin has a motive to invade Ukraine (rebulding USSR as his legacy) and an opportunity: currently nobody will oppose him and he has the upper hand militarily. Do you think he is so easily offended that something the Ukrainian government said will cause him to do something like this?
- foobarqux 12y ago
  1. Western media consistently represents pro-state messages even without direct state control. This is for structural reasons (read Manufacturing Consent). 2. The US is definitely not "leaving Ukraine alone". 3. Typical jejeune analysis that reduces geopolitics to ego and personality defects (and only criticizing those of one side)
- nokiaman 12y ago
  Here's an air-strike on a civilian area, and a probable war crime committed by the Ukrainian government. It's gory, it's sickening. How many reporters from the Free Press covered this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=I912NiRg8YA#t=38 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=I91... All sides must be held to account for any crimes committed. However, it's hard to have any kind of rational discussion when so many people have a Pavlovian reaction to the word "Russia" (and "China"). I have no dog in this fight, but it seems like even normally rational and logic-minded programmers and hackers are not immune to conditioning over a period of time.
  - 12y ago
bliker 12y ago
Well there are soldiers of one country invading other sovereign country. Is that not true?
AngrySkillzz 12y ago
> General opinion seems to be that democracy only matters to the west as long as it's not too inconvenient to them. Maybe it's not true in this case, but that would be a much easier point to argue against if the west hadn't continually demonstrated that.
danmaz74 12y ago
Putin said that: * No Russian army forces were active in Crimea * He would never annex Crimea to Russia He then annexed Crimea, and distributed lots of decorations to the army corps that occupied it. How can we possibly still trust anything Putin says? Regarding who is mistreating whom, what do you think about the forced march of Ukrainian POWs on the day of Ukraine independence, or about this: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/world/europe/russia-ukraine.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/world/europe/russia-ukrain...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
aagha 12y ago
I'm curious: is the pro-Russian perspective that the civilian airliner that was shot down NOT by pro-Russian forces?
- varsketiz 12y ago
  Well, I think this illustrates the situation somewhat well (if you think the conspiracy theorists in the west are nuts...): http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/1872w0/julia-ioffe http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/1872w0/julia-ioffe If you want a more official position, google site:rt.com mh17 and you'll find lots of articles. I'll leave it for the reader to judge their presentation of the situation.
lcedp 12y ago
> pro-russian government was illegitimately overthrown 1) That pro-russian government was corrupt as hell (as Putin's government is). You can google photo proofs. It's not a secret really for anyone. 2) Is there a way to overthrow a government legitimately? Neither fair elections, courts, or referendum were available Is it propaganda when I'm stating Russia annexed the part of the foreign state and want to do it once more?

by zorbo 12y ago

varsketiz 12y ago

The "counter-party", which is Russian media is on the defensive for a good reason. They have a lot to be defensive about, ie http://www.businessinsider.com/nato-satellite-photo-evidence-russia-lying-about-ukraine-2014-8 http://www.businessinsider.com/nato-satellite-photo-evidence... Russia is offensive in their actions and defensive in the words covering it up. Would you like to provide examples of Ukraine's unfounded allegations against Russia? Would you like to explain how this is needless escalation, when part of Ukraine is occupied by Russia?

zorbo 12y ago
> needless escalation, when part of Ukraine is occupied by Russia? The occupation of Ukraine is something that's only happening as of just now. Before that, the situation in Ukraine was much more akin to a civil war. The escalations by the Ukrainian government have been happening since the beginning of this whole thing.
- vdaniuk 12y ago
  Conveniently forgetting about Crimea, aren't you?
- varsketiz 12y ago
  Are you saying Crimea is not occupied, or are you calling what happened months ago "now"? Would you care to provide specific examples of the escalations?
- xi 12y ago
  Crimea was occupied by Russian forces in February. Military hostilities in mainland Ukraine started in April when Sloviansk has been captured by Russian ex-FSB officer Igor Girkin and his gang of Russian ultranationalists.

thenmar 12y ago

So would you disagree with the general sentiment in the west that most Russian media is state controlled and relatively unfree compared to most western media?

zorbo 12y ago
I don't agree or disagree, because I honestly have no idea, because I don't think I've been getting much official Russian media information. It don't think it's much different then it is over here in the west. People get their information from all over the place. I'm guessing there's national Russian media (which is state controlled, biased and in general not to be trusted), but there's also plenty of pro-russian international media, which is not bound by whatever the Russian government dictates. So in short, I think (but am not sure) that the whole concept of "State controlled Russian media" is a fallacy. Even if there's an agency that's state controlled, it doesn't matter. It would be like Fox news being owned by the U.S. government.
- varsketiz 12y ago
  That is a very western-ish view of how things in Russia are. You judge them by your own ideals. Yes, there might be some pro-russian international media that is not controlled by Kremlin, but most of the time you can trace the money to Russia. We can discuss any specific examples that you want - I'm not claiming knowledge here, but I don't want to do a lot of research for a HN comment. I'll give one example - rt.com. I mean, you "think" that is a fallacy, but what do you base it on? Do you think things like this don't indicate a thing? http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php I'm not claiming there is no pro-russian international media that is not funded by Russia. I am saying it will be difficult to find it. Imagine all the TV be like Fox News and actually controlled by the Government. You will get closer to Russian reality. You also have to understand that whatever you read in english, that comes from things like rt.com is adapted to a broader and more intelligent audience and to foreigners. What you get in russian is different. Disclaimer - I am a lithuanian, I am exposed to lithuanian media which covers things from Ukrainian perspective, sometimes covers news from the Separatist side; I am exposed to western media. Sadly, my russian is quite poor, so I'm not exposed to russian media in russian much.

IgorPartola 12y ago

I appreciate a reasoned response. However: 1. Propaganda: in Russia, the media is very tightly controlled by the Kremlin. This is not the case in the US and most Western countries. Russia can use propaganda easily, and it is in their interest. The stories come out of their media are suspiciously different from any other stories from anywhere else. Simplest explanation: they are using propaganda, or at least coloring stories for their benefit. 2. The Ukrainian government is a joke. It was a joke when Yanukovych was in power too. It will continue being a joke until Ukraine is left alone to figure its shit out. You cannot expect a country that's been independent for under 25 years to do things perfectly. For a great example of countries that are democratic, yet get stuff wrong all the time see most Western countries. 3. The Ukrainian government did not cause all of this. Putin has a motive to invade Ukraine (rebulding USSR as his legacy) and an opportunity: currently nobody will oppose him and he has the upper hand militarily. Do you think he is so easily offended that something the Ukrainian government said will cause him to do something like this?

foobarqux 12y ago
1. Western media consistently represents pro-state messages even without direct state control. This is for structural reasons (read Manufacturing Consent). 2. The US is definitely not "leaving Ukraine alone". 3. Typical jejeune analysis that reduces geopolitics to ego and personality defects (and only criticizing those of one side)
nokiaman 12y ago
Here's an air-strike on a civilian area, and a probable war crime committed by the Ukrainian government. It's gory, it's sickening. How many reporters from the Free Press covered this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=I912NiRg8YA#t=38 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=I91... All sides must be held to account for any crimes committed. However, it's hard to have any kind of rational discussion when so many people have a Pavlovian reaction to the word "Russia" (and "China"). I have no dog in this fight, but it seems like even normally rational and logic-minded programmers and hackers are not immune to conditioning over a period of time.
- 12y ago

bliker 12y ago

Well there are soldiers of one country invading other sovereign country. Is that not true?

AngrySkillzz 12y ago

> General opinion seems to be that democracy only matters to the west as long as it's not too inconvenient to them. Maybe it's not true in this case, but that would be a much easier point to argue against if the west hadn't continually demonstrated that.

danmaz74 12y ago

Putin said that: * No Russian army forces were active in Crimea * He would never annex Crimea to Russia He then annexed Crimea, and distributed lots of decorations to the army corps that occupied it. How can we possibly still trust anything Putin says? Regarding who is mistreating whom, what do you think about the forced march of Ukrainian POWs on the day of Ukraine independence, or about this: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/world/europe/russia-ukraine.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/world/europe/russia-ukrain...

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

aagha 12y ago

I'm curious: is the pro-Russian perspective that the civilian airliner that was shot down NOT by pro-Russian forces?

varsketiz 12y ago
Well, I think this illustrates the situation somewhat well (if you think the conspiracy theorists in the west are nuts...): http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/1872w0/julia-ioffe http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/1872w0/julia-ioffe If you want a more official position, google site:rt.com mh17 and you'll find lots of articles. I'll leave it for the reader to judge their presentation of the situation.

lcedp 12y ago

> pro-russian government was illegitimately overthrown 1) That pro-russian government was corrupt as hell (as Putin's government is). You can google photo proofs. It's not a secret really for anyone. 2) Is there a way to overthrow a government legitimately? Neither fair elections, courts, or referendum were available Is it propaganda when I'm stating Russia annexed the part of the foreign state and want to do it once more?