Exactly what "propaganda" were they getting from Russian TV?

Russia didn't "take Crimea" against the will of the vast majority of Crimeans, which shouldn't surprise anyone, since the place was arbitrarily "given" by the Soviets to Ukraine just 60 years ago, before which it had long belonged to Russia.

Like the folks from Right Sector & Co?

Agreed, but the overall chances of a peaceful outcome would increase exponentially if the US and NATO would get their noses out of the whole thing.

The answer is in the message you quoted. Let me help you:

On the format of it, you are right. But still, people agree with it. The eastern Ukrainians does not want to become second rank citizen in a nationalistic Ukraine. It is not what you want either, but it is how the action in Kiev is perceived. Perceptions are facts in politics, this is what makes it so difficult to follow.

Are you serious? The Russian media is inciting hatred on a daily basis, it's like watching an alternate reality. When Crimea was crawling with Russian troops, Putin looked the world in the face and denied what was obvious to everyone, and the Russian media didn't question it at all. Actually, they were secretly awarded medals:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...jective-crimea

There's too many examples to mention, but here's one from RT last week, that somehow managed to blame the Ukrainian SBU for attacking their own border guards (?) Can you give any kind of logical explanation why they would do that? Wouldn't pro-Russian activists trying to scare Ukraine border guards so they can control the border themselves make more sense?

http://rt.com/news/157788-ukraine-ru...r-provocation/


Russia also didn't take Crimea in a fair and open referendum either.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrode...or-annexation/

The history angle is a diversion to take your eye off the ball, and create a "warm fuzzy" in Russia. If everything is based on "historical aspects" then you can re-draw all the maps in Europe based on who's history book you have. If Mexico reclaimed Texas that would be justified because of the historical angles and cultural ties?

From a geographical POV, Crimea is physically connected to Ukraine, gets all of it's water, electricity, etc from there, so it kind of makes more sense in practical terms to be part of Ukraine.


I don't agree with extremism on either side. But how much pull does the Right Sector really have and pull in Kiev? No, they are a minority. Every country has some. The Russian media has taken a partial-truth and blown it out of proportion to make people in the East fearful.

....strange that you see NATO as the problem and not Putin. But yes, it would be good if Ukraine was left to settle their own problems peacefully.

That's been the US claim for weeks, but I have yet to see credible, unequivocal evidence to that effect. From where I sit, the most dangerous propaganda is coming from Washington, not Moscow.

What may not have been obvious [to you] is that Crimea was already 'crawling with Russian troops' before any of this began, thanks to a long-standing agreement with Ukraine. Russia didn't send all those troops in after the (illegal) coup — the vast majority of them were already there. Check your facts.

'There's too many', so you only cite one?

We don't really know who any of those people were, do we? It appears to have been a false-flag action, which have not been uncommon amidst this crisis. In any case, RT's reporting of the event doesn't come across (to me) as unequivocal propaganda or 'inciting hatred'. (Exactly whose 'hatred' against whom was 'incited' by that article?)

If the numbers cited in the (US media) source you cite are correct, where's the coverage of the supposed majority of Crimeans protesting their having been dragged kicking and screaming (back) into Russia against their will?

Erm, no, the 'history angle' is historical FACT.

Russia didn't 'reclaim' Crimea in the same sense that Mexico could (rightfully) 'reclaim' Texas (and then some) — Crimea didn't lobby or fight for independence from Russia and attachment to Ukraine in 1954, nor was the transition facilitated by the imperialist designs of the likes of the US.

Sorry, but I just don't see that. On the other hand, I do see western (i.e., US-driven) media taking partial- and non-truths and blowing them out of proportion to make the rest of Europe fearful.

Putin hasn't been rattling any swords, while NATO has done nothing but. Putin has been as hands-off as possible, while the US and its minions have enacted pretext-based sanctions against Russia and sat quietly while NATO generals blather about risks and enemies and fabricated allegations about Russian ambitions.

At the end of the Cold War, the Warsaw Pact was dissolved. The same should have happened to NATO, but no — although the US made (empty) promises not to pursue expansionist policies in Eastern Europe, expansion through aggressive NATO membership solicitation has been more the norm than the exception. Now the US agenda has come to Russia's doorstep in an attempt to contain and/or isolate Russia through supposed NATO allies.

Russia no longer has the old Soviet designs on world domination and influence. The US government still does. The real provocation is coming ultimately from Washington, not Moscow. Russia can't be blamed for being concerned about US-driven machinations within the country next-door, yet Putin has exercised commendable restraint so far.

You have provided no compelling, unequivocal evidence that Putin/Russia/Moscow is 'inciting hatred' or trying to manipulate the situation in Ukraine. RT's reporting comes from a Russian perspective, which is to be expected, but it isn't propagandistic, inflammatory or suggestive of economic or military punishment as a suitable solution.

I'm not convinced of any substantial Russian involvement in the Ukraine crisis. The same simply cannot be said of US involvement. Hence, I trust Putin today much more than I trust Obama, Kerry & Co.

__________________
"Live every day as if it were going to be your last; for one day you're sure to be right." — Harry Morant

Russia Today isn't even broadcasted in Russia or Ukraine. You better check Russian language news outlets.
One would think that in Ukraine, similarly to elsewhere except US, an Switzerland in western world countries, arms are not common place at all. And now, before this year, have you heard about any separatists movements in Easter Ukraine? IRA-like bombings? ETA-like assaults on politicians and police? Street demonstrations? Heh? Anything?

The sad part is that you seem convinced of it.

I could give you tons of examples of recent Russian propaganda, but I will save my breath.
You arrogantly dismiss Esto's posts and he has family there and reads the press in Russian. Of course, how could he possibly know and understand better than you.

So go ahead and cite at least a handful of your 'tons of examples' — if not for my sake, for the sake of others reading this thread. Why withhold your evidence because you're convinced someone else is otherwise persuaded?

Exactly how have I 'arrogantly dismissed' Esto's posts? From where I sit, I've tried to distinguish between facts and propaganda. Esto has no monopoly on the knowledge of such things, nor do I claim to have such.

Having family in the region and/or speaking the local language doesn't ipso facto render anyone immune from the influence of propaganda from either side.

__________________
"Live every day as if it were going to be your last; for one day you're sure to be right." — Harry Morant

...which is by design: RT is a foreign media outlet, not a domestic resource. (Domestic resources predominantly broadcast in Russian.)

Read Russia Today only and you'll find plenty..
Read about their actions in the region..and those are facts.
Now I know the poor buggers must be kept out of Europe so let's hand them in to the Russians, but at least don't pretend there is something else at stake.

About "Putin has been as hands-off as possible"

Let me see

1. He has taken a large chunk of another country without the agreement of the Government
2. He has unilaterally cancelled the contract for the naval base in Crimea without any legal basis
3. He has taken over most of the Ukranian navy without any legal basis or paying compensation
4. He is now trying to charge the Ukraine for gas at a much higher price than any other country pays

Interesting definition of "hands - off"

Citing all of Russia Today as propaganda is nothing but propaganda itself. The same could be said of the Western media. What has Russia Today published that has been unequivocally false or unequivocally misleading?

Contrast that with the many US accusations that have since been debunked.

Here's a relevant interview with Paul Craig Roberts (see his credentials here)

About these unarmed protestors who are getting shot; all I ever see on television are masked protestors carrying automatic weapons - may they are unemployed actors earning a few bob on the side?

The current 'government' of Ukraine is the illegitimate product of a violent coup, not democracy. In response to the violent coup and the uncertain aftermath of the same, Crimea voted to return to Russia after a 60-year separation. Putin didn't 'take' Crimea, rather Crimea ran back to Russia and asked for annexation, which Putin's government gladly accepted.

Exactly what 'contract' has Putin 'cancelled'?

Please provide at least a bit of substantiating documentation for this claim.

Check your facts: Ukraine has enjoyed a substantial discount on gas prices until recently. The Ukrainian government hasn't been paying its bills even at those low prices. Russia's consequent removal of the discount hardly amounts to Putin's 'charging higher prices' — instead it's more a matter of a long overdue return to economic reality.

__________________
"Live every day as if it were going to be your last; for one day you're sure to be right." — Harry Morant

Your fundamental problem is that you expect television to deliver truth.

I am in a good mood so I will do the Googling for you; but this is the first and last time.

1. About " Crimea voted to return to Russia after a 60-year separation. Putin didn't 'take' Crimea, rather Crimea ran back to Russia and asked for annexation, which Putin's government gladly accepted."

Putin took over the Crimea without any legal basis; a referendum was held without any of the usual democratic controls to ensure it was fair and honest and without the agreement of the Ukraine govt.
BTW, if Crimea ran back to anybody it would be more logical to the Tatars who owned Crimea for much longer than Russia did.

2. About "Exactly what 'contract' has Putin 'cancelled'?"

From the Russian Press statement on March 31st. "Russia’s lower chamber of parliament, the State Duma, has voted to denounce the Russian-Ukrainian agreements on the Black Sea Fleet. The MPs voted to halt the rent payments to Kiev for Sevastopol naval base and to cease writing off Ukraine’s debt.

The State Duma censured a total of four agreements on the status of the naval base in Sevastopol on Monday. These include the 1997 agreements between Moscow and Kiev, according to which Russia officially received a part of the Soviet Black Sea Fleet and started renting the naval base of Sevastopol from Ukraine, as well as the 2010 agreement prolonging the rent of the naval base till 2042, with an option of extending it by a further five years.

As part of the agreements, Russia annually paid the Ukrainian government $526.5 million for the base, as well as writing off $97.75 million of Kiev’s debt for the right to use Ukrainian waters and radio frequencies, and to compensate for the Black Sea Fleet’s environmental impact. The Russian Navy was allowed to station up to 25,000 troops, 24 artillery systems, 132 armored vehicles and 22 military planes on the territory of Crimea in addition to the vessels. "

3. About "Please provide at least a bit of substantiating documentation for this claim."
Quote "NOVO-OZERNE, Ukraine—Its escape to the open seas blocked by sunken ships, the Ukrainian minesweeper Cherkassy weaved and lurched in a narrow gulf on Tuesday afternoon with a symbolic, if inevitably brief, distinction: the last Ukrainian military vessel not yet seized by the Russian navy."

About "Check your facts: Ukraine has enjoyed a substantial discount on gas prices until recently."
This was all part of the Naval base agreements mentioned earlier.

Quote on higher gas prices "April 3 (Reuters) - Russia raised the gas price for Ukraine on Thursday for the second time this week, almost doubling it in three days and piling pressure on a neighbour on the brink of bankruptcy in the crisis over Crimea.
The latest rise will be to $485 per 1,000 cubic metres - two days after Gazprom announced a 44 percent increase in the gas price to $385.5 per 1,000 cubic metres from $268.5 due to unpaid bills. This is much more than the average price paid by consumers in the European Union."

Thanks. They are in Nikolaev (or Ukrainian spelling "Mykolaiv"), between Odessa and Crimea. It has been quiet so far, and we are all thankful for that.

Wow. So you are saying Obama, who is reducing the US military, pulling out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and generally viewed as "retreating" from the "global policeman" role, and instead focusing on domestic issues like health care, immigration, etc...this same Obama actually has some plan up his sleeve to somehow make aggressive moves towards Russia? Sorry dude, that doesn't make any sense even with my tin-foil hat on

I don't speak much Russian, but talk to some of my relatives in english there. I have relatives scattered all over east Europe, from Ukraine to Estonia, some who were Soviet officers, some who fled from Communism, some who fought against it, some who grudgingly lived thru it. I've lived in different parts as well at various times. The whole place, and the people, can be difficult to understand sometimes. For somebody who has never been there I would say it's probably impossible to understand.

But generally, people there, like everywhere else, just want to live in peace and do their daily thing. In Estonia, I have good friends who are ethnic Russian, but are fine living in Estonia. They don't want to move to Russia, and they don't want Russia to move to them either. Same with my relatives in Ukraine, they were born in Russia, but have lived in Ukraine 30 something years and they are fine with Ukraine. They don't want Putin to "rescue" them from "fascists", on the contrary, they see Putin as the agressor right now, biting off pieces of their country, and are ashamed that the Ukrainian government/military is too weak to stop it from happening.

I don't think I can really can't explain more, because I doubt you would understand, and you seem to have made up your mind anyway, for whatever reasons.

No, I expect television to deliver pictures

You mean "pictures" like THIS

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...jection%29.svg

and civil unrest starting in Anchorage/Ankoragov and Fairbanks/Farbankov after the next American Presidential elections ?

and similar things to happen in Helsinki and Tehran, Tashkent, Astana, Ulan Bator and Harbin

---

and here

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...jection%29.svg

what Vladimir P. thinks about

Did I say anything about Obama being the driving force behind US aggression? (hint: NO)

The US government's on-going expansionist agenda transcends the administration of any one president. The congressional-military-industrial complex has driven that war-mongering agenda for decades, entirely without regard for who has happened to occupy the white house at any given time.

(BTW, since you've mentioned him, Obama's campaign promises before his first term included the immediate (i.e., 5 years ago) shutting down the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Guantanamo Bay. None of that happened as promised, and there are still tens of thousands of Americans stationed in both Iraq and Afghanistan — just not officially as military occupiers.)

Crimea voluntarily returning to Russia after a Soviet-imposed, 60-year separation hardly amounts to 'Putin ... biting off pieces of their country'. Your relatives seem to suffer from short memory loss — or perhaps allow current politics to eclipse their perception of historical facts(?).

Give me a chance. Explain to me what it is that I don't understand, and you do understand — particularly if it's based on unequivocal fact, rather than western (US) propaganda.

What I've 'made up my mind' about is that I will no longer assume that the US-driven western media always tells the truth, and I will no longer share the presuppositions of others who continue to make that assumption, because it simply has no basis in fact. That doesn't mean the Russian media or Putin is always right, just that I reject the (untenable) presupposition that the US and its minions are particularly trustworthy vis-a-vis anybody else.

__________________
"Live every day as if it were going to be your last; for one day you're sure to be right." — Harry Morant

Thanks (for making that the last time).

Had you filtered out results from the synchronized, monotoned chorus of the western (US) media, your results would have been very different, perhaps even fact-based.