15 coaches online • Server time: 07:16
* * * Did you know? The highest combined winnings in a single match is 250000.
Recent Forum Topics  BB2020 - Kick team m... | What happened? | Secret League Americ... |
2014-03-26 21:31:26
9 votes, rating 3.8
9 votes, rating 3.8
Werchowna Rada
Hi, you guys probably know that I love talking politics, especially in places where I find people not focused on (mainstream) politics. (Wider range of opinions) :p
So, this is full blown politics, if you don't like it screw you, get lost.
For Europeans the degree to which the western media use propaganda to report about this is more obvious due to the close proximity of the country, scrolling through any forum about the issue reveals that quite clearly. As a rule of thumb I tend to think that whenever the news talk about something in a way it doesn't make sense, they are probably holding back on informations.
Now, I don't want to talk about who is right or wrong because: Nobody really cares anyways except for Ukraine probably. In case of the Ukrainian parliament however, the Werchowna Rada something really weird happend and I have not been able to find any sufficient (non-russian - i don't speak ukrainian/russian :( ) informations about the event and I'd like to know.
During the protests at some point the Werchowna Rade (parliament) decided to change their opinion about who should rule the country. To my knowledge it is undisputed that the outer area around the parliament was 'protected' by concealed paramilitary pro-western forces.
I have no informations that they actually went INSIDE the parliament building. Russian media claim they threatend the parliaments members into changing their opinions.
Western media claim the parliaments members were so outraged by the treatment the protesters had experienced, that they turned away from the president.
Now, it happens that a parliament withdraws its trust from a president (may that be legal in Ukraine or not). It is however completely conflicting to my life experience that a parliament would suddenly turn 180° around and vote people into leadership who are not only opposed to the blocs (parties) goals but are also not even members of their own parties... They could just support a government made of other members of THEIR parties.
So, this sounds like.. the russian propaganda is right in this case but there are a couple of scenarios that would make the western propaganda route plausible as well. It would however be incredibly easy to figure out if the news would provide some critical informations like:
What happend in parliament at that time?
Were there large amounts of people from certain parties suddenly missing during the votes?
Was everyone there and they really just suddenly voted differently?
Did people switch parties?
Did new blocs form?
Was there maybe a shift of power just between the coalitions?
So, if anyone could just politely point me to some source or newspaper or 'office for informations' with the required data, I'd be very thankfull.
So, this is full blown politics, if you don't like it screw you, get lost.
For Europeans the degree to which the western media use propaganda to report about this is more obvious due to the close proximity of the country, scrolling through any forum about the issue reveals that quite clearly. As a rule of thumb I tend to think that whenever the news talk about something in a way it doesn't make sense, they are probably holding back on informations.
Now, I don't want to talk about who is right or wrong because: Nobody really cares anyways except for Ukraine probably. In case of the Ukrainian parliament however, the Werchowna Rada something really weird happend and I have not been able to find any sufficient (non-russian - i don't speak ukrainian/russian :( ) informations about the event and I'd like to know.
During the protests at some point the Werchowna Rade (parliament) decided to change their opinion about who should rule the country. To my knowledge it is undisputed that the outer area around the parliament was 'protected' by concealed paramilitary pro-western forces.
I have no informations that they actually went INSIDE the parliament building. Russian media claim they threatend the parliaments members into changing their opinions.
Western media claim the parliaments members were so outraged by the treatment the protesters had experienced, that they turned away from the president.
Now, it happens that a parliament withdraws its trust from a president (may that be legal in Ukraine or not). It is however completely conflicting to my life experience that a parliament would suddenly turn 180° around and vote people into leadership who are not only opposed to the blocs (parties) goals but are also not even members of their own parties... They could just support a government made of other members of THEIR parties.
So, this sounds like.. the russian propaganda is right in this case but there are a couple of scenarios that would make the western propaganda route plausible as well. It would however be incredibly easy to figure out if the news would provide some critical informations like:
What happend in parliament at that time?
Were there large amounts of people from certain parties suddenly missing during the votes?
Was everyone there and they really just suddenly voted differently?
Did people switch parties?
Did new blocs form?
Was there maybe a shift of power just between the coalitions?
So, if anyone could just politely point me to some source or newspaper or 'office for informations' with the required data, I'd be very thankfull.
Comments
Posted by Garion on 2014-03-26 21:35:43
I don't know about this issue tbh, but the two best UK starting points will be the independent and guardian newspapers plus the BBC website might be worth a look.
Posted by Frankenstein on 2014-03-26 22:16:49
The Telegraph is the best UK newspaper, I'd say.
Posted by Garion on 2014-03-26 22:32:45
It most certainly is not
Posted by Purplegoo on 2014-03-26 22:44:37
Your preference on British paper will be driven by political leaning. Telegraph and Times, right. Guardian and Observer, left.
I'm sure there are other sources of news at least as good as whatever your favourite is.
I'm sure there are other sources of news at least as good as whatever your favourite is.
Posted by Anzelak on 2014-03-27 00:19:07
In case you care, I stopped reading at "Now, I don't want to talk about who is right or wrong because: Nobody really cares anyways except for Ukraine probably."
Posted by happygrue on 2014-03-27 00:22:24
I think that's true in general too Purplegoo. Stuff on this side of the pond is also going to lean right or lean left for the most part. I think NPR and PBS play it as close to the line as can be expected, but sometimes they also fall prey to "this side says X and that side says Y" when really you want to know which parts of X and Y are actually good arguments and which are plausible sounding BS.
@Wreckage, one site you might look at at is http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/
Less of a breaking news with play-by-play kind of deal but perhaps some good analysis after the fact.
@Wreckage, one site you might look at at is http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/
Less of a breaking news with play-by-play kind of deal but perhaps some good analysis after the fact.
Posted by keggiemckill on 2014-03-27 04:44:26
You can't get a straight answer from a crooked system. The media is corrupt.
Posted by pythrr on 2014-03-27 07:53:26
the Telegraph is a rag. Guardian or Times (depending on your left / right bent).
Posted by Wreckage on 2014-03-27 09:44:32
Well, the questions I was looking to be answered are of a factual nature. They aren't subject to opinion or interpretation.
I don't really think it matters much if the media is left or right unless its a domestic matter that is being discussed.
I couldn't find any informations for what I was looking on the mentioned sites. That being said, the flood of articles about the topic was quite overwhelming. I could probably go through them for days without finding anything.
I don't really think it matters much if the media is left or right unless its a domestic matter that is being discussed.
I couldn't find any informations for what I was looking on the mentioned sites. That being said, the flood of articles about the topic was quite overwhelming. I could probably go through them for days without finding anything.
Posted by Winni on 2014-03-27 10:52:13
So it comes down to: we need more BB players from Ukraine.
Posted by the_Sage on 2014-03-27 10:52:38
The media are plural.
Posted by Chainsaw on 2014-03-27 11:50:27
If I'm not mistaken, the Guardian is the only non-profit paper and from limited experience of reading newspapers seems to be by far the most impartial.
As for the Ukrainian mess; there's problems on both sides. It must be said that the first act of the Usurping Government was to effectively outlaw speaking Russian (not quite but to that ends) which really amped up local tension. Russia pounced on the opportunity to sway pro-Russia heads and hop skip jump later annexed Crimea.
During the Winter, Crimea is basically the only unfrozen port for Russia. Losing the pro-Russia government to a vehemently anti-Russia one and not controlling Crimea would have been a disaster for their naval capabilities. It seems that maintaining military strength is both politically and defensively justified despite the fall out which will set back Russia's economy somewhat over the next few years. Of course, that set back is mitigated by the growing Asian market which will compensate for the West's sanctions. China, after all, doesn't give a damn whether Russia's Navy can mobilize quickly against the West. If anything, it's probably good for business since China sells quite a lot of munitions these days.
As for the Ukrainian mess; there's problems on both sides. It must be said that the first act of the Usurping Government was to effectively outlaw speaking Russian (not quite but to that ends) which really amped up local tension. Russia pounced on the opportunity to sway pro-Russia heads and hop skip jump later annexed Crimea.
During the Winter, Crimea is basically the only unfrozen port for Russia. Losing the pro-Russia government to a vehemently anti-Russia one and not controlling Crimea would have been a disaster for their naval capabilities. It seems that maintaining military strength is both politically and defensively justified despite the fall out which will set back Russia's economy somewhat over the next few years. Of course, that set back is mitigated by the growing Asian market which will compensate for the West's sanctions. China, after all, doesn't give a damn whether Russia's Navy can mobilize quickly against the West. If anything, it's probably good for business since China sells quite a lot of munitions these days.
Posted by PainState on 2014-03-27 14:58:45
"Well, the questions I was looking to be answered are of a factual nature. They aren't subject to opinion or interpretation." --Wreckage
That is the issue you will run across. News is no longer about reporting facts and events and what happened. But rather report a event happened and then bend the story to support or discredit a political ideology.
There are a lot of interesting "facts" that are getting ignored about the Ukraine situation.
One I find interesting is the FACT that Senator John McCain at the behest of the State Department and the President of the United States was in Kiev one month before all this started. He was there to talk to the supporters of throwing out the President and the forces that eventually took over the goverment.
So we know a representive, high ranking, was IN KIEV. Talking to the opposition parties.
Now of course we do not know what was discussed and the US govt is not going to tell us.
So this is were the news lets us down. If the "news" was really about finding out facts they would be pounding the State Department and John McCain about this meeting in Kiev.
BUT
Instead it gets pushed under the rug and forgotten to keep up the story line that this was "naked 18th century" thuggery by the Russians.
Is it possible the foundation of all these problems started in the EU and the US?
But we are not going to report that now, are we?
That is the issue you will run across. News is no longer about reporting facts and events and what happened. But rather report a event happened and then bend the story to support or discredit a political ideology.
There are a lot of interesting "facts" that are getting ignored about the Ukraine situation.
One I find interesting is the FACT that Senator John McCain at the behest of the State Department and the President of the United States was in Kiev one month before all this started. He was there to talk to the supporters of throwing out the President and the forces that eventually took over the goverment.
So we know a representive, high ranking, was IN KIEV. Talking to the opposition parties.
Now of course we do not know what was discussed and the US govt is not going to tell us.
So this is were the news lets us down. If the "news" was really about finding out facts they would be pounding the State Department and John McCain about this meeting in Kiev.
BUT
Instead it gets pushed under the rug and forgotten to keep up the story line that this was "naked 18th century" thuggery by the Russians.
Is it possible the foundation of all these problems started in the EU and the US?
But we are not going to report that now, are we?
Posted by Wreckage on 2014-03-27 17:30:40
"So we know a representive, high ranking, was IN KIEV. Talking to the opposition parties."
"Now of course we do not know what was discussed and the US govt is not going to tell us." - PainState
..to be fair, this is about as close to the truth you can get. What somebody said in retrospective for what reasons can always be debated and twisted and turned around.
"Is it possible the foundation of all these problems started in the EU and the US?"
Well, my understanding is that the original protests started right after Ukraine declared they would no longer negotiate a free-trade-treaty with the EU or try to work on a membership. This decision happend under pressure from Russia who was the biggest financial supporter of Ukraine, mainly through the deals they had made about the Crimean Port and the gas-pipelines running through the same region to Central Europe, most importantly Germany. Economically Ukraine is equal to any African third world country, so this kind of support was and is quite critical for Ukraines survival. Respectivly the new government is no longer able to survive without western support. In the past the west has pushed independency of Ukraine but Russia was the only country that had provided them with actual monetary benefits. After the first ursupation, the orange revolution, the Ukrainian economy first stagnated, then almost collapsed under the pressure of misguided housing deals during the world economic crisis. The support for the leader of the former orange revolution, Yushenko, plummeted to a point where he only posed the fifth strongest party in parliament.
The new pro-russian president had his own mind and sought the incarceration of Julia Timoshenko for the deals she had made with Russia in Crimea during her legislation (She had ruled with Yushenko before the two had ended in some sort of power stuggle after the first term). At the same time Timoshenko was wanted by Interpol for tax fraud in the United States aswell as Russia. She used her parliamentary mandate for immunity from prosecution.
The real issue however was because of what she was prosecuted in the end in the Ukraine itself. The pipeline deals had been of critical importance for the EU and Russia and the new president had made enemies all around. In Ukraine itself nobody really cared about Timoshenko except for some right wing extremists. In her speeches she was incredibly obnoxious and polarising, for foreign media she came with a pretty face. So our media desperatly tried to paint a picture of wild riots over her trial. Defacto you could see about a hundret people coming with busses to Kiev, holding signs and looking pretty lost in the big city. Then they added some interviews with locals complaining about the bad economical situation as if it was about Timoshenko. Yanukovitch wisely changed his course into the direction the people elected him for (to seek closer relations with Russia as a buisness partner while retaining Ukraines indepence) -hence on the paper his Party of Regions is supposed to be understood as a party unifying the pro western west and the pro eastern east.
So, Ukraine suddenly halts all negotiatons with Europe, some leaders meet with some western representatives, some US battleships enter the black sea, riots start, get beat down, turn violent, and all the stuff of the past month happens...
I think... it could have been innitiated by the west or it could have started within the west of Ukraine by people who were seriously outraged. At some point a bunch of more decent people certainly joined the protesters.
Either way, Russias stance that the conflict was started BY the west, is a justifiable opinion, even if it is not true, because the western powers have their hands all over the incident.
"Now of course we do not know what was discussed and the US govt is not going to tell us." - PainState
..to be fair, this is about as close to the truth you can get. What somebody said in retrospective for what reasons can always be debated and twisted and turned around.
"Is it possible the foundation of all these problems started in the EU and the US?"
Well, my understanding is that the original protests started right after Ukraine declared they would no longer negotiate a free-trade-treaty with the EU or try to work on a membership. This decision happend under pressure from Russia who was the biggest financial supporter of Ukraine, mainly through the deals they had made about the Crimean Port and the gas-pipelines running through the same region to Central Europe, most importantly Germany. Economically Ukraine is equal to any African third world country, so this kind of support was and is quite critical for Ukraines survival. Respectivly the new government is no longer able to survive without western support. In the past the west has pushed independency of Ukraine but Russia was the only country that had provided them with actual monetary benefits. After the first ursupation, the orange revolution, the Ukrainian economy first stagnated, then almost collapsed under the pressure of misguided housing deals during the world economic crisis. The support for the leader of the former orange revolution, Yushenko, plummeted to a point where he only posed the fifth strongest party in parliament.
The new pro-russian president had his own mind and sought the incarceration of Julia Timoshenko for the deals she had made with Russia in Crimea during her legislation (She had ruled with Yushenko before the two had ended in some sort of power stuggle after the first term). At the same time Timoshenko was wanted by Interpol for tax fraud in the United States aswell as Russia. She used her parliamentary mandate for immunity from prosecution.
The real issue however was because of what she was prosecuted in the end in the Ukraine itself. The pipeline deals had been of critical importance for the EU and Russia and the new president had made enemies all around. In Ukraine itself nobody really cared about Timoshenko except for some right wing extremists. In her speeches she was incredibly obnoxious and polarising, for foreign media she came with a pretty face. So our media desperatly tried to paint a picture of wild riots over her trial. Defacto you could see about a hundret people coming with busses to Kiev, holding signs and looking pretty lost in the big city. Then they added some interviews with locals complaining about the bad economical situation as if it was about Timoshenko. Yanukovitch wisely changed his course into the direction the people elected him for (to seek closer relations with Russia as a buisness partner while retaining Ukraines indepence) -hence on the paper his Party of Regions is supposed to be understood as a party unifying the pro western west and the pro eastern east.
So, Ukraine suddenly halts all negotiatons with Europe, some leaders meet with some western representatives, some US battleships enter the black sea, riots start, get beat down, turn violent, and all the stuff of the past month happens...
I think... it could have been innitiated by the west or it could have started within the west of Ukraine by people who were seriously outraged. At some point a bunch of more decent people certainly joined the protesters.
Either way, Russias stance that the conflict was started BY the west, is a justifiable opinion, even if it is not true, because the western powers have their hands all over the incident.
Posted by Wreckage on 2014-03-27 17:59:22
To be fair tho.. in case that connection got lost...
After the EU deals were broken, European and US representatives had very justfiable reasons to meet with the opposition in the country. Thats what diplomats do... diplomacy..
After the EU deals were broken, European and US representatives had very justfiable reasons to meet with the opposition in the country. Thats what diplomats do... diplomacy..
Posted by PainState on 2014-03-27 18:11:37
"At some point a bunch of more decent people certainly joined the protesters."--Wreckage
LOL!
That was when the Nazi party showed up to get this party started and took over. Peaceful protests are for Frenchmen but when you need to take action you call in the real men, the Neo-Nazi party.
The Ukraine at the end of day is the pawn in all of this Russia VS EU/USA political fight.
At the end of the day my take on this is very simple.
The EU backed by the USA performed a pro EU coup in Ukraine. They won the political fight by removing the pro russian elements to stop them politically.
Then Russia went to the old play book. The play book that says war is the final extension of politics and invaded Crimea.
That was when the USA and EU cried foul and starting making statement that this it the 21st century and not the 18 century and you do not do this.
So Russia lost the political tug of war fight in Kiev. Then they decided it was to important for them and went to the final step, start knocking some heads and wave sabers around.
Now the EU is concerned because the USA it seems does not really have the heart to actually wave sabers themselves. Since NATO in the end is the USA and NATO is the one who defends Western Europe. Thus President Obama is travelling Europe reminding them he is a cowboy and has no problem throwing down with Russia.
But I do not think anybody in Europe is condifendt in that. Thus this gambit over energy pipelines might just turn into a real war and Europe is not confident that the USA really wants any part of that fight.
LOL!
That was when the Nazi party showed up to get this party started and took over. Peaceful protests are for Frenchmen but when you need to take action you call in the real men, the Neo-Nazi party.
The Ukraine at the end of day is the pawn in all of this Russia VS EU/USA political fight.
At the end of the day my take on this is very simple.
The EU backed by the USA performed a pro EU coup in Ukraine. They won the political fight by removing the pro russian elements to stop them politically.
Then Russia went to the old play book. The play book that says war is the final extension of politics and invaded Crimea.
That was when the USA and EU cried foul and starting making statement that this it the 21st century and not the 18 century and you do not do this.
So Russia lost the political tug of war fight in Kiev. Then they decided it was to important for them and went to the final step, start knocking some heads and wave sabers around.
Now the EU is concerned because the USA it seems does not really have the heart to actually wave sabers themselves. Since NATO in the end is the USA and NATO is the one who defends Western Europe. Thus President Obama is travelling Europe reminding them he is a cowboy and has no problem throwing down with Russia.
But I do not think anybody in Europe is condifendt in that. Thus this gambit over energy pipelines might just turn into a real war and Europe is not confident that the USA really wants any part of that fight.
Posted by PainState on 2014-03-27 18:49:02
Wreckage you started this blog you just wanting to get some facts and you are frustrated with the "media" not reporting them.
I have always found to find out the truth takes a lot of time. This Ukraine bussiness.
Well you have to do a lot of searching. Taking a bit of info here and info there. Ignoring all the political talk surrounding the facts.
Do a search about US limiting energy exports to the EU. On Google you have to go back a few pages but you will find talks about Clintons visit to Russia and the reset of relations. In that reset the United States restricted energy exports to the EU and gave Russia total domination of energy imports to the EU. .
Then you search for EU reaction to Russian Reset with the United States. EU is pissed is the bottom line.
Then you search for Gas Lines that enter the EU and find out the majority of them go through Ukraine.
Follow the timeline. Look at past events that lead up to this point. The facts are scattered all over the place like a puzzle and they all add up to some insight after awille.
History is very easy in theory. It is a game of Who, What, When, Where and Why.
Who, What, When, Where are the easy lessons. They are taught in school all the way into college level classes. The big debate is always WHY.
WHY has thousands of reasons. The Why question is also were the old saying of the victors get to write the history book. You only get their version of Why and not the losers side of Why they fought.
SO WHY is the situation in Ukraine going on? It covers the entire spectrum of energy, politics, geopolitical events, power politics, old fashion my tank is bigger than your tank stuff. You can make a rational arugment that covers 29 reasons why the situation is were it is.
There is never a singular event but hundreds of events.
Your question of what actually happened in that parliment building. Once you find out then you will ask well how did the "players" get set in this political show down. Then that will lead you to bigger questions and even bigger questions.
I have always found to find out the truth takes a lot of time. This Ukraine bussiness.
Well you have to do a lot of searching. Taking a bit of info here and info there. Ignoring all the political talk surrounding the facts.
Do a search about US limiting energy exports to the EU. On Google you have to go back a few pages but you will find talks about Clintons visit to Russia and the reset of relations. In that reset the United States restricted energy exports to the EU and gave Russia total domination of energy imports to the EU. .
Then you search for EU reaction to Russian Reset with the United States. EU is pissed is the bottom line.
Then you search for Gas Lines that enter the EU and find out the majority of them go through Ukraine.
Follow the timeline. Look at past events that lead up to this point. The facts are scattered all over the place like a puzzle and they all add up to some insight after awille.
History is very easy in theory. It is a game of Who, What, When, Where and Why.
Who, What, When, Where are the easy lessons. They are taught in school all the way into college level classes. The big debate is always WHY.
WHY has thousands of reasons. The Why question is also were the old saying of the victors get to write the history book. You only get their version of Why and not the losers side of Why they fought.
SO WHY is the situation in Ukraine going on? It covers the entire spectrum of energy, politics, geopolitical events, power politics, old fashion my tank is bigger than your tank stuff. You can make a rational arugment that covers 29 reasons why the situation is were it is.
There is never a singular event but hundreds of events.
Your question of what actually happened in that parliment building. Once you find out then you will ask well how did the "players" get set in this political show down. Then that will lead you to bigger questions and even bigger questions.
Posted by pythrr on 2014-03-27 18:57:29
well, there is only only country that rolled its tanks across international borders. that bit is clear.
Posted by PainState on 2014-03-27 19:17:04
And it is also clear that Russia is making some moves on the political chess board.
Russian warships were spoted docking in Venzuela this month.
Cuba and Nicaragua are reaching out to their old sponsor in Russia.
So for all we know Russia is ready to re embrace their old allies in the Western Hemisphere and play the old tic for a tac game with the United States.
You "guarantee" Ukraine with military support. Well we will "gurantee" our old allies with a few warships and troops. You know Cuba always was greener when there were some SAC bases for Russian bombers and a few ICMB bunkers in the hills.
US leadership is really weak right now and all of us should be concerned about what the next moves will be.
Russian warships were spoted docking in Venzuela this month.
Cuba and Nicaragua are reaching out to their old sponsor in Russia.
So for all we know Russia is ready to re embrace their old allies in the Western Hemisphere and play the old tic for a tac game with the United States.
You "guarantee" Ukraine with military support. Well we will "gurantee" our old allies with a few warships and troops. You know Cuba always was greener when there were some SAC bases for Russian bombers and a few ICMB bunkers in the hills.
US leadership is really weak right now and all of us should be concerned about what the next moves will be.
Posted by Wreckage on 2014-03-27 19:36:29
"well, there is only only country that rolled its tanks across international borders. that bit is clear." -pythrr
Thats a bit controversial aswell. The tanks were already on Crimea. Russia has its biggest military port for the mediterrainian sea there and they paid Ukraine an annual fee of 30 billion dollar to access it and move their troops freely on the island.. Just when you are so close allies you don't expect them to suddenly turn on you. By the time the usurping new government had a clue of what was going on it would have had to forcibly drive the russians out, fire the first shot and given them a reason to start an actual invasion.
Thats a bit controversial aswell. The tanks were already on Crimea. Russia has its biggest military port for the mediterrainian sea there and they paid Ukraine an annual fee of 30 billion dollar to access it and move their troops freely on the island.. Just when you are so close allies you don't expect them to suddenly turn on you. By the time the usurping new government had a clue of what was going on it would have had to forcibly drive the russians out, fire the first shot and given them a reason to start an actual invasion.
Posted by Wreckage on 2014-03-27 19:48:50
"So it comes down to: we need more BB players from Ukraine."
Yeah, they should know for sure..
Yeah, they should know for sure..
Posted by pythrr on 2014-03-27 22:57:01
Wreckage,
Some were, but they were in leased bases. The rolled into non-leased Ukrainian territory. Thousands of other troops were also shipped in from Russia before the referendum took place.
Those are the facts.
Some were, but they were in leased bases. The rolled into non-leased Ukrainian territory. Thousands of other troops were also shipped in from Russia before the referendum took place.
Those are the facts.