Ukraine Thread

[Sarmatian]

So they shouldn't show the practices of other countries?

Nooooo....

That article is lazy excuse for journalism at best, and propaganda piece at worst.

First off, it's a story that wasn't verified. You've got a guy who tells a story. Serious journalism used to reject those. That would be the same if I walked in the Independent office and told them there's a building in Guangzhou where cows play chess. Where in St. Petersburg is that building, if it is in St. Petersburg? You have a guy who worked in there, doesn't he know where he worked? It can't be for protection, his name is mentioned. Why there aren't any pictures of the building, instead of a few large and ominous pictures of Putin? Why didn't a journalist check the location out?

Secondly, what's the point? Do you know how many million articles are on the internet and how many millions comment on them daily? A few hundred people, even if each writes a 135 comments daily, are nothing compared to those. A drop in the ocean is a fair comparison.

Imagine that, instead of Russia and internet, the article was about 800 people who are bent on polluting the world by lining up on a beach and peeing in the ocean every day. Someone would get fired.

It would make much more sense, and would be much more believable if it revealed that governments influence and/or pay journalist and popular online sources of information quite often, but that's pretty much known already.

That article is the perfect example of propaganda piece - lots of malarkey, very little substance, lack of anything concrete in it, and a couple of pictures of Putin to set the readers in the right mood while they're reading it.

[Montmorency]

The quality of the piece is ultimately not relevant given the veracity of the information.

[Husar]

Ideally, yes, but in practice no. As Aristotle noted quite a while back, Ethos, Logos, and Pathos are all routes of appeal that function persuasively for the audience. Hyperbolic blogs etc. arouse the passions (pathos) but generally fall short in credibility (ethos). So even when they are relating facts accurately and making reasonable conclusions therefrom (logos), their credibility still gets called into question and may well undercut the reader/viewer's trust in message.

And therefore all of Gilrandir's ukrainian news sources do at least get a silent approval here? And why should I trust US or British sources on the conflict when both countries have traditionally seen Russia as their arch-nemesis even after the fall of the iron curtain? A source that is reliable on a current plane-crash or on internal policy of the country it comes from is not automatically reliable when it reports on a country that is seen as a traditional or current enemy of the country the source is based in.

As for the rest, there are still three links that conclusively prove that the west has absolutely no problem in dealing with or supporting countries which manipulate public opinion on the internet. Why should Russia not do that if it works for others? There was also a report a while ago where Putin bought the services of some US PR agency to improve his own image. If he was always so bad, why did a US PR company help him improve his image for 9 years? It's a bit like Gadhaffi with whom we did business until we decided we don't need him anymore.

Here are some unreliable links:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...98C00S20130913
http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/12/medi...in-pr-ketchum/

And from the related links it seems as though Ukraine ain't afraid to use the same tactics itself:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/25/tech...ex.html?iid=EL

But I guess it's only evil when the other side does it.

[Viking]

The Independent nabbed that article from RFE/RL. They have published another article on the topic, which includes a link to this video



which is supposed to show the specific building.

And therefore all of Gilrandir's ukrainian news sources do at least get a silent approval here?

I implicitly approve only of my own sources, and only the specific articles or details I use.

But I guess it's only evil when the other side does it.

Indeed, the only reason I dislike Putin is that I love Obama.

Actually, I just finished an ode to Obama, wanna hear it?

[Husar]

Actually, I just finished an ode to Obama, wanna hear it?

I eagerly await the youtube video.

Oh yeah, as you probably know, RFE/RL is more or less a US government agency.

RFE/RL is supervised by the Broadcasting Board of Governors, an agency overseeing all U.S. federal government international broadcasting services.[4]

They were founded as an anti-communist news source in 1949 by the National Committee for a Free Europe, as part of a large-scale Psychological Operation during the Cold War. RFE/RL received funds from the Central Intelligence Agency until 1972.[5] During the earliest years of Radio Free Europe's existence, the CIA and the U.S. Department of State issued broad policy directives, and a system evolved where broadcast policy was determined through negotiation among the CIA, the U.S. State Department, and RFE staff.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_F.../Radio_Liberty

Obviously no government manipulation of public opinion there.

[Viking]

That's what I always tell any state employee I run into: "You are paid by the government, I don't believe you."

[Husar]

That's what I always tell any state employee I run into: "You are paid by the government, I don't believe you."

As a German, I believe them if they wear a uniform.

[Sarmatian]

That is a more believable and realistic version.

Unfortunately, blogging/journalism funded by the governments/interest groups/corporation for the purpose of propaganda is nothing new.

And I do remember Radio Free Europe. They spent 78 days in 1999 explaining to me how bombs dropping on my head are good for me.

[Brenus]

Well, Serbs have hard head, and one thing is more difficult is to put an idea in it when another one took all the space. And it was small bombs anyway. And this bridge in Novi Sad was not so much needed.

[Gilrandir]

That article is lazy excuse for journalism at best, and propaganda piece at worst.

First off, it's a story that wasn't verified. You've got a guy who tells a story. Serious journalism used to reject those. That would be the same if I walked in the Independent office and told them there's a building in Guangzhou where cows play chess. Where in St. Petersburg is that building, if it is in St. Petersburg? You have a guy who worked in there, doesn't he know where he worked? It can't be for protection, his name is mentioned. Why there aren't any pictures of the building, instead of a few large and ominous pictures of Putin? Why didn't a journalist check the location out?

That article is the perfect example of propaganda piece - lots of malarkey, very little substance, lack of anything concrete in it, and a couple of pictures of Putin to set the readers in the right mood while they're reading it.

It would all be considered weighty arguments if it was the first time I heard about St. Petersburg based facilities meant for informational war. It is the first time I ventured to post it since it is the first time I'm aware of that it leaked into (more or less credible) European media. Though some people claim that the policies of The Independent have changed since a certain Russian obtained some influence on it:
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/n...mily-life.html
But this information has been in evidence in Ukrainian sources for quite a time. Though you may not trust any of them, but (as I have repeatedly remarked) most of the data they publish gets corroborated by Westen sources sooner or later.

It would be all considered weighty arguments if they didn't come from a person who originally doubts/discards any information presenting Russia unfavorably (regular Russian army in the Crimea and in Donbas, Russian weapons and ammo delivered to Ukraine and so on) and tries to find excuses for any moves by it.

And why should I trust US or British sources on the conflict when both countries have traditionally seen Russia as their arch-nemesis even after the fall of the iron curtain?

Yet it is these sources (and the German ones to boot) get linked to here on a permanent basis. Forget about them, watch RT instead.

And from the related links it seems as though Ukraine ain't afraid to use the same tactics itself:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/25/tech...ex.html?iid=EL

But I guess it's only evil when the other side does it.

As the headline of the article you linked to claims, Ukraine did (and does) it to fight off Russian informational aggression. And it started to do so A YEAR after Yanukovych escaped, this makes it approximately 1,5 years after Russian propaganda began to target Ukraine especially hard. Moreover, the article refers to Russian "troll army" (someone said Tolkien has nothing to do with this all) as well.
So your idea is that "the evil" side may do nasty things, but "the good side" has right only to watch it doing them and display no attempts to protect itself?
But I think there is no sense for you to get so much worried - your favorite Russia does what it does much more efficiently than Ukraine tries to. And this is one of the reasons Russia has so many sympathizers out there who don't believe Russia can be "so evil".

[Husar]

Yet it is these sources (and the German ones to boot) get linked to here on a permanent basis. Forget about them, watch RT instead.

Why should I believe RT on the conflict when it is obviously a propaganda tool for a participant in the conflict?
As for your sidenote on the german press, at least it is considerably more free in what it writes than the press in the UK, US and especially Ukraine and Russia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index

As the headline of the article you linked to claims, Ukraine did (and does) it to fight off Russian informational aggression. And it started to do so A YEAR after Yanukovych escaped, this makes it approximately 1,5 years after Russian propaganda began to target Ukraine especially hard. Moreover, the article refers to Russian "troll army" (someone said Tolkien has nothing to do with this all) as well.
So your idea is that "the evil" side may do nasty things, but "the good side" has right only to watch it doing them and display no attempts to protect itself?

So you think there is actually nothing wrong with Russia's approach or are you saying two wrongs make a right as long as the second wrong was only in response to the first one? I mean either doing such a thing is fair game in which case it's perfectly fine and no big deal that Russia does it or you are participating in something that is wrong, you know, staring into the abyss and all that.

But I think there is no sense for you to get so much worried - your favorite Russia does what it does much more efficiently than Ukraine tries to. And this is one of the reasons Russia has so many sympathizers out there who don't believe Russia can be "so evil".

This is why I don't trust your analysis of what Putin wants. As soon as you have someone down as your enemy, your mind seems to make stuff up about them.

[Montmorency]

As soon as you have someone down as your enemy, your mind seems to make stuff up about them.

This hits on an important generalization.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And therefore all of Gilrandir's ukrainian news sources do at least get a silent approval here? And why should I trust US or British sources on the conflict when both countries have traditionally seen Russia as their arch-nemesis even after the fall of the iron curtain? A source that is reliable on a current plane-crash or on internal policy of the country it comes from is not automatically reliable when it reports on a country that is seen as a traditional or current enemy of the country the source is based in.

As for the rest, there are still three links that conclusively prove that the west has absolutely no problem in dealing with or supporting countries which manipulate public opinion on the internet. Why should Russia not do that if it works for others? There was also a report a while ago where Putin bought the services of some US PR agency to improve his own image. If he was always so bad, why did a US PR company help him improve his image for 9 years? It's a bit like Gadhaffi with whom we did business until we decided we don't need him anymore.

Here are some unreliable links:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...98C00S20130913
http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/12/medi...in-pr-ketchum/

And from the related links it seems as though Ukraine ain't afraid to use the same tactics itself:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/25/tech...ex.html?iid=EL

But I guess it's only evil when the other side does it.

I can assure you that I am not an apologist for the US news media [shudders]. I think I might prefer to defend some honest murderer by preference.

[Husar]

I can assure you that I am not an apologist for the US news media [shudders]. I think I might prefer to defend some honest murderer by preference.

I should have made it more clear that not the entire reply was primarily aimed at you.

Your point was valid of course, my point was more that I get a sense that a lot of people use a rather biased ethos. That doesn't mean that I believe RT more as some assume, it just means that I do not see all the pro-western media as inherently unbiased. Noone in the US would doubt that their media outlets are biased when it comes to reporting on the Democrats and the Republicans but when they report on Putin it seems as though everyone assumes they provide us with the unfiltered, unbiased truth.

[Brenus]

Breaking news: Evil Putin sunk a trawler in the Okhotsk sea... If not, well, it will be soon. I am sure we will find one widow telling that her husband told her...

[Gilrandir]

As for your sidenote on the german press, at least it is considerably more free in what it writes than the press in the UK, US and especially Ukraine and Russia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index

I think you are mixing up two different notions - "free" and "unbiased". While US and UK press is certainly as free as the German one, one may question their being unbiased.
But, to be more accurate, all these terms are overgeneralizations: I think in either country there are various media which can be more or less free and/or more or less unbiased.

So you think there is actually nothing wrong with Russia's approach or are you saying two wrongs make a right as long as the second wrong was only in response to the first one? I mean either doing such a thing is fair game in which case it's perfectly fine and no big deal that Russia does it or you are participating in something that is wrong, you know, staring into the abyss and all that.

What I mean to say is that combating popaganda doesn't mean creating another propaganda. It may as well be spreading truthful information and revealing the falsehood of the aggressor's propaganda. These cases certainly don't qualify as "a wrong in response".

This is why I don't trust your analysis of what Putin wants.

No matter who may provide the analysis (or rather suppositions) of Putin's plans, it is only he who can say how close are our guesses. And he is unlikely to do it (at least not now). But I would like to hear your vision of his plans and we'll see if it is as sound as you believe.

As soon as you have someone down as your enemy, your mind seems to make stuff up about them.

The same holds if you view someone as your idol.

[Husar]

I think you are mixing up two different notions - "free" and "unbiased". While US and UK press is certainly as free as the German one, one may question their being unbiased.
But, to be more accurate, all these terms are overgeneralizations: I think in either country there are various media which can be more or less free and/or more or less unbiased.

According to the index I linked, the bolded part is definitely not the case...
I'm also not confusing anything, I think less freedom of the press leads to more bias as the press sees itself forced to adapt to certain things. This can happen for a number of reasons, like the investors want to make money and the writers want to keep their jobs, so they write what the market demands to get more clicks or sell more papers. In more nationalistic countries this automatically leads to a bias for "our side" because writing a pro-Putin article in the US is not going to make you much more popular.
On internal issues it's easier to write something negative even in nationalistic countries since internal issues affect "our guys" and therefore you basically still support "our side".
I'm not saying the US government sends armed guys to the New York Times in order to make them write bad things about Putin, I'm saying they don't even try to see things from another perspective, which might be valid as well. In order to be unbiased or neutral, one has to take other peoples' perspectives into account for the most part.
There can still be a conclusion in favor of one side, like I also think Putin is "more wrong", but to completely disregard Russian interests as though they're not allowed to have any while you push your own relentlessly is inherently biased.

What I mean to say is that combating popaganda doesn't mean creating another propaganda. It may as well be spreading truthful information and revealing the falsehood of the aggressor's propaganda. These cases certainly don't qualify as "a wrong in response".

Your country is at war, to think that it is just interested in spreading truthful information is somewhat laughable.
Let me quote the article:

Anyone can join the virtual army through the website set up by the ministry. Enlisted "soldiers" then receive emails with tasks such as monitoring social media and taking on trolls by promoting Ukraine's messages in online discussions.
They remain anonymous and are reportedly encouraged to create fake accounts to protect their identities.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/25/tech...ex.html?iid=EL

Now I wouldn't ask them to make their names and addresses public but it seems as though noone will know that they are basically shills of the Ukrainian government, which is the major issue with the Russian trolls as well. That they pose as "concerned citizens" when they really promote a government agenda.

No matter who may provide the analysis (or rather suppositions) of Putin's plans, it is only he who can say how close are our guesses. And he is unlikely to do it (at least not now). But I would like to hear your vision of his plans and we'll see if it is as sound as you believe.

I have no idea what he is going to do next, but that doesn't automatically make all the claims that he's going to conquer Europe true.
As you say, it's mostly just guesses and I do not have to have my own detailed theory to say that some seem a bit over the top for now.

The same holds if you view someone as your idol.

Who do you think is my idol then?

[Montmorency]

Who do you think is my idol then?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I should have made it more clear that not the entire reply was primarily aimed at you.

Your point was valid of course, my point was more that I get a sense that a lot of people use a rather biased ethos. That doesn't mean that I believe RT more as some assume, it just means that I do not see all the pro-western media as inherently unbiased. Noone in the US would doubt that their media outlets are biased when it comes to reporting on the Democrats and the Republicans but when they report on Putin it seems as though everyone assumes they provide us with the unfiltered, unbiased truth.

Nothing in the US news media is completely unbiased or unfiltered. Lately, pretty much all of it is spun for its impact on our domestic politics anyway. The old "politics stops at the water's edge" adage (always honored in the breach a bit) is more or less dead now. Ultimately, NO media news effort can be completely unbiased or unfiltered -- nobody can simply discard their culture or intellectual 'lenses' like that -- but I would rather the US media adopted a stance closer to that of the BBC world service. They are as minimally biased as I have heard.

[Husar]

Nothing in the US news media is completely unbiased or unfiltered. Lately, pretty much all of it is spun for its impact on our domestic politics anyway. The old "politics stops at the water's edge" adage (always honored in the breach a bit) is more or less dead now. Ultimately, NO media news effort can be completely unbiased or unfiltered -- nobody can simply discard their culture or intellectual 'lenses' like that -- but I would rather the US media adopted a stance closer to that of the BBC world service. They are as minimally biased as I have heard.

Some would probably say the BBC promotes the liberal multiculturalist agenda or something like that.
Wasn't there also some pedophile scandal in the BBC ranks?
They're probably less biased than some of the US media though, but what happened to Al Jazeera? IIRC they were touted as the new, better BBC for a while but it seems as though they have fallen out of favor again.

[Gilrandir]

According to the index I linked, the bolded part is definitely not the case...

I don't think much of attempts to squeeze into hard figures and gauge such notions as freedom, happiness, culture, love... Still less if such attempts are based on questionnaire the latter being way too subjective.

I'm also not confusing anything, I think less freedom of the press leads to more bias as the press sees itself forced to adapt to certain things.

Being free doesn't mean unbiased. Like major newspapers in the Uk are not owned by any political parties, yet they traditionally favor some of them (like The Daily telegraph is considered to be supporting Tories). So being free from outer pressure doesn't exclude self-censorship and traditional bias.

Your country is at war, to think that it is just interested in spreading truthful information is somewhat laughable.
Let me quote the article:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/25/tech...ex.html?iid=EL

Now I wouldn't ask them to make their names and addresses public but it seems as though noone will know that they are basically shills of the Ukrainian government, which is the major issue with the Russian trolls as well. That they pose as "concerned citizens" when they really promote a government agenda.

Knowing how inefficient Ukrainian government are (and the mentioned Ministry of Truth is considered to be the least efficient) and knowing how little money and experience of informational war it has had hitherto I would say that it would hardly resist any informational aggression from Russia, still less go offensive on that front. The only successful attempts to counter Russian propaganda were exercised by non-governmental groups, such as Stopfake. But they all fight the products spun by Rissians and not invent their own.

I have no idea what he is going to do next, but that doesn't automatically make all the claims that he's going to conquer Europe true.

It was not my bid. Being aware of basic tenet of the Russian World conception ("Russia is where Russian is spoken") and Putin's admission that the collapse of the Soviet Unoin is his personal tragedy I would say that his ultimate goal is re-creating the USSR in its boundaries.

Who do you think is my idol then?

I don't know. I was speaking not of you personally, but of you=anyone. You can rephrase my post having this clarification in view.

[Husar]

So being free from outer pressure doesn't exclude self-censorship and traditional bias.

I never said otherwise.

Knowing how inefficient Ukrainian government are (and the mentioned Ministry of Truth is considered to be the least efficient) and knowing how little money and experience of informational war it has had hitherto I would say that it would hardly resist any informational aggression from Russia, still less go offensive on that front. The only successful attempts to counter Russian propaganda were exercised by non-governmental groups, such as Stopfake. But they all fight the products spun by Rissians and not invent their own.

That last part might be hard to prove.

It was not my bid. Being aware of basic tenet of the Russian World conception ("Russia is where Russian is spoken") and Putin's admission that the collapse of the Soviet Unoin is his personal tragedy I would say that his ultimate goal is re-creating the USSR in its boundaries.

So you think the Donbass is just a bridgehead to conquer all of Ukraine?

[Gilrandir]

So you think the Donbass is just a bridgehead to conquer all of Ukraine?

I think that Putin will not "conquer" Ukraine. He knows (and the Crimea showed it) that Russia - in its present plight - can't very well digest all it swallows. A year ago he had meant to truncate it overrunning all "Russian-speaking" regions. After he had seen that Russian-speaking doesn't mean pro-Russian (indeed around 60% of the Ukrainians who are now fighting in Donbas are Russian-speakers and almost exclusively Russian-speaking city of Mariupol stays predominantely pro-Ukrainian) he had to change his tactics.
What he now aims at is to install a new government which he hopes to be more obliging. All the offensive moves the separatists make have this very goal in view - to cause dissatisfaction with the government within Ukraine and have it toppled. Russian network users were ready to celebrate when the conflict between Poroshenko and Kolomoysky started, but when no desirable outcome followed I'm afraid there is gonna be a new offensive in Donbas.

[Gilrandir]

A Tatar TV channel was closed in the Crimea and people there were polled if they need one.

Pay attention to the percentage of "Nos" (the furthest to the right).

[Gilrandir]

In connection with the Kremlin trolls:
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2015/0...-twitter-bots/

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'd love to see a picture of a Kremlin Troll. My old manual had pictures of the garden variety, Troll Giants, etc. but no Kremlin Trolls...

[Gilrandir]

Similar information from another quarter:
http://www.newsmobile.in/articles/20...-war-explained

[Gilrandir]

That sums up the Putin-Hitler comparison:
http://blogs.piie.com/realtime/?p=4254

[Fragony]

That sums up the Putin-Hitler comparison:
http://blogs.piie.com/realtime/?p=4254

Sorry but that's a bit rediculous. You can make my mother look like Hitler if you take out just a few things. The EU gave him the perfect excuse by trying to bring Ukraine into the EU, and he couldn't have reacted in any other way because he would have looked weak.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'd love to see a picture of a Kremlin Troll. My old manual had pictures of the garden variety, Troll Giants, etc. but no Kremlin Trolls...

It's like a common troll, but wearing a Cossack's hat and goose-steps everywhere.