Post: #176

Dmitry Orlov has a good post on the situation in Ukraine: Shock over Ukraine.

Here's an except:

Quote:I am pushing this live a few days early, because the Ukrainian situation is evolving so rapidly. One political corpse (Yanukovych) is out; apparently he has fled to Russia. Another political corpse (Tymoshenko) has been hastily rehabilitated and is ready to be put on the ballot for elections in May. Question is, Will there still be a country for her to (pretend to) run? Financial reserves are down to a few days, federal structures are being dismantled throughout the country, regional governors are fleeing, and a default on some €60 [sic] of Ukrainian bonds, many held by Russian banks, seems likely. Could this be just the kind of financial contagion needed to finally pop the ridiculous US equities bubble? At least two Ukrainian provinces are openly talking secession; one (Crimea) wants to immediately join Russian Federation. A question for US State Dept. flunkies and EU functionaries: What does that do to your geopolitical calculus? At risk are five nuclear power plants and a lot of Russian gas that transits Ukraine on its way west. Ukraine is shaping up to be a lot like Yugoslavia, except with more than twice as many people, lots of crazed street fighters who think they now own the place, and a role critical to European energy security. If you aren't in shock about this, then you haven't been paying attention.

Post: #177

(02-22-2014 09:17 PM)Icarus Wrote:  Dmitry Orlov has a good post on the situation in Ukraine: Shock over Ukraine.

Here's an except:

Quote:...a default on some €60 [sic] of Ukrainian bonds, many held by Russian banks, seems likely. Could this be just the kind of financial contagion needed to finally pop the ridiculous US equities bubble?

It's a very interesting point this guy's brought up... no one has talked about the credit market so far. As of Friday, Ukraine's five-year credit default swaps rose 59 basis points to 1,384 bps - that is, it costs 13.84% to insure Ukrainian bonds for 5 years, with an upfront payment. Going to be interesting to see what happens in the financial markets on Monday.

Post: #178

Rather stunning how fast things have moved there.

Zakharchenko (until yesterday minister of internal affairs and head of the national police) and other (former) top officials have now been stopped while trying to flee the country.

Post: #179

Washington Post article about the battle for Crimea.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worl...-to-begin/

Post: #180

http://donetskie.com/novosti/2014/02/22/...-nashelsya

From Donetskie novosti. What an epic failure Yanukovich is. No one will take him.

Quote:YANUKOVYCH FOUND

President of Ukraine Yanukovych at this point has not left the territory of Ukraine

At the present moment the head of state is outside of Kharkiv at the country home of one of the influential local officials. Donetskie vesti received this information from a reliable source.

According to the source, the president’s flight to the United Arab Emirates last night was a ruse to divert attention from the fact that Yanukovych travelled to Kharkiv to take part in the congress national and local deputies.

The original plan envisioned Victor Yanukovych’s appearance at the congress, the announcement of a new southeastern Ukrainian republic, and its separation from Ukraine. The guarantor of the security of the republic was to be Russian president Vladimir Putin, who was to officially support the new government and introduce a limited military contingent to protect the republic.

However, contrary to expectations, Vladimir Putin declined, in no uncertain terms, not only to provide military support but also to recognize the new state. After that demarche the enthusiasts of that project abandoned it and decided to declare their commitment to the integrity of Ukraine’s territorial boundaries. Yanukovych decided not to attend the congress.

At present the acting president’s team is looking for ways to leave the country. Thus far their main problem is the refusal of several states to grant they asylym.

Post: #181

More footage of the fighting from a few days ago.

Post: #182

Some links from an econ blog about the economic crisis Ukraine may face:
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalre...award.html

Talk of a run on the banks, Russia suspending payments to Ukraine, etc.

Post: #183

(02-22-2014 10:13 PM)rastignac Wrote:  http://donetskie.com/novosti/2014/02/22/...-nashelsya

From Donetskie novosti. What an epic failure Yanukovich is. No one will take him.

Quote:YANUKOVYCH FOUND

President of Ukraine Yanukovych at this point has not left the territory of Ukraine

At the present moment the head of state is outside of Kharkiv at the country home of one of the influential local officials. Donetskie vesti received this information from a reliable source.

According to the source, the president’s flight to the United Arab Emirates last night was a ruse to divert attention from the fact that Yanukovych travelled to Kharkiv to take part in the congress national and local deputies.

The original plan envisioned Victor Yanukovych’s appearance at the congress, the announcement of a new southeastern Ukrainian republic, and its separation from Ukraine. The guarantor of the security of the republic was to be Russian president Vladimir Putin, who was to officially support the new government and introduce a limited military contingent to protect the republic.

However, contrary to expectations, Vladimir Putin declined, in no uncertain terms, not only to provide military support but also to recognize the new state. After that demarche the enthusiasts of that project abandoned it and decided to declare their commitment to the integrity of Ukraine’s territorial boundaries. Yanukovych decided not to attend the congress.

At present the acting president’s team is looking for ways to leave the country. Thus far their main problem is the refusal of several states to grant they asylym.

Curious as to why Putin didn't want to recognize the new republic. It guarantee the blacksea fleet and a buffer zone.

Post: #184

(02-22-2014 09:52 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  Rather stunning how fast things have moved there.

Zakharchenko (until yesterday minister of internal affairs and head of the national police) and other (former) top officials have now been stopped while trying to flee the country.

Why can't they leave from East to Russia? Kiev doesn't control the area.

Post: #185

(02-22-2014 08:48 PM)DaveR Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 07:52 PM)rastignac Wrote:  Man I love Crimea. Beautiful place. But it is so different. It does not feel like Ukraine. If Crimea goes, I think Ukraine may just wave goodbye.

I asked four people in Odessa today if they would support joining a new state with Crimea and the East. They laughed.

I asked the same people if they would support joining Russia, and they laughed harder. Then they said we could not live with that.

Sure my friends all have a post-soviet mentality, and Odessans do like to laugh, but I just don't see this greater separation happening.

At the moment it sounds insane because they have a lot of independence. The political balance is very close to 50/50 and has been ever since independence. Odessa is therefore able to act pretty much independently. The only time I've seen them getting political was in 2005-2009 when all the language law insanity was being pushed on them.

A lot has to change before it starts to affect them again, but if Crimea leaves then the ball will be rolling. I can't see Donetsk and Lugansk siting quietly while they're being dominated by the political factions from L'vov. Without Crimea (~ 15% of the PoR vote), the chances of the South/East ever getting into government again would be minuscule, and they know it.

Odessa is set to lose some port business under the AA because of trade and energy tariffs and more goods arriving from Poland by rail. Changes in immigration regulations could easily screw Odessa's tourism business, especially if Russians could fly to Crimea for half the price (due to lower taxes on domestic flights) and pay in Roubles. That may sound like a long shot at the moment, but if a few of the blue regions are lost, the L'vov and its neighbours will have proportionally larger representation.

I agree that regions other than Crimea will never join Russia. They have extremely strong and recent connections which the other regions don't. At the same time, I can't see the East sitting quietly while they're politically akin to a mole on Ukraine's back.

Like I said it will happen in the future possibly. You see the stupid nationalists can't resist but start their discrimination of Eastern Ukrainians. Yuchenko did it and he even admitted that he didn't really support the ideas of the Orange revolution.
These guys are REAL nationalists. No one has any reason for concern yes but let me describe certain issues that arise that will set smoke in the future.
1. Like you said Odessa stands to lose money. If more transparency comes the mafia will start making hits like they use to.
2. The toughest guys in ukraine who are the industrial workers will maybe lose their jobs... they will drink a lot and start trouble.
3. Most Ukrainians in the south and East have family in Russia. If rules demanding visa's in and out come forth..that will will cause problems.
4. Transneister....if they make it hard to travel back and forth.. many in the Odessa region will be pissed. Many have family there. Half my extended family lives there.
5. cuts in socila services will anger poor and old. Many young will also be affected by this(higher university costs)
This and many more issues will come up by the next election..including the high unemployment rate.
A new candidate will come forth promising the same shit Yanuk promised, closer relations to Russia, etc. Chances are good he will win. Chances is also good that the opposition will protest again. If that happens Russia wil of course ask for international action since its a fair election.
This will be a rerun of 2010.

Now for the good news.... the mentality of the FSU is still the same. Western businesses will still lose money. Workers will still be unproductive. Heck thugs will still come around collecting bribes. That was never suppressed when the last Western leader ran the country. Gays will still be beaten(same as they are in bulgaria, Romania), women will still be beaten. The EU will skake thier heads in belief.
If they join NATO... Russia will more likely annex Crimea. Russia will also ship missiles to Cuba if missile shield is put in Ukraine.
Russia never signed the accord. That means they have no obligation to recognize or deal with Kiev.

Post: #186

(02-22-2014 11:26 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  Curious as to why Putin didn't want to recognize the new republic. It guarantee the blacksea fleet and a buffer zone.

He probably has his own plan and wants to wait until Crimea's position is clear. Maybe he also needs time to get the military ready. It also seems a bit premature to have a split without getting public support through a vote. Mostly though, I think it's that he has his own plan.

(02-22-2014 11:28 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  Why can't they leave from East to Russia? Kiev doesn't control the area.

I think they were trying to slip away without the flight being recorded. He should have just declared that they were flying to Sumy and changed plans in the middle when they were close to the border.

Post: #187

(02-22-2014 11:28 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 09:52 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  Rather stunning how fast things have moved there.

Zakharchenko (until yesterday minister of internal affairs and head of the national police) and other (former) top officials have now been stopped while trying to flee the country.

Why can't they leave from East to Russia? Kiev doesn't control the area.

My understanding is that they (including Yanukovich) are being stopped, turned back on the Eastern border with Russia, in the POR stronghold.

Post: #188

(02-23-2014 04:04 AM)DaveR Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 11:26 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  Curious as to why Putin didn't want to recognize the new republic. It guarantee the blacksea fleet and a buffer zone.

He probably has his own plan and wants to wait until Crimea's position is clear. Maybe he also needs time to get the military ready. It also seems a bit premature to have a split without getting public support through a vote. Mostly though, I think it's that he has his own plan.

If Russia annexes the SE/Crimea, the western Ukraine and Galicia will almost certainly become an EU/NATO protectorate. That is not in Putin's interest.

The whole thing is highly likely to spin out of control including armed conflict. This is not in anyone's interest not in Putin's not in Obama's not in the EU's.

Of course, the West/Russia don't think much of each other, but they don't want war either. Hopefully, they are working together to hold Ukraine together and avert the worst.

Post: #189

(02-22-2014 10:05 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  Washington Post article about the battle for Crimea.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worl...-to-begin/

Are you posting Washington Post (i.e State Department) links ironically? The propaganda is so thick that it's unreadable..

Quote:The picture above shows the scene earlier today in Kiev, as Ukraine's parliament voted to hold early elections and dismiss
President Viktor Yanukovych.

It's a heart-warming image. The bloody, protracted protests in Ukraine seem to have achieved their goals: Yanukovych is gone, new elections are due, and Yulia Tymoshenko, a key figure in Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution, has been freed from prison. Ukraine looks as though it might have pulled back from the brink.

If only it were that simple.

Post: #190

(02-23-2014 08:55 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 10:05 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  Washington Post article about the battle for Crimea.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worl...-to-begin/

Are you posting Washington Post (i.e State Department) links ironically? The propaganda is so thick that it's unreadable..

Quote:The picture above shows the scene earlier today in Kiev, as Ukraine's parliament voted to hold early elections and dismiss
President Viktor Yanukovych.

It's a heart-warming image. The bloody, protracted protests in Ukraine seem to have achieved their goals: Yanukovych is gone, new elections are due, and Yulia Tymoshenko, a key figure in Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution, has been freed from prison. Ukraine looks as though it might have pulled back from the brink.

If only it were that simple.

Ironically? Not at all. I don't see how what you've highlighted is propaganda, quite the contrary. The writer starts off with a description of what one might think the popular narrative would be from the pov of the protesters, but then says "If only it were that simple."

Then he goes on to describe the underlying issues in Ukraine, specifically Crimea, that make the popular narrative untenable.

I think it's a good piece.

Post: #191

Post: #192

How is it fair for a group of protestors (some of who are armed) to gather together and demand that a democratcially elected government leave office?

That is mob rule and the government has every right to tell them to go fuck themselves.

Can you imagine what would happen if crowds gathered outside the White House demanding that Barack Obama leave so that Mitt Romney can take over? And can you imagine how the US would react if some of the protestors were armed, and firing at the police and government property?

I would love to know if I am mistaken in some way? But to me - things couldn't be any simpler. The government has every right (anda duty to the concept of democracy itself) to tell the protestors to fuck off.

Post: #193

(02-23-2014 08:55 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 10:05 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  Washington Post article about the battle for Crimea.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worl...-to-begin/

Are you posting Washington Post (i.e State Department) links ironically? The propaganda is so thick that it's unreadable..

Quote:The picture above shows the scene earlier today in Kiev, as Ukraine's parliament voted to hold early elections and dismiss
President Viktor Yanukovych.

It's a heart-warming image. The bloody, protracted protests in Ukraine seem to have achieved their goals: Yanukovych is gone, new elections are due, and Yulia Tymoshenko, a key figure in Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution, has been freed from prison. Ukraine looks as though it might have pulled back from the brink.

If only it were that simple.

Great analysis, Team America! The reception of Yulia on Maidan was polite but icy cold and included a lecture as she was leaving, suggesting to me this really was about (for participants) being fed up with corruption, including hers.





There were also a number of feministy types (finally a woman, she will save the day) tweets yesterday, insignificant, except they show the knee jerk stupidity about gender and intolerance for history and facts.

Post: #194

(02-23-2014 09:26 AM)DirectDanger Wrote:  

Nice. I talked to the narrator of that video a few days ago. Glad he's put out something about unfolding events in Ukraine. Been a few months since his last video on a geopolitical event.

Post: #195

Cardguy, I think it always depends who ends up on top in the end, how it gets framed...

From bbc.co.uk:

Quote:The website of the Russian state-run daily Izvestiya, which usually describes opposition activists in Ukraine as "armed extremists" and "militants", has now switched to calling them "people's patrols" and "self-defence groups".

I think the police were surprisingly lenient at the start (let's say much more lenient than the NYPD would be if a cop was ever killed by protesters throwing bricks or if a building was torched) but when they decided to start picking off protesters with snipers (which you can see in videos) that clearly crossed the line into something else.

Obviously things were going on behind the scenes and VY did not have the political support/strength within his own coalition to handle the situation. No one wants to be responsible for implementing a crackdown if they think there is a strong possibility they are going to end up on the losing side anyway.

This is a few days old and so a bit dated already but it presents a more pro-Russian point of view compared to what we usually see in the west. I thought it was a worthwhile read:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26293446

Quote:Today Moscow is not seeking the collapse of Ukraine and is taking no special steps in this direction. But if the internal conflict escalates, Russia may opt to establish closer contacts with pro-Russian regions in eastern and south-eastern Ukraine. Russia is confident that the West's interference and unilateral support for the opposition brings such a scenario closer.

Putin fears chaos. The main driving force behind his policy towards Ukraine will be not a desire for expansion, but a desire to reduce the risk of chaos spilling into Russia. To this end, anything goes - both defensive and offensive means.

I read it this way: Russia would not want to step in too early in a move that almost universally be considered provocative, and making the situation worse, but if violence escalates and parts of the country secede, they would intervene in the name of protecting civilians, etc.

It's in Ukraine's (and everyone's) best interest to de-escalate the violence and prevent things from turning into another Yugoslavia-like breakup (total nightmare scenario.). EU better step up with some serious money.

The concerning thing is that there's no clear leader in the (former) opposition camp.

Post: #196

(02-23-2014 09:57 AM)cardguy Wrote:  How is it fair for a group of protestors (some of who are armed) to gather together and demand that a democratcially elected government leave office?

That is mob rule and the government has every right to tell them to go fuck themselves.

Can you imagine what would happen if crowds gathered outside the White House demanding that Barack Obama leave so that Mitt Romney can take over? And can you imagine how the US would react if some of the protestors were armed, and firing at the police and government property?

I would love to know if I am mistaken in some way? But to me - things couldn't be any simpler. The government has every right (anda duty to the concept of democracy itself) to tell the protestors to fuck off.

Well as a cop I can tell you that the minute protesters are using deadly violence, cops would empty thier Glocks into them. Molotov cocktails and big stones qualify.
The western media purposely hid stuff from the public.
Group of protesters take over gov't offices and forcing governors out would be an act of terrorism. Governor controls the national guard so i guess it would be Full Metal Jacket time.
The incident in Ukraine shows the moral decay of Western society.. how we will put our interests against the majority. Only 45% supported the protests.. and it was mostly a division by regions.
but some key facts of things:
1. Yanuk never called in a state of emergency.If he did things would have ended differently.
2. Yanuk signed the accord to stop more bloodshed and so did Klitchko. klitchko then asked the parliament to impeach Yanuk. It shows that the opposition broke the accord. Makes one wonder if the opposition broke ALL the truces.
3. By being silent after the accord was broken the EU leaders look really bad. USA was smart enough not to sign the accord. I see this hurting the EU in future conflicts. Why would any sane leader ever invite the EU ministers to their country to help broker a truce?This is a win for Russia.... who had the more moral ground here, publicly anyway.
4. Klitcko had assets in Germany but some how the sanctions didn't apply to him?WTF.
5.Yanuk is being stopped from leaving the country because probably he will be arrested. But Yulia who is an oligarch criminal gets freed. Wheres the justice?
Major players:
UDAR-- means funded by those Germans who want to exploit ukraine.
Fatherland - Yulia millions funded that group
Svoboda party- western funded by organizations that include diaspora ukrainians who are Catholics who left way back decades ago. my credit Union gave 50 million last year.

Right sector-- basically used peaceful protesters as shields. Wonder why the west isn't going after them for using violence while they were surrounded by peaceful protesters caught in the middle.

Post: #197

(02-23-2014 11:30 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  Cardguy, I think it always depends who ends up on top in the end, how it gets framed...

From bbc.co.uk:

Quote:The website of the Russian state-run daily Izvestiya, which usually describes opposition activists in Ukraine as "armed extremists" and "militants", has now switched to calling them "people's patrols" and "self-defence groups".

I think the police were surprisingly lenient at the start (let's say much more lenient than the NYPD would be if a cop was ever killed by protesters throwing bricks or if a building was torched) but when they decided to start picking off protesters with snipers (which you can see in videos) that clearly crossed the line into something else.

Obviously things were going on behind the scenes and VY did not have the political support/strength within his own coalition to handle the situation. No one wants to be responsible for implementing a crackdown if they think there is a strong possibility they are going to end up on the losing side anyway.

This is a few days old and so a bit dated already but it presents a more pro-Russian point of view compared to what we usually see in the west. I thought it was a worthwhile read:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26293446

Quote:Today Moscow is not seeking the collapse of Ukraine and is taking no special steps in this direction. But if the internal conflict escalates, Russia may opt to establish closer contacts with pro-Russian regions in eastern and south-eastern Ukraine. Russia is confident that the West's interference and unilateral support for the opposition brings such a scenario closer.

Putin fears chaos. The main driving force behind his policy towards Ukraine will be not a desire for expansion, but a desire to reduce the risk of chaos spilling into Russia. To this end, anything goes - both defensive and offensive means.

I read it this way: Russia would not want to step in too early in a move that almost universally be considered provocative, and making the situation worse, but if violence escalates and parts of the country secede, they would intervene in the name of protecting civilians, etc.

It's in Ukraine's (and everyone's) best interest to de-escalate the violence and prevent things from turning into another Yugoslavia-like breakup (total nightmare scenario.). EU better step up with some serious money.

The concerning thing is that there's no clear leader in the (former) opposition camp.

Putin has to be careful..he actually was the more moral one in this conflict .If he intervenes too early in a succession the Chechen's can get crazy again and yell hypocrisy. The transneister succession happened before Putin so he doesn't get blame for that.
Again Putin plays chess while western gov'ts being dumb liberals only learned checkers.
Even pushing UA to join NATO is symbolic more than anything else.. western military are well aware that Russain military doctrine calls for tactical nukes in a conflict where Russia suffers big losses. Being a NATO member is a liability in a way.

Post: #198

Radio Free is a European media entity owned by the US Government. Therefore the information you find there is in the US interests. Nothing there will be published that goes against the US party line. Here's a recent article they had on Crimea:

http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-cri...68303.html

Notice that US propaganda is not as blatant as Soviet or community Chinese propaganda. They give a facade of balance because they want people to think they are reading something fair and balanced. Nonetheless, American interests are crystal clear in the article:

Quote:The goal of the pro-Russian groups is to keep Ukraine in Moscow's orbit and prevent its integration with Europe. But to drum up support for their efforts, they are openly manipulating tensions and fears between Orthodox Russians and Muslim Crimean Tatars, who make up about 12 percent of the population. Hundreds of thousands of Tatars have returned to their Crimean homeland after being deported by Soviet authorities during World War II.

[...]

The roads of Crimea are blanketed by thousands of billboards installed by a mysterious, lavishly funded nongovernmental organization called Stop Maidan.

So this article lets us know that the US govt wants to portray Moscow as meddling in Crimea. Whether it's true or not, facts are presented only to further US interests. The Washington Post article you shared by Adam Taylor is essentially a poorly done rewrite of the Radio Free article full of emo and omissions to scare readers into thinking Russia wants to subvert the will of the Western portion of Ukraine. The Post writer seems to have also sourced the Radio Free article to write his piece without stating so:

Radio Free:

Quote:Podyachy is pushing for Kyiv to lease the entire peninsula to Russia in exchange for the cancelation of Ukraine's debts to Moscow.

Washington Post:

Quote:One politician he spoke to had the novel idea of leasing Crimea to Russia in exchange for a cancellation of Ukraine's debt to Moscow.

Let me put it this way: if the Washington Post was owned by the US Government, what part of that article you shared would be changed to better represent US interests in a way that wouldn't cause readers to suspect they're being deceived? Probably nothing. Just like how RT articles are Russian propaganda, using the Post or Times to get your analysis ensures you will get a very biased view of what's going on. Check out earlier links in this thread for sources that are more in the middle and closer to the reality.

Post: #199

(02-23-2014 12:28 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Radio Free is a European media entity owned by the US Government. Therefore the information you find there is in the US interests. Nothing there will be published that goes against the US party line. Here's a recent article they had on Crimea:

http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-cri...68303.html

Notice that US propaganda is not as blatant as Soviet or community Chinese propaganda. They give a facade of balance because they want people to think they are reading something fair and balanced. Nonetheless, American interests are crystal clear in the article:

Quote:The goal of the pro-Russian groups is to keep Ukraine in Moscow's orbit and prevent its integration with Europe. But to drum up support for their efforts, they are openly manipulating tensions and fears between Orthodox Russians and Muslim Crimean Tatars, who make up about 12 percent of the population. Hundreds of thousands of Tatars have returned to their Crimean homeland after being deported by Soviet authorities during World War II.

[...]

The roads of Crimea are blanketed by thousands of billboards installed by a mysterious, lavishly funded nongovernmental organization called Stop Maidan.

So this article lets us know that the US govt wants to portray Moscow as meddling in Crimea. Whether it's true or not, facts are presented only to further US interests. The Washington Post article you shared by Adam Taylor is essentially a poorly done rewrite of the Radio Free article full of emo and omissions to scare readers into thinking Russia wants to subvert the will of the Western portion of Ukraine. The Post writer seems to have also sourced the Radio Free article to write his piece without stating so:

Radio Free:

Quote:Podyachy is pushing for Kyiv to lease the entire peninsula to Russia in exchange for the cancelation of Ukraine's debts to Moscow.

Washington Post:

Quote:One politician he spoke to had the novel idea of leasing Crimea to Russia in exchange for a cancellation of Ukraine's debt to Moscow.

Let me put it this way: if the Washington Post was owned by the US Government, what part of that article you shared would be changed to better represent US interests in a way that wouldn't cause readers to suspect they're being deceived? Probably nothing. Just like how RT articles are Russian propaganda, using the Post or Times to get your analysis ensures you will get a very biased view of what's going on. Check out earlier links in this thread for sources that are more in the middle and closer to the reality.

True..but RT had the honestly to post videos the west avoided. The ones that showed that protesters were gopnick thugs.

Post: #200

Quote:How is it fair for a group of protestors (some of who are armed) to gather together and demand that a democratcially elected government leave office?

That is mob rule

Quote:how we will put our interests against the majority. Only 45% supported the protests..

What is "democracy" if nothing more than armed "mob rule" of the majority?

Just because 51% of a particular population votes a certain way does NOT mean that is fair, just, or equitable.

Government schools have trained us that "democracy" (i.e. holding elections for politicians) is the ultimate in liberty and justice for all.

It is nothing of the sort. Mostly it is manufactured consent and an excuse for the true "mob rule" (i.e. governments of armed bureaucrats who act with impunity).

Anyone who opposes the government mob rule is a "terrorist" or "counterrevolutionary".



It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. - Samuel Adams, Father of the American Revolution

"As democracy is perfected, the office of the President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be occupied by a downright fool and complete narcissistic moron."
----H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920