Ukraine crisis

[Big Guy]

What is not in contention is that a Ukrainian billionaire has placed a bounty on pro-Russians and their activities.

"Kolomoiskiy’s new anti-Kremlin ploy is offers specific rewards in hopes cash can turn the tide against the commandos. If the occupiers will get out of the administrative buildings they’re holding, then for each building $200,000 will be contributed to the local community (which the occupiers claim they represent). Anyone turning in an AK assault rifle used by the separatists gets $1,000; a heavier machine gun earns $1,500; a grenade launcher $2,000. But the most talked-about reward is $10,000 for the capture of a Russian commando."

I begin to wonder if these paramilitary outfits are nationalists or bounty hunters - or does it matter.

Also these "volunteer" units play into the allegation that right wing Nazi like groups are the force behind much of the conflict. Why does the Kiev government not denounce and disarm these groups? They play into the credibility of the pro-Russian demonstrators accusations that Russian speaking Ukrainians are being targeted and suppressed. They are certainly not doing much to get support from those outside the conflict.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Big Guy

[Wayward Son]

There is a reward for my grenade launcher. Help, help I am being repressed.

As for the reward for a specific Russian agent, I am not worried about that. We know from all of the RT propaganda on here that Russia would never have agents in Ukraine trying to destabilize that part of the country. So a bounty on someone who could not possibly be in the Ukraine is a bounty that can not be fulfilled.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Wayward Son

[Big Guy]

There is a reward for my grenade launcher. Help, help I am being repressed.

As for the reward for a specific Russian agent, I am not worried about that. We know from all of the RT propaganda on here that Russia would never have agents in Ukraine trying to destabilize that part of the country. So a bounty on someone who could not possibly be in the Ukraine is a bounty that can not be fulfilled.

The idea of placing a bounty on political opponents is an interesting concept for democracies. But the end result would justify the means - would it not?

My point is that the government in Kiev is not as squeaky clean as the Western media portrays it. There appears to be a very right wing element that maintains a lot of power in Kiev and the government is either afraid of that power or condones it.

Also, if the Kiev government no longer trusts the soldiers in its armed forces then there seems to be far more sympathy to towards the pro-Russian groups in the East and West than the Western media would have us believe. There are good guys and bad guys in most conflicts. The problem is to get to the truth so that you can decide which group has the more valid claims.

Already the Western reports for this area over the last few weeks have changed from an unprovoked Russian invasion that must be rebuffed to a new Ukrainian federalism, buffer zones and more referendum. Seems like the original reports of what was happening on the ground and the wishes of the locals was faulty.

This conflict continues to evolve as does the reporting of activities and motives.

[Wayward Son]

The idea of placing a bounty on political opponents is an interesting concept for democracies.

It is not political opponents. It is members of Russia's military being paid to enter and destabilize another country. They should not be there, and news sources like RT have consistently denied that they are there, so what are you worried about? Or do you actually know that your favorite news source has been lying all along? Russia has been using their money, propaganda, and military to destabilize Ukraine...but now that someone from the country that is being attacked is using money to try to stop the destabilization you are now suddenly worried about that influence on democracy.

As for the weapons, money for weapons is a sensible policy that has been used in lots of places, like the US and Australia. I support it.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Wayward Son

[Big Guy]

It is not political opponents. It is members of Russia's military being paid to enter and destabilize another country. They should not be there, and news sources like RT have consistently denied that they are there, so what are you worried about? Or do you actually know that your favorite news source has been lying all along? Russia has been using their money, propaganda, and military to destabilize Ukraine...but now that someone from the country that is being attacked is using money to try to stop the destabilization you are now suddenly worried about that influence on democracy.

As for the weapons, money for weapons is a sensible policy that has been used in lots of places, like the US and Australia. I support it.

It appears that my posts are again “worthy of your time”. That being the case, as a matter of courtesy, I must give of my time to respond.

As I have noted in the past, my references for this issue are; Kyiv Post, Reuters, Globe and Mail, CNN, Pravda, Al Jazeera, The Economist and The New York Times. When something of significance happens on the ground then I compare the coverage and eventually get an idea of the actual facts of the event. That is when I decide on questions that I would like to be answered and post them on selected public opinion boards.

I believe that you are mistaken that my favourite news source is RT and I seldom “suddenly worry” about too many things. I am not that passionate about this issue. Please continue to assume what you would like but do not make declarations of my opinions based on faulty assumptions. That is not an accurate method to use to get to the truth of reality.

Thank you for continuing to read and comment on my posted opinions.

[ASIP]

Russia has been using their money, propaganda, and military to destabilize Ukraine..

Irony of the situation is that now Russia spends relatively little money. The main spender now is Yanukovich (in order of $1 mln a day, rates are known.). These money were stolen from Ukraine in February

Also these "volunteer" units play into the allegation that right wing Nazi like groups are the force behind much of the conflict. Why does the Kiev government not denounce and disarm these groups? They play into the credibility of the pro-Russian demonstrators accusations that Russian speaking Ukrainians are being targeted and suppressed. They are certainly not doing much to get support from those outside the conflict.

.1. No such groups have been detected so far. There is no any serious Nazi groups in Ukraine.

2. Russian propaganda calls all Ukrainian part of the country "Nazi " any way.

3. Formally,the government initiates criminal investigations in all cases where a criminal acts are suspected.

[Big Guy]

Looks like there is a new player in the game - Rinat Akhmetov. A Ukrainian billionaire who employs about 300,000 people in his business has organized part of his work force into (what appears to me ) a private army.

“By late Thursday, miners and steelworkers had deployed in at least five cities, including the regional capital, Donetsk, though they had not yet become the dominant force there that they are in Mariupol, the region’s second largest city and the site just last week of bloody confrontations between Ukrainian troops and pro-Russian militants.”

Most reports indicate that while they are not armed, they do have the numbers of force to clear off the separatists.

“Groups of six or so steelworkers accompany two policemen on the patrols. “People organize themselves,” he said. “In times of troubles, that is how it works.”

Interesting that a democracy is being protected by anarchy.

Elections are due on May 25. It was hoped that the results would bring calm to the area but I cannot see how they can be considered as “valid” by anyone. Some population areas are held by pro-Russians, some by troops from Kiev, some by those loyal to Rinat. Kiev still considers Crimea to be part of Ukraine. Will the people in Crimea get a vote?

There does not appear to be a solution or the end to violence in the near future.

[jbg]

Looks like there is a new player in the game - Rinat Akhmetov. A Ukrainian billionaire who employs about 300,000 people in his business has organized part of his work force into (what appears to me ) a private army.

Are you saying that the Russians should be the only organized forces agitating for change?

[Big Guy]

Are you saying that the Russians should be the only organized forces agitating for change?

I did re-read my post a few times and was unable to find anywhere within it a statement or implication that the Russians should be the only organized force agitating for change. In fact I cannot find an instance where I stated that the Russians are currently agitating for change. I may be mistaken and would appreciate your pointing it out to me.

Do you believe that the Russians should be the only organized force agitating for a change?

Do you believe that there is a place in a democracy for someone with $billions to create a paramilitary force to change conditions during a time of turmoil?

Do you believe that the end will justify the means if Kiev again gains full control over the Ukraine?

Do you think that this coming election will reflect the wishes of the majority of Ukrainians - including those in the Crimea?

Do you think that those pro-Kiev Ukrainians in the Crimea should not get a vote?

Do you think that Russia wants to annex the Eastern part of the Ukraine with all of the baggage that comes with it?

Do you think that the current government in Kiev reflects the feeling of those millions of Russian speaking Ukrainians in the East and South?

Thank you for reading and commenting on my post.

[eyeball]

Looks like there is a new player in the game - Rinat Akhmetov. A Ukrainian billionaire who employs about 300,000 people in his business has organized part of his work force into (what appears to me ) a private army....

...Interesting that a democracy is being protected by anarchy.

It looks more like sycophants and their beloved oligarch to me.

[dre]

So...what you're saying is all a bunch of guessing, then.

There is a huge difference between western media and Russian media. Western media wants to sell stories, and government untruths are a huge story. Your logic just doesn't seem to fit with what I've seen from the media.

Media corporations in the west are just as cozy with the government as other corporations. Western social democracies have evolved into quasi "facism light" states where the line between corporations and government is really blurry. For example, when media companies broke the law and gave government thugs access to peoples personal information in the US, the government stepped in and passed laws giving them immunity from prosecution.. This potentially saved them from being on the wrong end of gigantic lawsuits. Favors like that earn favors in return, and thats just one example of the mutual masturbation that goes on between government and corporations. They also depend on government approval every time a media corporation wants to swallow up another smaller channel or a news paper.

The other obvious interest that press in the west has to help demonize the Russians is that re-ramping up the coldwar and all the rhetoric flying from both sides is the kind of thing that makes people tune into the news. They thrive on war and conflict and misery. Those things make big stories. Take a look at the runup to the war in Iraq where instead of asking tough hard-hitting questions about the case for war, news corps redecorated their sets, and started broadcasting all kinds of war-porn... shiny fighter jets with American flags waving in the back ground etc. They helped sell the war because they knew they would profit from it. People stay glued to their tvs when theres a conflict, and the more people that are glued to their TV's the more these companies can charge for ad space.

I would even argue that the media in the west is worse because people believe its better. At least with media in totalitarian states the whole world knows its being controlled and manipulated. But in the west people watch networks like CNN or FOX and they actually BELIEVE its the news.,,.

[bleeding heart]

Further, smallc's responses have been typical of the formulaic apologetics for Western crimes (which he implies earlier might not exist at all, an astonishing view); first, as in the response above, he suggests that it would be illogical for media to ignore the "huge story" of "government untruths" (in this case, the predictable "untruth" is about intentional, material support of state terrorism resulting in a minimum of 100 000 murders)...of course the Government(s) are going to cling to "untruths" on a matter of international aggression, state terror, and mass murder when they among the guilty parties.

But he then says that the story, which he elsewhere claims must never have happened...since he doesn't know about it...since the media didn't report it...never took hold because the public "wasn't interested." Meaning, I suppose, that he isn't interested. Patriotic "truths" are more important than facts, after all.

If one has grown up thinking (as most of us have, I believe) that this benign entity we call "the West," most certainly including the particularly Noble Anglo nations, has "the world's" best interests at heart, and always is trying to Do the Right Thing--maybe occasionally making minor "mistakes" which does us no good to dwell upon too much--well, then of course you're refusing to ever have a serious discussion about global affairs.

It's not far off from debating with Creationists; and I doubt this is an exaggeration.

[GostHacked]

dre and BH, both good posts and sums up much of what you two and others are trying to put across.

[Argus]

Media corporations in the west are just as cozy with the government as other corporations. Western social democracies have evolved into quasi "facism light" states where the line between corporations and government is really blurry.

Ludicrous drivel. You people who so hate and fear the West and our evil democracies really need to get out more. Go live in Russia or China and enjoy their glorious freedoms. Get a sense of proportion, if that is even possible.

[Argus]

It's not far off from debating with Creationists; and I doubt this is an exaggeration.

I find discussing things with THE WEST IS EVIL crowd to be like debating 911 truthers.

[Smallc]

Yeah yeah, the west is full of evil fascists. I would say the false equivalency from Dre and BH is a far more dishonest portrayal than anything that assumes that Western Media are more trustworthy than the likes of RT. But no, in their world, everything is the same, just as evil, just as corrupt. It's almost sad.

[Smallc]

Media corporations in the west are just as cozy with the government as other corporations.

Because they never uncover government scandals and misdeeds.

[Shady]

Because they never uncover government scandals and misdeeds.

Exactly. Media outlets in the west apparently never investigated any of the big banks and reported on them. Never investigated big oil companies and reported on their environmental short cuts. Never investigated or reported on Wal Mart's and others business practices. Never reported and investigated the government, in terms of secret prisons, rendition, gitmo, NSA, etc. None of that happened. Their just like the controlled media of Russia etc, but minus all of the push back that Putin etc don't have to fear.

[Shady]

I find discussing things with THE WEST IS EVIL crowd to be like debating 911 truthers.

Well said and probably the most accurate thing ever stated in this forum. I continue to be baffled by the defenders and justifiers of some of the worst actors on the world stage. I just dont get it, or where the need to defend such people and behavior comes from.

[bleeding heart]

Argus, I have never declared that "The West is evil," because I don't view the world through such a lens. In my view, it is as silly as "the West acts with benign intentions, though occasionally makes mistakes in its efforts to do good"....a facile and self-indulgent worldview which is an unfortunate side-effect of patriotism.

[bleeding heart]

Well, smallc, your charge of "false equivalency" is meaningless, because I have engaged in no such thing. you just got your delicate nationalism wounded because I pointed out, and can provide more evidence than you can read in a week, cases of direct, material, knowing, intentional support for massive crimes, which you had the weakness to question if they existed at all. (Thus proving my point for me, handily, about media omission and misinformation).

Your charge of dishonesty is a personal attack--I suppose anything goes when dainty patriotic sentiment is offended.

But it's pretty ballsy, considering your coy--and explicitly dishonest--have-it-both-ways "argument" you've posited to me earlier.

Hell, you even strongly implied that the western democracies have committed no "crimes"...which is also dishonest, because it is flatly impossible that you truly believe this.

At any rate, and just to clarify, when a person points out the fact (buttressed even by declassified State department documents, in at least one case we were discussing) that the Anglo allies (and by no means only them) have willfully, and often quite recently, committed to massive state terrorism, mass murder, (EAst Timor, Nicaragua, Guatemala); and the subversion of democracy in favour of dictatorships, against the expressed will of the people (Haiti)...

....to name but a tiny handful of a shameful record of which you insist that you are completely unaware...truthfully or otherwise...

.....why, then that person is engaging in "false equivalency."

Let me guess: it's our patriotic duty to focus laserlike on the crimes of others...and to pretend that our own don't even exist!

Well, you can have at it. Me, I'm not that sort of religious fundamentalist, so I simply cannot bring myself to do it.

Edited May 18, 2014 by bleeding heart

[Smallc]

It's our duty to weigh the crimes, and decide which is worse. We can't all be Switzerland about everything. The reality is, in most situations, the west is not the worse, but the better. Of course the west isn't perfect. I've never said that, but you can't see past your smug condescending attitude. I'm going to have to leave this conversation where it is, seeing as it's rather pointless.

[bleeding heart]

It's pointless because you have no interest in discussions about crimes committed by us and our favoured allies.

I said nothing about comparing it...that's the shtick you keep bringing up.

[Smallc]

It's pointless because you have no interest in discussions about crimes committed by us and our favoured allies.

This isn't the place to discuss them - yet you keep bringing them up as if they're somehow relevant to the misdeeds of Russia in the Ukraine.

[GostHacked]

This isn't the place to discuss them - yet you keep bringing them up as if they're somehow relevant to the misdeeds of Russia in the Ukraine.

They are, if you don't want to hold our leader accountable for their failed actions while complaining about Putin for much of the same thing our leaders are doing.