Propaganda on Ukraine

[bleeding heart]

As some have been pointing out all along, the deceitful propaganda war goes both ways.

That is, I agree fully, without reservation, that Russia has been feeding half-truths, deceptions and outright lies to everybody as part of their campaign. I also agree that the incursions have been illegitimate....and that, whatever genuinely pro-Russia sentiment exists, that Russia has been acting behind the scenes to promote instability and violence.

But the Western entities have been equally, and as ferociously, dishonest...and most of the "mainstream media" has taken on its traditional role of stenographer for false information.

Do people not care when their own leaders, through our "independent" media, are lying directly into their faces?

And how does it feel to learn one has been parroting those lies, like an obedient toddler?

Hilarious, were it not so serious.

For example, when City Hall was seized by Euromaidan street fighters, one of their first acts was to unfurl several flags...prominent among them" Nazi flags, SS lightning bolts, Iron crosses, the Ku Klux Klan's "Celtic Cross," and the Confederate flag.

this was evidently NOT "news fit to print," as the NY Times would have it. Other media have taken their lead, and avoided the story...which is publically available, of course, so it's not as if they had no access to what is incontrovertibly a newsworthy report.

As perhaps predictable, the far-right extremists have gained important roles in the new government. Andriy Parubiy, head of the National Security council (who has just announced sending the Reserve Unit of the National Guard to the "Front line") is a well known neo-Nazi and militant White Nationalist. He is openly enamoured with the so-called "Hero of Ukraine," Stepan Bandera, a Nazi collaborator responsible for the murder of thousands of Jews and Poles in his dream for a "racially pure" Ukraine.

Western leaders are quite explicitly pretending that none of this is going on; they aren't even saying "our sonofabitch," as they did with Suharto and Saddam; they're pretending there IS no "sonofabitch."

And the sordid details go much further....all "propaganda" according to the propagandizing Western media....if it comes up at all. Which is mostly does not.

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/04/16/ukraine-through-the-us-looking-glass/

[Shady]

Gag. Another moral equivalency post regarding Putin and Russia. Sorry, but you're wrong. It's not equal. Stop with the excuses for Vladimir already. It's unbecoming.

[bleeding heart]

Ah....so you chose, for reasons of your own, not to read the first four lines in my post.

And the only thing I equated was the propaganda. I even gave you direct and explicit examples....which you can counter-argue, if you wish; or, barring that, you could invent bizarre notions like my "excuses for Vladimir," which nowhere exist.

And so you've chosen. Unbecoming, indeed.

Edited April 17, 2014 by bleeding heart

[Shady]

No, comparing a free press to a state controlled press is absurd.

[bleeding heart]

I did not undertake an institutional analysis of the press....,I said we were equally beset by propaganda in this case....and linked to a piece that discusses the propaganda.

I note you have not a single answer to any of the points raised...preferring instead to fantasize that I'm a Bush-like apologist for Vladimir Putin, whom I have here denounced for outright criminality and a Russian flank of lies.

It appears your only issue, then--since it isn't with anything I've actually written--is that I'm pointing out Western propaganda.

If anything, folks' hostility to such an exercise only underscores the urgency of the subject.

Edited April 17, 2014 by bleeding heart

[Big Guy]

As some have been pointing out all along, the deceitful propaganda war goes both ways.

...

I fully agree as I am one of those. I am not pro-Russian or pro-Ukraine or pro whatever but am pro-truth!

I believe that the only way a person can make a valid decision on an issue is to listen to both sides of the argument, glean out the truth from the spin and then make my own mind up.

As to conflicts :"In war, truth is the first casualty. - Aeschylus Greek tragic dramatist (525 BC - 456 BC).

I am disappointed that there are not more journalists on the ground in the Ukraine.

Just yesterday, it appears that the facts of a confrontation are that "Ukrainian troops entered the eastern town of Kramatorsk a day after an operation began to recapture areas seized by anti-government separatists. Six armoured personnel carriers ended up in pro-Russian hands."

Ukrainians claim that they were captured. The pro-Russian ( or pro-independence or ...) say that the soldiers refused to fire on their countrymen and changed sides giving the vehicles to the "demonstrators" ( even the description forces one to take a side).

So what really happened? I still do not know.

There is an interesting video at:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/16/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2

In any disagreement there are always those who will deride a popular or opposing point of view and will automatically ignore anything that does not conform to their already cemented views. I doubt if they are better informed for the experience.

I remember throwing snow balls at anti-Vietnam protestors on campus and arguing vehemently about the clear need to invade Iraq because of the weapons of mass destruction. I no longer walk lockstep in the shoes that our Western media and governments provide.

I do envy those who are comfortable in swallowing every line that our government throws out. They can righteously denounced any opposing opinion as anti-democratic, anti-government but mostly anti-their own.

As I have stated before, it is easy when you put either black hats or white hats on opposing sides of a conflict. When you begin to see lots of grey hats is when it gets difficult - but far more educational and informative.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Big Guy

[Shady]

What really happend? Well, we know Putin annexed Crimea. And is now in the process of doing the same with eastern Ukraine. Anything else is irrelevant.

[bleeding heart]

No...the truth is quite relevant, and we should be trying to understand everything we can. Unless "relevance" means what powerful Western leaders inform you to think.

Read Big Guy's insightful post, and then rethink it.

[Bryan]

What really happend? Well, we know Putin annexed Crimea.

...because they ASKED him to.

[Shady]

No...the truth is quite relevant, and we should be trying to understand everything we can. Unless "relevance" means what powerful Western leaders inform you to think.

Read Big Guy's insightful post, and then rethink it.

You're missing the big picture. You're using reactions to Putin's annexation as a way to justify them. It's ridiculous.

[Shady]

...because they ASKED him to.

LOL.

[bleeding heart]

Again, you're not paying attention to what I write, and so are compelled to argue with...I don't know, some phantom.

You're right, it would be ridiculous to paint Western propaganda (which you euphemistically refer to as "reactions") as a way to justify Putin's annexation. Fortunately, I have done no such thing. To quote myself, in the post to which you initially responded (albeit without reading it):

I also agree that the incursions have been illegitimate

My "justification" is so subtle that it is stated as the opposite of "justification"! How coy of me.....

Edited April 17, 2014 by bleeding heart

[GostHacked]

Good post BH. You seem to have a very similar view to me about all of this.

[bleeding heart]

Tim:

No, the "narrative" I've offered is solid...a lot more solid and rich in info than your "climate change propaganda" rebuttal.

First of all, Indonesia was loathe to have a newly-independent (from Portugal) left-leaning nation at its doorstep, especially as its independence might influence other small, weak nations in Suharto's Imperial crosshairs.

Ford and Kissinger met with the Indonesians, and gave the green light for an invasion. They asked only that Suharto keep the use of American weapons and training (which they were to continue to provide for the next 25 years, along with the UK, Australia, and other beacons of freedom....Canada and Japan also sided with Indonesia)...silent. Wouldn't play well domestically, and they figured that keeping silent would make "less chance of people talking in an unauthorized way."

This bit is taken from the radical lefty anti-American lies known as "declassified documents released by the National Security Archive."

Well, the Cold War Americans, Brits and Aussies liked their enemies mildly socialist, and their friends right-wing horror-chamber overseers, in the Latin American style.

Within months, 60 000 were dead, and the numbers of rapes-as-method-of-warfare are considered to be monumental. Whatever the incontrovertible facts are, tens of thousands of murdered peasants, very few of them armed, is understood everywhere...including by the US State Department.

Over the next quarter century, through several successive administrations in several Western powers--a wholly bipartisan form of supporting massive state terrorism in line with Saddam Hussein at his worst moments--somewhere between 130 000 and 250 000 East Timorese were murdered...many outright, many through an intentional policy of starvation. Women and children took the usual brunt, though E.T. Fretelin forces (once lauded for being Western allies in World War 2) took very heavy casualties as well.

Rapes, mutilations, and torture were widespread, predictably.

In late 1975, the UN General Assembly called upon Indonesia to stop its illegal and murderous incursion. But US ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan, as he boasted later in his memoirs, "The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook [with regard to the invasion of East Timor]. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with not inconsiderable success." (He later called his behavior "shameless"...too little, too late, obviously).

Paul Wolfowitz was also a great defender of Suharto.

So, greenlighting the invasion, military support, training (in contravention of American law, to say nothing of international)...and diplomatic mucking about, to ensure that the pseudo-fascists would triumph over the non-aggressive, non-aligned but Western-friendly burgeoning nation of Timor-Leste.

What's maybe most telling is that, when activists (left-wing, as well as a scattering of Catholic groups) began making too much noise, Clinton got nervous. In 1999, he told the Generals that the gig was finally up (after he'd supported and defended them for six years, of course, culminating in a particularly vicious massacre earlier that year, echoing another that had occurred in 1991. And so on, back for a generation.

The UN went in...and the killing was stopped. Bloodlessly, immediately. And so could have been achieved at any time over the previous 25 years, so dependent was Indonesia on US good will...and material aid, not incidentally.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB62/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_occupation_of_East_Timor

http://easttimorgovernment.com/history.htm

http://www.etan.org/

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199910--.htm

Edited April 17, 2014 by bleeding heart

[TimG]

No, the "narrative" I've offered is solid...a lot more solid and rich in info than your "climate change propaganda" rebuttal.

I never said you did not have some facts to support your case. What I am saying is you are constructing a narrative with those facts - a narrative designed to mislead and persuade people to support your POV. Case in point: you claimed this was the "Worst mass murder since the Holocaust" yet the killings, according to the UN, were a mere 18,600 over a 23 year period (For reference: the homicide rate in the US is about 16,000 per year). It is an insult to the 6,000,000 that died in six years to compare these killings to the Holocaust.

IOW - Just like I said: you combine facts, exaggerations and lies to create a narrative that suits your ideological preferences. So my question is why are you better than anyone else?

Edited April 17, 2014 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

I didn't say it was "the worst mass murder since the Holocaust.;'" I said it was one of the worst paroxysms of mass murder since the Holocaust"...and when you cite the 18600 number (which is almost certainly lowballed in any case) you leave out 160 000 killed (intentionally killed, mind) through starvation...as assessed by the UN, which you cite.

You might be surprised that some of us actually mean what we write...so "one of" has meaning, that can be found out.

Either you intentionally lowball it--talk about insult to victims!--or you failed to read beyond what you mistakenly thought was a "winning point."

You've forgotten that I've looked into the subject...and you knew nothing at all about it. Caution should be watchword.

(And how is "since the Holocaust" an insult to the victims...of the Holocaust?" Ye gods.

So, according to the low-to-mid-range estimates, somewhere between 150 000 and 200 000 people were murdered...that is, up to a third of the population.

As I said....preferring to use the conservative-to-middling estimates. Including the UN, which you cite.

You're being careless. Don't let carelessness slip into apologetics, is my sincere advice.

[TimG]

I didn't say it was "the worst mass murder since the Holocaust.;'" I said it was one of the worst paroxysms of mass murder since the Holocaust"...and when you cite the 18600 number (which is almost certainly lowballed in any case) you leave out 160 000 killed (intentionally killed, mind) through starvation...as assessed by the UN, which you cite.

The UN report I looked at said it was 100K including starvation. And yes - you did say "since the Holocaust" so you have a technical point but you still are guilty of a falsehood since it is clearly NOT the one of the "worst paroxysms of mass murder the Holocaust". I doubt it would even make the top ten (Mao, Stalin, Rwanda all make East Timor look like a Sunday picnic).

So, according to the low-to-mid-range estimates, somewhere between 150 000 and 200 000 people were murdered...that is, up to a third of the population.

Here is my source:

http://www.cavr-timorleste.org/updateFiles/english/CONFLICT-RELATED%20DEATHS.pdf

It is a UN report endorsed by the East Timor parliament so it is more credible the whatever numbers you came up with. That makes you guilty of exaggeration in your effort to construct a narrative that makes this conflict seem more significant than it is (yes, I am aware that the report lists these as the "minimum scientifically supportable count" but that is the trouble with narratives - they quickly dispense with scientifically supportable data and treat assumptions and guesses as if they are facts).

I find it amazing that you can engage in the exact same propaganda tactics that you accuse others of yet be completely blind to it.

Edit to add: I am not saying constructing propaganda narratives is necessarily wrong because they are necessary for mass communication. All I am saying is stop pretending that you are presenting the unvarnished truth to a world filled with lies - you are just another guy with a narrative that you want to peddle and your narratives are filled with half truths, exaggerations and falsehoods - just like the ones the media try to peddle.

Edited April 18, 2014 by TimG

[-TSS-]

The crucial question is did NATO and the west really promise on German reunification to the Russians that if the Russians, then still Soviet Union, that if Germany is allowed to reunify NATO won't expand to the east?

At least this betrayal of that said promise has been used as an excuse for the acts of the Russians.

[Argus]

I think it's worth noting that all independant media were basically pushed out of business shortly after Crimea's Russian 'seperatists' took control. But for a more complete rundown on Russia's propaganda on Crimea and Ukraine, try the Guardian.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/17/crimea-crisis-russia-propaganda-media

[bleeding heart]

Tim, Tim, Tim, you keep undermining your own argument.

The link you provide cites 102 000 "Scientifically-verifiable" deaths as a direct result of the conflict. They call this their "conservative estimate"...which is what I called it too.

They claim the number could be as high as 180 000--and so does the East Timorese government....a fact which you ignore, by citing that the 102 000 number is "endorsed by the East Timorese government." That's correct...they endorse it because the number is scientifically-verifiable, not because they think it is the actual number. They cite approximately 180 000...with the distinct possibility of it being notably higher.

It's like Iraqi Body Count--no one (well, except George W. Bush) accepts that their numbers are correct; no one. Including Iraqi Body Count. but everyone endorses it, because it is a conservative number that is absolutely verifiable.

Which is why I offered no "exaggeration" at all, as you know full well: since the numbers range from 100 000 (stated as "conservative" by the source itself), to 180 000 (the most common number used, including by the East Timorese government) and up to well over 200 000 by many other sources, I stated, accurately, that the number I gave was "conservative-to middling." Perhaps I might have just said "middling."

But okay, let's keep to the pretence that the lower number is correct, based on what can be verified. Because you're focusing on this (albeit not with total honesty)..and quite willfully ignoring the parts for which you have no answer. That is, the major parts of my argument.

So what of the rest of my argument...the meat of it?

First, that several Western governments, through multiple administrations, knowingly, intentionally and materially aided in state terrorism and mass murder, and are by definition complicit in those crimes...and so, by definition, many of these miserable men are war criminals.

Okay, so that's a truism.

Second--directly to my point on propaganda, the point which you ignore: very little of this story appeared in the mainstream media, including the so-called "liberal" CBC, BBC, Washington Post, NYTimes, etc....you can link currently to a brief BBC "history" of the event, in which Western--including British--crucial and important support are completely vanished from the story.

That's propaganda. Cruder than usual, in fact...it's Soviet-style.

Occasionally, bits and pieces dripped out, thanks to the work of leftist and libertarian fringe media, as well as the work of East Timorese activists and their international supporters. But mostly, major media ignored it....except to now and then talk about Suharto's bad behavior, free of context and Western interventionism, in the style of the BBC piece I mentioned.

It took 25 years for the story to gain enough momentum to make even a smarmy little gangster like Bill Clinton worry about the heat.

OK, so that's the premise which started our back-and-forth--my one example of Western-backed mass murder--which extrapolates out to a lot of different horror stories, some of them also resulting in monumentally-huge mass murders, with eager Western support.

I find it hard to believe you're unaware of any of it, by the way, the depredations in Cambodia or Laos or several Latin American countries.

And your example was...climate change, as the most serious Western propaganda. Nice.

As for your listing of "Mao, Stalin, Rwanda"....I agree, actually, that they were worse than Indonesia's rapey-torture-y-murderey-performance in East Timor, due to the sheer number of victims. I would add a couple others to the list as well, notably the Congo and Haiti (oops...that's another one in which Western nations bear direct and intentionally murderous responsibility, so you might wish to ignore it).

But again, it's evident you aren't reading my posts...you seem to have an elementary familiarity with something vaguely related to what I've written, so I assume you're skimming them for "debating points."

Because...I reiterate yet again....I said "one of." You see? "One of." So you mentioned three that are worse...I added two more. No doubt we could come up with a couple of others (but again, some of them are going to indict our own countries and leaders, and I see that you loathe that conversational direction...because you don't like to be reminded that we and our cherished allies are actually--literally--terrorists and mass killers of the innocent.) Either way, if we've got, oh I dunno, ten or less, than "one of" is reasonable and accurate...

....even for those of us who think that Western-sponsored murders of 102 000+ is a trivial thing, and an irritating "ideological" stance...when actually, it is the dismissal of such huge numbers of killings that bespeaks of ideology, if not outright doctrinal obedience.

Edited April 18, 2014 by bleeding heart

[TimG]

Because...I reiterate yet again....I said "one of." You see? "One of." So you mentioned three that are worse...I added two more. No doubt we could come up with a couple of others

My point is you are using words to create an image that the event was worse than it was. Over 23 years 100,000 people died - a pittance in the scale of human tragedy that is measured by yardsticks like the Great Leap Forward or the Holocaust. It is not even in the same league and it is deceptive to imply that it is. More people were murdered in the US over the same period. More people died from traffic accidents.

So the question becomes: Why should these deaths capture the attention of western media? What should people care? Because people died? Car accidents kill more. Because Western governments did nothing to stop it? Then why didn't they? Why does your narrative omit the reasons why western governments would do this at the time? No matter what you think of Western officials they do not allow people to be murdered for fun - they had reasons - reasons which seemed to be very good at the time. You want to dismiss these reasons in your narrative as unimportant because your desire to create a compelling propaganda narrative requires that you pretend that the reasons were unimportant.

Lastly, I don't have any really opinion on this particular issue - what happened - happened and it perhaps it could have been prevented if the US had acted differently but hindsight is always 20/20. The only thing I want to do is point out how you construct propaganda to tell stories in ways that suit the way you see the world. All I am doing is presenting the same facts with a different spin to illustrate how narrative can really change the story without changing the facts. If two narratives tell the same story based on the same facts then how can one be declared right and one be declared wrong?

Edited April 18, 2014 by TimG

[eyeball]

So the question becomes: Why should these deaths capture the attention of western media? What should people care?

Because when so many deaths are deliberately instigated by our representatives who should have known better, we become just as directly responsible and complicit.

Because people dies? Car accidents kill more.

That doesn't even dignify a response other than to mock it as an utterly depraved apologetic.

Because Western governments did nothing to stop it?

No, because they did nothing to stop themselves from being complicit, unless it was to avoid being seen as such.

Then why didn't they? Why does your narrative omit the reasons why western governments would do this at the time?

The record makes it very clear why Western governments acted the way they did at that time, what isn't clear is why they thought our complicity in atrocities was justifiable. The fact they stopped supporting it only after it became apparent atrocities were happening suggests they knew damn well what they were doing couldn't be justified.

There are no statutes of limitation for murder.

[TimG]

That doesn't even dignify a response other than to mock it as an utterly depraved apologetic.

Why? Is my statement false? Seems to me the only reason you dislike it is because it undermines BH's narrative/propaganda by putting the deaths in perspective.

The best narratives are those which don't require lies or exaggeration to convey their point. Juxtaposition of inconvenient facts is a good way to do this.

Edited April 18, 2014 by TimG

[Hudson Jones]

As some have been pointing out all along, the deceitful propaganda war goes both ways.

That is, I agree fully, without reservation, that Russia has been feeding half-truths, deceptions and outright lies to everybody as part of their campaign. I also agree that the incursions have been illegitimate....and that, whatever genuinely pro-Russia sentiment exists, that Russia has been acting behind the scenes to promote instability and violence.

But the Western entities have been equally, and as ferociously, dishonest...and most of the "mainstream media" has taken on its traditional role of stenographer for false information.

I don't understand this. You're either with us or against us.

Pick a side, buddy.

[eyeball]

Why? Is my statement false? Seems to me the only reason you dislike it is because it undermines BH's narrative/propaganda by putting the deaths in perspective.

The best narratives are those which don't require lies or exaggeration to convey their point. Juxtaposition of inconvenient facts is a good way to do this.

No your statement is ridiculous. The most depraved narratives are those which equate accidental death with deliberate murder - it's no exaggeration to say this is a perspective that is really grotesque no matter what point you're trying to convey.

I only wish that serious propagandists had as patently transparent a window into how their minds work are as you do. You either really suck at disguising where you're coming from or are expert at making it clear. If the latter I only wish our governments were as openly pagan in their ethos as you.

Edited April 18, 2014 by eyeball