Mar 21, 2014

From Russia, With Love--Part 2

Over a week after the controlled dissent Russia Today event, various idiots on Facebook are claiming the Ukrainian protesters are Nazis or anti-semites or some such...(bit ironic as most of the sheeple pushing these memes push a hella mucho anti-semite conspiracy crap):

Oh I see; the west plan to continue with their hypocrisy in complete disregard of the fact that 90% of Crimea wish to secede from the illegally imposed government of Ukraine.

The newly "created" ultra nationalist government of Ukraine wishes to marginalise/victimise ethnic Russians of which the territory of Crimea is predominately made up of. So it is not only the "will of the people" which is normally enough to make any newly forged country legal, it is arguably to prevent a new harsh and deadly reality of a government coming to power which is going to oppress them.

These so called leaders that now say "ILLEGAL" to this vote by a territory's people are so obviously puppets of western corporate and military interests and obviously don't give a flying fk about the safety or the desire of the people of Crimea. Shame on all of you...
Is there any source to these claims?
-90% of Crimea want to secede
-the Ukraine government is "illegally imposed"  
-the Ukraine government is newly "created" and ultra nationalist
-they want to marginalize/victimise Russians
It is doubtful.  Real journalists are getting sick of this disinformation rubbish:

Kiev's protesters: Ukraine uprising was no neo-Nazi power-grab
 
As life returns to normal in Kiev, Luke Harding encounters frustration over Russian claims of a fascist coup 
Luke Harding
The Guardian, Thursday 13 March 2014 16.14 EDT


The Kremlin describes last month's uprising in next-door Ukraine as an illegitimate fascist coup. It says dark rightwing forces have taken over the government, forcing Moscow to "protect" Ukraine's ethnic Russian minority. The local government in Crimea is preparing for a referendum on Sunday which could lead to Russia annexing the region. Yanukovych, meanwhile, has fled to Russia.
Schilling, however, was an unlikely fascist. A father of two daughters, he and his wife Anna had lived in Italy. They had four grandchildren. Moreover, he was Jewish.

Oops.  Not that it's possible to be Jewish and support fascist; that is the purpose of "alibi Jews" promoting anti semitism.  But in this case, it is very unlikely given more compelling reasons for the uprising:

" With Ukraine on the brink of invasion and division, most people in Kiev blame the country's troubles on the former president. "This is Yanukovych's fault," Zhenia, a pensioner, said, surveying the battleground in Institutska Street, where many were gunned down. She was crying.
Nearby, visitors bowed before makeshift brick shrines, some decorated with gas masks and helmets. Others crossed themselves. One child's drawing said: "Eternal glory to the heroes".
According to those who took part in it, the uprising was a broad-based grassroots movement, launched by people fed up with Yanukovych and involving all sections of society. Some demonstrators were indeed nationalists. Others were liberals, socialists and libertarians. There were Christians and atheists. There were workers from the provinces, as well as IT geeks from Kiev more at home with MacBooks than molotovs.
Its victims were a diverse bunch. The first was an ethnic Armenian; another Russian."

Even Russians involved.  Of course Russians are some of the experts on exaclty how corrupt--and manipulative--Russia can be.
"Yanukovych had just announced that he was dumping Ukraine's preparations to sign an association agreement with the European Union."
 Oh, that dastardly European Union!  And now we come to the crux of why  the Tin Foil brigade is being mobilized to defend Russian propaganda:  To fight those New World Order Illumiati Jews.

A brief scanning of the timeline on Wikipedia will show only a delusional fool can insist on believing Russia is only acting to defend ethnic Russians from "oppression ":
On February 24, 2014, Russian Special Forces[38][39] without insignia arrived[40] on the Crimean peninsula in Ukraine. They seized control of the Crimea region.[41]
Russian authorities disputed that the forces were Russian military.[42

If they're there to protect ethnic Russians, then why was Russia slow to admit to the action?

Putin Says Those Aren't Russian Forces In Crimea
 --
Russian soldiers have not occupied government buildings and surrounded Ukrainian military bases on the Crimean Peninsula, Russian President Vladimir Putin insisted Tuesday during a news conference near Moscow at which he gave an account of recent events that contradicts reports from the ground.
Instead, he told reporters that the heavily armed men are "local self-defense forces."
What's more, anything Russia has done, Putin said without offering specifics, has been part of a "humanitarian mission" to protect ethnic Russians in Crimea.
--
In Kiev, Kerry seemed surprised by a reporter's question about Putin's remarks earlier Tuesday.
"He really denied there are troops in Crimea?" he asked, interrupting the question.
Ah, a non denial, denial:  "We didn't do it, but if we are doing it, it's because of a noble cause."
The idea that Russia is "protecting " anyone, is right out of Putin's mouth:
A statement from the Kremlin said Putin emphasized to Obama the existence of “real threats” to the life and health of Russian citizens and compatriots who are in Ukrainian territory. The statement indicated that Russia might send its troops not only to the Crimea but also to predominantly ethnic Russian regions of eastern Ukraine.
“Vladimir Putin emphasized that, in the case of a further spread in violence in eastern regions (of Ukraine) and Crimea, Russia maintains the right to protect its interests and the Russian-speaking population that lives there,” the Kremlin statement said.

Obama even diplomatically  pretends he thinks Putin is not lying, and offers a saner solution:

Obama told Putin that he would support sending international monitors to Ukraine to help protect ethnic Russians.
From the DUH files.    

Comments in the Guardian article get quite fiesty and on point regarding the blatant propaganda:


Polvilho BlikSnyman

14 March 2014 9:48am


I'm also starting to suspect that Russia is pulling a Koch brothers stunt.

Oh, they've been doing it for years. Witness the comments below the line on any of the recent articles about Russia's homophobic legislation.

I really don't understand what they're trying to achieve. NO ONE takes any notice of the bottom half of the internet.

Do they send a report back to the FSB "We have successfully infiltrated a small cohort of bored office workers and shut-ins with our propaganda. Victory to Mother Russia!".

Substitute "small cohort of bored office workers and shut-ins" with washed up "truthers" on Facebook pinning for the glory days, and they nailed it fair and square.

That veteran webwarriors from the "Truth" movement are pushing Putin's propaganda is depressing, but not unexpected.  Russia Today embracing "truther" stories almost from day one was always suspect.   I personally believe the people who run Russian Today also know the "truth" movement is a fraud.  But maybe they think they're demoralizing the USA by having conspiracy bobble heads claim the US government is run by Jews?  

If so, they didn't understand exactly how fringe the "truth" movement is.  If Russia Today had reached market penetration no later than 2004, maybe 2006, things might have been different.  Hell,they might have done some good by sheer force of "dumb luck", by say promoting the Feal Good foundation.   

But RT didn't get traction pushing "truther"/Ron Paul news until 2009, and the writing was already on the wall for the "truth" movement.  Any potential critical mass of Americans to manipulate to undermine the presidency or American politics to the tune of Russian propaganda had long since left by 2007-2008.

One last thing:  I'll just put this here:


When Russia Today launched in 2005, its operators insisted that despite being funded by the Russian government, the news outlet would function independently of Moscow. The channel even rebranded to simply RT in 2009 to avoid being seen as an entirely Russian news network.

 On Wednesday, however, RT seemingly dropped all pretense of being editorially independent, by praising Russian President Vladimir Putin’s highly controversial annexation of Crimea.

This can't end well.

No comments:

Post a Comment