I am continually astounded by the amount of support Russia receives from HN commenters. Is it that the Russian propaganda so strong that it reaches all the way to the Bay area, or are there a lot of Russians on here?
What I am wondering is when Russia will completely take over Ukraine and what will be the NATO position at that point? I have no delusions that NATO will not engage in any military conflict, since nobody wants to start WWIII, but this has to be disturbing developments for countries like Poland, Romania, etc.
Also, I wonder if Putin is really willing to continue this invasion at the cost of being ex-communicated by the US and parts of Western Europe? I suppose he is currently banking that most of Western Europe depends on his natural gas, so they cannot completely shut him out.
Please don't read it as support for Russia but standard geopolitical fair. Because of the leaked Victoria Nuland phone call (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957), it's pretty clear that the US is engaged in some clandestine nation-building in Ukraine. This is not democracy but corruption of democracy.
In this situation, Russia is being an opportunist by securing its interests in the area. the US holds no moral authority over Russia in that regard. Putin knows that westerners are war-weary. And compared to ISIS, Russia is still a saint. So it's the right time for them to support their rebel allies.
Poor Ukraine is being torn apart between 3 world powers.
I wonder what kind of secret nation-building activities could US be engaged in? Last events that raised the patriotism level were annexing of one region and bringing deadly unrest to another and both had come from the same world power. I can't see the other 2 tearing us apart. Not that they had to. People are shifting towards West even more thanks to east neighbour's aggression.
I think many hackers like me are quite anti-authorian and anti-establishment. The establishment and the media have clearly decided who the bad guys in the conflict are (Russia) and it's obvious from all the reporting. We remember what they reported in 2003 about wmd:s in Iraq so everything they say today must be read with suspicion.
In many former USSR countries there are large Russian minorities living which was moved there by the Soviet Union to "dilute" ethnic groups. A form of demographic warfare. They still live there and aren't always treated well by the ethnic majority. So when nationalists topple the government they get worried.
It's a much more complicated situation than the media reports even if it still doesn't justify a military invasion by any means.
And yet the idea that Saddam did not have - or use - chemical weapons is treated as gospel today. WTF ?
I don't understand this. Suppose you are standing near a corpse, with a bullethole. You see smoke rising from the hand of a person who claims to have shot him. But the gun ... there's no gun.
My conclusion would be : obviously he did something to the gun, let's go search, if necessary search the neighbor's house.
The apparent conclusion I'm supposed to take away from that : "there never was any gun !"
If it makes you happier, imagine that I wrote that the media can't be trusted because it's controlled by liberal left-wing communists rather than it's completely stellar and non-biased reporting on Iraq in 2003.
Thanks for the link to the document. It is a well-written and almost balanced account of the situation.
It does not support the assertion that Iraq did not have WMD's. Instead, it clearly states and illustrates that Iraq was building and improving the know-how and industrial capability to produce and use WMD's, including sarin-based chemical missiles and nuclear weapons, but during the 1995-2003 period wasn't producing actual WMD's (aside from limited development prototypes). They were certainly intending to use them in the future.
So yes, technically you're right that Iraq would not have had significant actual WMD capability in 2003. It did have the capability to change that very quickly.
So yes, this page answered what happened to the gun : it was kept disassembled in the backyard. I fully support the decision not to let Iraq keep the disassembled gun. I also find the assertion that without the Iraq war, groups like al-qaeda and/or hamas might have had the capability of firing long-range (100-200 km) guided missiles with Sarin and/or Anthrax payloads credible, although of course not proven.
(given the discoveries, this once again illustrates that you cannot trust the UN to do anything right. This "mistake" is once again a very, very strong indication that the UN WANTS to be deceived on these matters. As I've heard the UN described "Aid to dictators, on the condition that they violate human rights on a grand scale. This advances the cause of human rights worldwide ! Give us money !". That is a perfectly accurate assessment of that organisation)
> In June 2004, the United States removed 2 tons of low-enriched uranium from Iraq, sufficient raw material for a single nuclear weapon.[108]
> "ISG has gathered testimony from missile designers at Al Kindi State Company that Iraq has reinitiated work on converting SA-2 Surface-to-Air Missiles into ballistic missiles with a range goal of about 250 km. Engineering work was reportedly underway in early 2003, despite the presence of UNMOVIC. This program was not declared to the UN."
> "ISG has developed multiple sources of testimony, which is corroborated in part by a captured document, that Iraq undertook a program aimed at increasing the HY-2's range and permitting its use as a land-attack missile. These efforts extended the HY-2's range from its original 100 km to 150–180 km. Ten modified missiles were delivered to the military prior to OIF and two of these were fired from Umm Qasr during OIF – one was shot down and one hit Kuwait."
> On July 2008, 550 metric tonnes of "yellowcake" the last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program, a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium, arrived in Montreal as part of a top-secret U.S. operation. This transport of the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment, included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a voyage across two oceans. The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp., in a transaction the official described as worth "tens of millions of dollars."[117]
And of course the beginnings of leaks into terrorist organisations :
> A 7 pound block of cyanide salt was discovered by U.S. military in safe-house for Abu Musab Zarqawi, an al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist residing in Iraq since prior the U.S. invasion.[110] The poison block was discovered in a raid of the safe-house on January 23 of 2003.[111]
(7 pound of cyanide salt is enough to kill everybody in a small town if you can get it to disperse through the air. Granted, probably wouldn't work with even mild wind conditions, but properly executed on an idealy moment, it can kill thousands)
In Polish online press under every mention of Ukraine you will see lots of anti-Ukraine comments. These are written in broken Polish with errors hinting to Russian origin. The amount of these comments is way too high for grass roots support. They are clearly sponsored.
What I find most amazing, though, is that somebody somewhere thinks that it is worth paying money for comments on portals like gazeta.pl — this is like sponsoring YouTube comments! Nobody sane ever reads them, it's a cesspool anyway.
I would never say that I support Russia in any of this, but it's important to put the hypocritical Western pearl-clutching in context:
The near-universal Western condemnation of Putin includes citing the "emotional address" in which he complained bitterly that the U.S. and its allies had "cheated us again and again, made decisions behind our back, presenting us with completed facts with the expansion of NATO in the East, with the deployment of military infrastructure at our borders. They always told us the same thing: 'Well, this doesn't involve you.' "
Putin's complaints are factually accurate. When President Gorbachev accepted the unification of Germany as part of NATO -- an astonishing concession in the light of history -- there was a quid pro quo. Washington agreed that NATO would not move "one inch eastward," referring to East Germany.
The promise was immediately broken, and when Gorbachev complained, he was instructed that it was only a verbal promise, so without force.
President Clinton proceeded to expand NATO much farther to the east, to Russia's borders. Today there are calls to extend NATO even to Ukraine, deep into the historic Russian "neighborhood." But it "doesn't involve" the Russians, because its responsibility to "uphold peace and stability" requires that American red lines are at Russia's borders.
Gee, I wonder why Poland and Lithuania might have wanted to join NATO in the first place. It's almost as if they didn't trust Russia! How dare they. Russia would never invade a neighboring country.
I am disappointed by the fact that while their are several comments supporting Russia almost all of them have been down voted a ton. You shouldn't down vote people just because you disagree with them.
If it's an issue which is remotely controversial and they are making useful contributions, I agree. If they are astroturfing for a country which is actively invading another sovereign nation, and lying through their teeth about it... I'm sorry, but you're not contributing to the discussion but instead are just spreading misinformation and your comment is not useful.
What bpodgursky said. Also, note how these downvoted comments typically include no sources, and are usually a one sentence attack on Ukraine, or a one sentence defense of Russia's actions.
Opposite to your 10 sentences attacking Russians and painting Ukraine as a saint via multiple comments.
IF you were Ukrainian you would not be defending it's government after they have been milking every citizen for their own purpose within the past 10 years.
So I'm confused by your agenda, but it's obvious you are here to post garbage that blindly fits your agenda.
I'm in a position where I'm mostly exposed to non-western information regarding the situation in Ukraine, since my girlfriend is Russian.
It's funny to see the exact opposite story as the western media is giving. Stories about pro-russians being harassed by pro-western Urkainians and the government were (and are) abundant. From their point of view, a pro-russian government was illegitimately overthrown. General opinion seems to be that democracy only matters to the west as long as it's not too inconvenient to them. Constant allegations and sanctions against Russia while they feel they have very little influence on what pro-russians are doing in Ukraine. Mostly, it seems like there's a feeling of pro-russian sentiments being repressed, the west not giving a damn and Russia's hand being tied via international pressure.
Meanwhile, when I look at the western media, it honestly disgusts me. While pro-russian media generally seems to ignore a lot of stories that put them in a negative light, the western media seems to actively be painting pro-russian and Russia in a bad light. It's a general trend I've noticed in where western media is often on the offensive, and the "counter-party" on the defensive. I guess it's a cultural thing.
Regardless, the Ukrainian government has been making a fool of itself in both the western and eastern media. Since this whole thing started, they've done nothing but make unfounded allegations, trying to "poke the bear" (Russia) and instigate unrest. I feel that they're responsible for a large part of the needless escalation in this conflict.
PS: Your use of the word "propaganda" is an excellent example of how we view things. Everything the "other" side says is propaganda, anything "our" side says is necessarily the truth. This happens on both sides of the conflict, and I think it's a large barrier to actually start solving the problems. Rather than claiming "propaganda", we should consider it points-of-view, and the first thing we should do is ask ourselves: why does the other side hold this point of view, and how come they view it as a completely legitimate moral view to have?
PPS: My girlfriend is, at times, greatly distressed by this whole thing. Like many Russians, almost half her family is in fact Ukrainian. Surprisingly, this seems to cause feelings of sympathy for those family members by both sides, yet they remain quite harsh against other Ukrainian or Russian viewpoints.
1. Propaganda: in Russia, the media is very tightly controlled by the Kremlin. This is not the case in the US and most Western countries. Russia can use propaganda easily, and it is in their interest. The stories come out of their media are suspiciously different from any other stories from anywhere else. Simplest explanation: they are using propaganda, or at least coloring stories for their benefit.
2. The Ukrainian government is a joke. It was a joke when Yanukovych was in power too. It will continue being a joke until Ukraine is left alone to figure its shit out. You cannot expect a country that's been independent for under 25 years to do things perfectly. For a great example of countries that are democratic, yet get stuff wrong all the time see most Western countries.
3. The Ukrainian government did not cause all of this. Putin has a motive to invade Ukraine (rebulding USSR as his legacy) and an opportunity: currently nobody will oppose him and he has the upper hand militarily. Do you think he is so easily offended that something the Ukrainian government said will cause him to do something like this?
1. Western media consistently represents pro-state messages even without direct state control. This is for structural reasons (read Manufacturing Consent).
2. The US is definitely not "leaving Ukraine alone".
3. Typical jejeune analysis that reduces geopolitics to ego and personality defects (and only criticizing those of one side)
Here's an air-strike on a civilian area, and a probable war crime committed by the Ukrainian government. It's gory, it's sickening. How many reporters from the Free Press covered this?
All sides must be held to account for any crimes committed. However, it's hard to have any kind of rational discussion when so many people have a Pavlovian reaction to the word "Russia" (and "China").
I have no dog in this fight, but it seems like even normally rational and logic-minded programmers and hackers are not immune to conditioning over a period of time.
> needless escalation, when part of Ukraine is occupied by Russia?
The occupation of Ukraine is something that's only happening as of just now. Before that, the situation in Ukraine was much more akin to a civil war. The escalations by the Ukrainian government have been happening since the beginning of this whole thing.
Crimea was occupied by Russian forces in February. Military hostilities in mainland Ukraine started in April when Sloviansk has been captured by Russian ex-FSB officer Igor Girkin and his gang of Russian ultranationalists.
So would you disagree with the general sentiment in the west that most Russian media is state controlled and relatively unfree compared to most western media?
I don't agree or disagree, because I honestly have no idea, because I don't think I've been getting much official Russian media information. It don't think it's much different then it is over here in the west. People get their information from all over the place. I'm guessing there's national Russian media (which is state controlled, biased and in general not to be trusted), but there's also plenty of pro-russian international media, which is not bound by whatever the Russian government dictates.
So in short, I think (but am not sure) that the whole concept of "State controlled Russian media" is a fallacy. Even if there's an agency that's state controlled, it doesn't matter. It would be like Fox news being owned by the U.S. government.
That is a very western-ish view of how things in Russia are. You judge them by your own ideals.
Yes, there might be some pro-russian international media that is not controlled by Kremlin, but most of the time you can trace the money to Russia. We can discuss any specific examples that you want - I'm not claiming knowledge here, but I don't want to do a lot of research for a HN comment. I'll give one example - rt.com.
I'm not claiming there is no pro-russian international media that is not funded by Russia. I am saying it will be difficult to find it.
Imagine all the TV be like Fox News and actually controlled by the Government. You will get closer to Russian reality.
You also have to understand that whatever you read in english, that comes from things like rt.com is adapted to a broader and more intelligent audience and to foreigners. What you get in russian is different.
Disclaimer - I am a lithuanian, I am exposed to lithuanian media which covers things from Ukrainian perspective, sometimes covers news from the Separatist side; I am exposed to western media. Sadly, my russian is quite poor, so I'm not exposed to russian media in russian much.
If you want a more official position, google site:rt.com mh17 and you'll find lots of articles. I'll leave it for the reader to judge their presentation of the situation.
> Also, I wonder if Putin is really willing to continue this invasion at the cost of being ex-communicated by the US and parts of Western Europe? I suppose he is currently banking that most of Western Europe depends on his natural gas, so they cannot completely shut him out.
Yes, he is. This is as much about internal Russian politics as any international issues. The Russian economy is doing well, but most of the gains are concentrated in the hands of the ruling oligarchy. So the people haven't seen much benefit, and are angry about their economic situation. Putin has put out a lot of nationalist propaganda blaming NATO (specifically the EU and USA) for any economic hardship the people face. This distracts from the fact that he and his buddies are basically robbing the country blind. He has cast himself as the "defender of Russia" in a geopolitical battle against the US and EU.
A large part of this nationalist campaign has focused on building a "new Russian empire" from the former Soviet bloc countries. They've used the auspices of protecting "native Russians" in these countries (even though the idea of a "native Russian" is laughably absurd since the USSR forced everyone to learn Russian anyway) by providing Russian passports to anyone who wants one. They use the threat of invasion to extort cooperation from these countries and keep them in the Russian sphere of influence. Ukraine overthrew its Russian-puppet government, which prompted the whole invasion of Crimea.
Putin knows that the EU needs his oil, so he's testing his limits to see how much he can get away with. The EU has shown no signs of imposing any real sanctions because if they did, the EU would go through a similar situation that the US did in the 70s. So Russia's infractions have to go so far that the EU is willing to plunge itself into recession. I don't know where the limit is, but it's not anywhere close to where we are now.
Many people are so dismayed with the US foreign policy and actions in the past years that they will (or at least seem to) support anything that isn't US.
It's also true that for all their faults Russians were right about Syria for example. Or maybe they just lucked into being right by doing the opposite of what the USG wanted.
Still others just don't want to be involved at all and are bothered by interventionist rhetoric. Or worried that involvement will only incite the situation. The latter seems to be a popular view in the EU.
Would you say this map is propaganda? By who? The Ukrainian government? The one that can't get it's shit together to oppose this invasion, or really do much of anything managed to set up a whole bunch of very credible looking Twitter accounts, faked NATO satellite photos/reports, etc.? Ukraine has no propaganda because Ukraine doesn't have much of anything. These reports are very far from perfect, but they do seem to be coming from people with feet on the ground.
it's hard to support either Ukraine or Russia - you definitely can't believe what either have to say.
Ukraine is still having protests in Kiev, and calling for impeachment of the person they just fought to have put in place there...
we can't cry foul at Russia arms/tanks showing up, considering what we give to Israel et al. also, considering Putin's track record, this is too brute force for him. he does things in such a way that make him look justified. it's hard to swallow.
NATO can't do anything. they say "no war", but how do you enforce no war? sanctions hurt, but can be lived with, that only leaves...more war
The situation in Ukraine is complicated, I agree. However, I believe Ukraine has the right to deal with their internal problems internally. This is like China saying "well, there are protests in DC, so let's roll the tanks right in and clean this mess up for them."
> we can't cry foul at Russia arms/tanks showing up, considering what we give to Israel et al. also, considering Putin's track record, this is too brute force for him. he does things in such a way that make him look justified. it's hard to swallow.
Yes we can. Just because someone is doing something bad/stupid elsewhere does not mean that everyone should do it. One country invading another is wrong, no matter how you put it. Moreover, this is not "military aid". This is Russian troops going into Ukraine. This is an invasion of a sovereign country.
So no, it is not hard to support Ukraine in this: Ukraine is being invaded by a bull with big plans for how to re-shape Europe. Ukraine is far (very far) from perfect, but that does not mean it's up for the taking.
I do. The US invasion of Iraq was not legitimate, and those who knowingly lied to the public to get the US involved in this war should be prosecuted as war criminals.
Actually, today's events in Kyiv weren't a protests.
It was more like a meeting.
While information about so called impeachment requirement was spread by russian media.
The opposite, actually. Many of us see through the transparent and obviously ham-fisted attempts of the U.S. propaganda machine to drive us into another war.
Sure, as soon as you say something along the lines of "oh, you can't believe anyone" or "all media does it" or "the propaganda is coming from both sides" you are branded a shill. Because it's a shill tactic intended to silence a discussion and spread FUD.
That's true. My wife is from Tajikistan, she called her mom and asked about that Malaysian airlines flight that got shot down, and it was like they were speaking two different languages. She goes 'did you hear about that plane that Russia shot down' and her mom says 'oh you mean the one that Ukraine shot down because they thought it looked like Putin's plane?' we were quite confused about what she said until we watched the Russian news and they had a completely different story. The Russian news agencies are state actors, and that's all they ever were.
Did you know that the United States navy shot down an Iranian commercial airliner in 1988? How do you think that was reported in western media compared to how MH17 was reported?
The first article reports the "copious" justification given by other sources.
Please show me the denunciation and demonization in NYT or WP articles regarding MH17. It's also rather different since the culpable party owned up to the tragedy rather than trying to blame the other party. And this after celebrating the (mistaken) kill on social media...
No, how western media reported each incident. Virtually identical incidents (as close as you can get in history anyway), but completely different portrayals.
> I have no delusions that NATO will not engage in any military conflict, since nobody wants to start WWIII, but this has to be disturbing developments for countries like Poland, Romania, etc.
Don't you mean that you have no delusions that NATO will engage in conflict? Otherwise you're saying you think they will.
I am Polish. It is extremely disturbing. What I find most appalling is that Western Europe seems to have learned nothing from our shared history. We already had crazy leaders invade small neighboring countries, and we tried to appease them without raising too much of a fuss, so as to preserve economic interests. This is how it begins.
Now — we start to see history repeat itself, and what do European countries do? France seems to be fine with continuing to sell warships to Russia. Germany is mostly worried about economy and what the lack of Russian gas will do to it. Great Britain seems to be mostly occupied with thinking about whether to leave the EU.
We don't necessarily need a full-blown conflict, but I'm of the opinion (that seems to be the majority opinion in Poland) that Europe should immediately impose serious sanctions and implement a plan to stop buying Russian oil&gas within, say, a year. Yes, it will tip economies into stagnation or even recession, but to hell with it: we should not be complacent and just watch as history repeats itself!
I think NATO would, under some circumstances, engage militarily, but not in this conflict. If, for example, a small non-NATO country with no nukes was to attack a member state, NATO would respond pretty quickly. In an alternate universe, if Ukraine (without any support from Russia) was to attack Poland, NATO would respond. But NATO is not strong enough to oppose Russia without major casualties. I believe that if all NATO member states were to at once attack Russia today, they would win but it would be a war, not a surgical strike. This is why we won't see that happening.
The problem is that the same actions are interpreted differently based on who is doing them. If Russia were to support an overthrow of the Mexican government with one having a military and economic alliance with Russia the same people who bash Russia now would support the United States backing rebels, annexing territory and doing a military invasion.
edit: I expect a lot of downvotes but no rational arguments.
Crimea? Always was Russian. Once given as a "present" to Ukraine. Do you doubt that a second referendum would give a different result?
What did the west do in and with Yugoslavia?
What about the NATO expansion towards Russia?
What would the US do if Russia starts fucking around with Mexico?
The EU has nothing to do in Ukraine. And if people want to secede, why not let them?
Instead of the US/EU Freetrade agreement, the EU should have offered the deal to Putin and the problem if Ukraine does the deal with the EU or Russia would have been non-existent. A freetrade zone from Vladivostok to Lisbon would have been created.
Wow, I guess this is what would have happened online during World War II if it happened in modern times. Interesting historic landmark as far as information dissemination during confrontations/wars.
relevant: https://twitter.com/RealTimeWWII "@RealTimeWWII is a Twitter feed describing the events of World War II, created by British historian and Oxford grad Alwyn Collinson(...)."
This is pretty cool. It'd be interesting to have a personal service set up around this such that it starts sending messages just to you with "news" updates. I briefly looked at these tweets, but since I didn't follow @RealTimeWWII when it first started, I cannot get the full effect.
More broadly, I'd love to see the original coverage for a few historical events. My most recent curiosity is the Watergate scandal. What was on TV at the time? What were people saying? I know what the scandal "was" but I don't know how people reacted to it. I was I could in some fashion reproduce it at the time and see what was going on.
According to the Wikipedia page[1], "Collinson [the author] began the feed in late August 2011, to coincide with the start of World War II with the German Invasion of Poland in September 1939. He has tweeted the events of the war as they happened on each date and time exactly 72 years earlier."
No, it's not at all what happened when the Nazi's advanced in WWII. If you watch the Vice News reports, it seems that the people are ambivalent to who rules over them, they just want the fighting to stop. In contrast, in WWII, the Nazis were not much liked by the occupied peoples.
While it was a little bloody (mainly through assassinations), there was a sizable faction within Austria that hailed the unification of Germany and Austria. The Reich was cheered by thousands on their celebratory tour through the country in 1938.
Its a strange feeling that Russia can do whatever it wants and there are no consequences. They seem a little out of control.
They annexed Crimea. Nobody did anything. They shot down a civilian airliner (or supplied the missiles/training). No consequences. Send in caravans of "Humanitarian Aid" that Ukraine didn't ask for. Crickets..
Then they just get on their media and deny everything.
Think about it this way: the world stability currently depends on Russia and the US having an understanding that if anyone starts nuclear warfare, then Russia and the US will nuke the crap out of them. This is why Isreal, Pakistan, India, etc. have not yet nuked anyone. The direct consequence of this is that the US and Russia can get away with quite a bit: they have the largest nuke stockpiles and the most ability to deliver them.
Now, turn this around:
"Its a strange feeling that the US can do whatever it wants and there are no consequences. They seem a little out of control.
"They invaded Iraq. Nobody did anything. They routinely use drones. No consequences. They set up military bases in Afghanistan. Crickets..
"Then they just get on their media and deny everything.
"Its hard to watch it all fall apart."
This is how the rest of the world see the US. Note, that I am not using this as an excuse for anything the US or Russia is doing. Just pointing out that to people who do not live in Russia or the US, both countries seem "out of control".
You could replace "Russia" for "U.S.", "Crimea" for a long list of countries, and your statement would still hold true.
BTW as for the shooting down of the airliner I have not heard of any official source coming to a conclusion as to who is responsible. The U.S. intelligence community, which surely would know something, has remained eerily silent on the issue. Surely if they had information which proved Russia's involvement it would help foster the U.S. propaganda machine.
It's worth bearing this kind of thing in mind the next time there is an NSA thread and the "police state" type posts start up. Western governments do bad things but the rule of law does apply, democratic elections do occur and there are consequences.
Iraq was a serious mistake but it has coloured the USA and UK's involvement with the world, and their internal politics for years - very much unlike Russia and Chechnya.
The US invasion of Iraq was similar in terms of the US really just doing whatever it wants. That set a precedent for quasi superpowers like Russia that you could get away with stuff like that. You see China doing similar things with their various territory disputes.
It's hard to analyse this kind of information considering that 100% of information on the site is pro-ukraine and mostly with citation of Ukrainian sources.
It may or may not be propaganda, but I don't feel like trusting the site.
Would you care to argue or provide more information for the Russian side? Please tweet the information at livemap.The problem is that there is not much coming from the russian side - they keep on denying the obvious [1] or blatantly lying [2].
Note: This particular map has been less than completely accurate in the past, and is often carrying a significant pro-Ukrainian slant, including being blatantly false on a couple of really important occasions. It's not a particularly bad one, but make sure to compare it with http://militarymap.info and http://cassad.net/?do=warmarker (Russian)
This is what information war looks like. Disinformation, propaganda, FUD, distortion, lies, astroturfing, bias, plausible deniability and false flag ops - from ALL sides.
How are we as information professionals supposed to deal with this? I have no way to form an opinion on this conflict as everything I read has been filtered through a media (social media included) which has either no means or no motivation to prove the trustworthiness of their message.
"ALL sides", "no way to form an opinion", "information war".
Pay attention, this is how astroturfing to spread FUD looks like. The person is not trying to increase understanding, he or she is trying to promote apathy.
No, I'm appealing for help in trying to understand the situation. You seem to have a strong opinion on the matter. How have you come to that in such a hostile information environment?
Edit: on second reading, your comment seems tantamount to accusing me of being "one of them". Everyone seems to have picked a side and is part of the fight. Where's the verifiably objective and neutral commentary?
The post demonstrates a clever use of web technology to present current information. Comments will be what they will, but regardless, I am pleased to have been shown this little web app on HN.
Nothing in that link says "current events" are off-topic. Given that this is Hacker News and that the definition of news is information about current events, I'm not sure what you're on about.
Let's see: "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."
A quick scan on Russian sources shows no confirmation of a large scale invasion taking place. EU rhetoric also quickly changed since this morning and suddenly nobody is using the word "invasion" anymore. Ukraine crying "wolf", again until confirmed.
So Russia is known for having a strong propaganda machine. Moreover, Russia openly admitting that it is invading a sovereign nation though it's Kremlin-controlled media outlets (aka almost all media outlets in Russia) would mean trouble. So by Occam's Razor, Putin is telling the media he controls to cover up as much of this as possible.
The EU rhetoric is a bit more nuanced, but probably comes from a similar place: if Russia is "invading" Ukraine, EU might be compelled to do something, which would put them in the precarious political and military position: the EU depends on Russian natural gas. Also Russia has nukes which makes opposing them militarily very dangerous (think, starting WWIII dangerous).
What evidence do you have that Russia is not in fact invading Ukraine? How can you explain these events? Especially the NATO satellite photos showing Russian military forces across the border?
I think we would all agree that western media doesn't have the best track record when it comes to "proof" either. Same goes for NATO imagery, I recall similar imagery as proof of WMDs in Iraq etc.
The images currently being circulated were actually captured on captured on 21-23 August 2014, a week ago during Russian military exercises near the border. The interesting thing is that the artillery positions are inside Russian territory and from what I can tell are pointing the wrong direction.
Time will tell. A much larger geopolitical game is being played here and Ukraine is just a pawn to be sacrificed.
The same Russian sources that denied until the very end that there were Russian forces at work in the occupation of Crimea? The same sources that after the fact congratulated and decorated the forces that brialliantly completed the operation?
My personal concern in all this is that violence stops. Whether it's Russian or NATO intervention I think it's good and will eventually diminish the number of civilian casualties.
First, it's extremely hard to get real 'facts' if you are in US right now. I can't find a single reliable source.
I'm neither Ukrainian or Russian but I will provide a small insight into this conflict. Obviously if you have relations to either party you will be supporting that side.
The media is a total joke. Anything they say even if somewhat true will be discredited in some way or another by either side.
Situation here is complex, if you guys were following this the newly elected officials (after the coup) are not officially recognized thought out the whole Ukraine.
Think about it this way, there are republicans and democrats. Whitehouse get's stormed and Obama is thrown out and replaced with let's say Bush.
Bush is backing republican states (keep in mind, it's a bit less civil there), republican states start to fight democrats within those states and assault democrats within their own states.
Democrats start to fight back and shit storm ensues. Now if you flip that a bit, democrats in this case are part of another (powerful) country. That country is sending reinforcements to protect it's people against government that they do not recognize due to coup.
Both sides think they are right. In MY opinion, I think it's valid for cities that are completely Russian to refuse to recognize new president appointed by people who organized a coup. Especially when there could be ties to a nationalist party within Ukraine.
so how do i know that the site is not propaganda itself. I mean if you look at how easily US could pull off the iraq thing by spoon-feeding propaganda to its citizens you shouldn't really trust anything political anymore without doing a ton of research beforehand. Also im Russian, and even if russia did take over Ukraine it would not be a big deal for Ukrainians since they are mostly Russians anyway, please downvote me i care so much about reddit.
I don't think the referendum was a particularly convincing one, but illegality under the law of the state being seceded from isn't a very convincing argument either. I mean, Ukraine's secession from the USSR was not legal under Soviet law. And Kosovo's wasn't legal under Serbian law. Consensual secession referenda, like the upcoming Scottish one, do happen on occasion, but are fairly unusual.
You do realize that when a region is under strict military occupation, those who oppose the occupation cannot exactly openly voice their protests, while those who like it, can. There is a portion of the population who support the annexation of Crimea, but you cannot make any real judgement of it's size by the data we have. (IMHO It's probably >50%).
Among other things, the statements of Crimean Ukrainians and Tatars who have since then fled the place? If you were not part of the Russian majority you very much have to keep your head down.
In the evening of 16 March 2014, Mikhail Malyshev, the Crimean election Spokesman, reported that as of 20:00, 1,250,427 people or 81.36% voted in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and 274,136 or 89.50% voted in Sevastopol for a total of 1,524,563 or 82.71% of the electorate.[129] ITAR-TASS initially reported this as 1,724,563 voters in total,[130] but corrected it later.[131] The discrepancy led to some reports of a 123% turnout in Sevastopol.
Regardless of any referendums, legal or otherwise, is this internationally recognized as an annexation? Right now it's just occupied. That's technically correct.
What does international recognition matter if a people want something? I'm not commenting on the legality of the annexation, but I don't think international recognition (biased as it tends to be) matters.
International recognition matters a lot when you're talking about maps and labels on them.
This is isn't like South Sudan where part of the country separated through referendum and was immediately recognized as a new entity. It's still controversial, hence the label on the map.
There obviously is some bias. Meanwhile, independent coverage (or a convincing attempt at one) could have more pronounced media impact, I think. Recounting facts without any apparent prejudice can ‘win’ the thinking reader who is wary of being manipulated into supporting either side. Can't blame the guys, though—it may be challenging to remain neutral in this situation.
Those not personally involved in the conflict would lack the motivation to develop a service like this, and for those who are involved it must be difficult to remain neutral given the circumstances (though I personally would appreciate if they try). An unbiased source with objective independent coverage of these events is tricky to come across, I suppose.
Didn't Ukrainian president Poroshenko say he had hard evidence that the rebels and Russia shot down fligth MH17? Where is it? All gone a bit quiet hasn't it? Every few days he makes new claims but never backs them up with evidence.
Any Russian programmers want to comment? How does it feel for Russia to be constantly demonized? Even here on HackerNews, when was the last time there was any positive story involving Russia and technology? Maybe it was Tetris.
Yesterday Gazprom announced they are selling oil in Rubles and Yuan, no USD involved in the transaction, a story that might not make HackerNews but worthy of reporting in mainstream news, yet the headlines were that Russian hackers had targeted JP Morgan, and a few days before it was Chinese hackers.
I am a Russian coder / data scientist. I am not sure if this particular map is propaganda or not, but I follow Russian, Ukrainian and international news and it seems pretty clear that Russian military is strongly supporting pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine:
- there are numerous stories and videos of Russian "volunteers" with heavy military grade weapons crossing Russian-Ukrainian border throughout the last several months. Some of them are captured by Ukrainian military. Some others are wounded or killed and taken back to Russia for treatment or burial
- pro-Russian rebel leaders often admit to direct Russian military help on video
- just several weeks ago Ukrainian military was advancing fast and getting close to crush the rebels in the last two large cities Lugansk and Donetsk. Suddenly, along with more information about Russian support, the situation reversed and the rebels are on the attack now
- Russia used a similar tactic in Crimea in March: first, suddenly numerous unidentified soldiers appeared on the peninsula and Russia denied they were from Russia. Later, when Crimea was annexed, Russia openly admitted to using "special forces" and rewarded its troops for a successful operation.
Russia may be constantly demonized in the Western media, but there are good reasons for it. Also, just to note, the situation with demonization is much worse inside Russia with extreme lies and propaganda over TV and official mass media.
>Didn't Ukrainian president Poroshenko say he had hard evidence that the rebels and Russia shot down fligth MH17? Where is it?
Are you blind? There's literally tons of evidence. The path of the BUK has been tracked down to meters thanks to satellite imagery. The preliminary report will be released in September confirming what everyone already knows. The Putinbots will surely feign surprise and cry foul yet again.
>Any Russian programmers want to comment?
Sure.
>How does it feel for Russia to be constantly demonized?
It's absolutely deserved. Russian government are corrupt, despicable pieces of trash, and will destroy the country due to their insatiable greed and delusion.
> Are you blind? There's literally tons of evidence.
Where? No satellite images, no black box recordings, no air traffic control recordings, etc. have been released to the public or to journalists. Please provide a link to evidence that has been reviewed and agreed on by independent bodies involved in the investigation.
> The path of the BUK has been tracked down to meters thanks to satellite imagery
Where is the satellite imagery? Please post a link.
> The preliminary report will be released in September confirming what everyone already knows.
If the report hasn't even been published yet, how do you or anyone else know what's in it?!
Why don't you let the investigation do it's job before jumping to conclusions?
I'm sorry, all of this material would be thrown out of court. We really need hard evidence that would stand up in a war crimes trial in the Hague. One guy blogging about pictures he found on the internet is not good enough!
Maybe the Russian "Basmanny" court. Don't tell me that bullshit about "we really need hard evidence". It's obvious that you're a pro-Putin shill, who can only deny, deny, deny no matter how obvious it is. No evidence will ever be enough for you. How do I know this? Because you completely ignored the other 2 links. It's practically an admission of guilt straight from the horses mouth and you're acting like none of that happened.
You registered to HN right after MH17 was shot down, just to post content blaming Ukraine for the crash. And now you are saying that this 'looks like propaganda'.
Btw, wasn't blaming Ukraine for MH17, just saying we must keep an open mind, and wait for a full independent investigation before jumping to conclusions.
Aren't you not supposed to create another account after being banned? I wouldn't be surprised if you got hell banned again. You should email info@ycombinator.com to figure out how you can contribute again before creating another account after a hell ban.
HKD is pegged to the USD so it works well as a proxy, and if you hold for the long-term, you have the potential upside of exchanging to RMB (stronger than the HKD and trend is up versus the USD) if or when the peg is removed.
West, east... same shit. Snowden can't stay in his own country, Assange is prisoner of conscience. Michael Brown in Ferguson, Iraq and "weapons of mass destruction", etc... etc.
I'm from Russia, we have no much freedoms here, shitty healthcare, corruption and other crap, but when I look at the West, it comes to me that I have already seen it somewhere.
The West is U.S. and Denmark, Sweden, Ireland, Spain, France, Slovakia and Canada and many others.
So no, you don't look at the West, you look at some of the countries of the West with the worst human rights track record and use this as a reason state equivalence, where there is none.
What I am wondering is when Russia will completely take over Ukraine and what will be the NATO position at that point? I have no delusions that NATO will not engage in any military conflict, since nobody wants to start WWIII, but this has to be disturbing developments for countries like Poland, Romania, etc.
Also, I wonder if Putin is really willing to continue this invasion at the cost of being ex-communicated by the US and parts of Western Europe? I suppose he is currently banking that most of Western Europe depends on his natural gas, so they cannot completely shut him out.