That's not playing devil's advocate, Rob.
That is because I don't want to be an advocate for evil, Neven.
Wikipedia: In common parlance, the term devil's advocate describes someone who, given a certain point of view, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further.
I understand your unwillingness to even consider the Russian perspective, but the danger is that you become blind to your biases and prejudices, and thus vulnerable to propaganda that you may perceive as facts or reliable news.
That's not a personal reproach. It's something everyone suffers from. We are all biased, all of us.
You claimed that I needed to see the atrocities committed by Russia in Ukraine in 'context'. That the west is also trying to control Ukraine. And that they do so "through propaganda mainly".
Yes, and that the West (controlled by people doing the bidding of the concentrated money mountain) is doing things that pushes Russia (controlled by people doing the bidding of another concentrated money mountain) to do other things. Like the NATO bases, the sanctions, or the demonisation of Putin/Russia (maybe it isn't demonisation, but it certainly is perceived that way by many Russians).
A lot of what Russia does, makes sense. That doesn't make it right. But it takes two to tango.
Now you are telling me that to obtain evidence of that western propaganda, you need to learn two languages etc etc.
Of course I do! Do you think I can otherwise find it on CNN or MSNBC, or in the Washington Post or New York Times? Would they publish such things if they existed? Of course they wouldn't. People would lose their jobs if they did. Absence of evidence, etc...
And so I would need to get to the source, which I can only do by learning Ukrainian and Russian. Because a lot of stuff gets lost (or added) in translation.
So you did not know if the west actually imposed control on Ukraine by means of propaganda.
You just assumed it. That is a problem by itself, but it is worse because you used it as an argument to see the conflict in 'context' of western propaganda.
Yes, I assumed it, given the track record of US intelligence agencies. We can wait 40-50 years to see if that assumption was correct yet again.
Let's explore this 'context' a bit more :
On one side we have Russia, who annexed a part of the territory of Ukraine in the first land grab of any nation since WWII. Russia also started a war in another part of Ukraine where about 10,000 Ukrainians lost their lives, and to top it off Russia shot down an international airliner and lied about it. They violated at least 6 international treaties in the process.
On the other hand, in terms of western control we have Hromadske.TV.
A single Web TV channel, set up by a small grant from the US and Holland, which happens to cover the Euromaidan.
Seriously, Neven ?
Why did you completely loose perspective in this conflict ?
Again, I'm going to discuss this from the simple classic geopolitical perspective, where nation-states only do things that benefit the nation-state, all fueled by ideology, good guys, bad guys, etc. Which isn't my perspective at all. I've told you what my perspective is.
First of all, what Russia did, was a reaction to Euromaidan (as well as boost Putin's popularity during hard economic times for Russia due to oil price and sanctions, with western propaganda trying to weaken his position with the people). I'm not condoning it. I'm just saying it makes sense from the Russian perspective.
Second, we'll talk treaties as soon as the US honours them.
Third, the Hromadske.tv thing was just a quick example. Again, for better evidence I would have to scour Ukrainian and Russian media, and I just don't have time for that.
Fourth, the Hromadske.tv thing is evidence of what I said: A small group within Ukraine is bound to benefit financially and politically if Ukraine falls into the EU/US sphere (think of all the privatisation, pipe lines, agricultural land), and so they get help from the EU and US to achieve this from within. One could argue this is a 'land grab', a tried and tested recipe. I'm sure someone like Poroshenko already has enough oligarchic corruption in him to assist in whatever the multinationals may require, getting a commission for all that is siphoned off.
Apart from the fact that it is absurd to think that one Web TV channel could have made a difference, they make it sound as if "Yanukovych might have crushed the entire effort before it gained traction" would have been a good thing.
Do YOU think it would have been a good thing if Yanukovych would have crushed the entire effort before it gained traction, Neven ?
That's a dilemma, Rob. If the thing had been crushed, Russia most likely wouldn't have annexed Crimea, killed 10 thousand Ukrainians and shot down MH-17. Don't you agree?
I find your position on the conflict especially surprising, since you always seem to stand up for the people (the lambs).
For ALL the people of all the nations, Rob. Not just one people pitted against the other. I've learned that from the war in former Yugoslavia. Not falling into that trap again.
Now, here we have the ONLY popular uprising in Europe in recent history where the people (powerless people who don't want war) actually managed to democratically remove a highly corrupt oppressive President from office, by rising up by the millions across hundreds of cities in Ukraine, for many months.
Ukraine is historically divided to a very high degree. Millions people may want one thing (spurred on by the small group who see an opportunity), while millions of others may want another thing (spurred on by another small group). Remember, although Yanukovych was indeed highly corrupt (who isn't in post-communist countries?), he was actually democratically elected. If Euromaidan was so big, why didn't they just make sure their guy was elected in the next elections, one year later (assuming the impeachment
was democratic)?
Because the country is highly divided:
The last thing a highly divided country needs, is corrupt populists on both sides of the divide, backed by external parties.
And in exactly THAT popular uprising you seem to just parrot that Russian propaganda...
I don't get it, Neven.
I've told you what my real perspective is (not the one where I posit arguments that things aren't black and white, even on the classical geopolitical level, where we discard the hidden oligarchic money game), and I think it's pretty neutral, because I denounce everyone who tries to use the division in Ukraine to gain power and/or money. And they're on both sides, as in almost every conflict. I've witnessed the war in Yugoslavia up close. I know how it works. I want another mindset where I can shrug off the propaganda, because I know that the core of what I believe, is sound.
Not everything that goes against the mainstream/establishment narrative (which currently is a clear regression to Cold War mentalities) is automatically Russian propaganda. It just doesn't work that way.
You are giving me two choices, and I'm choosing neither. So, we're not going to get anywhere, just walk in circles, and get more agitated every round.
The only thing we may discuss is where we think this should be heading, how the conflict can be solved.
I think the division needs to be formalized one way or other, so that the part of Ukraine that wants to work together with EU/US, can do that, and the part that wants to stay close to Russia, can do so too. Just formalize it, so it can stop festering and be abused.
Maybe some sort of confederation consisting of a West and East Ukraine (like Flanders and Wallonia). Get free trade going again, with as little corruption as possible (politicians can't use the polarisation/division anymore for power and money). But no foreign troops within the confederation's borders. No Russia, no EU, no NATO/US. At the same time relieve sanctions against Russia, build up diplomatic relations, and continue nuclear disarmament asap.
Oh yes, and while we're at it: set a limit on how much an oligarch can own.