Guilt by association

‘Extremists turn to a leader to protect Western values: Vladimir Putin’. So screams the headline of an article in Sunday’s edition of the New York Times. The article takes up an entire page, an indication that the newspaper’s editors consider its message to be of great importance. It says:

Throughout the collection of white ethnocentrists,  nationalists, populists and neo-Nazis that has taken root on both sides of the Atlantic, Mr. Putin is widely revered as a kind of white knight: a symbol of strength, racial purity and traditional Christian values in a world under threat from Islam, immigrants and rootless cosmopolitan elites. Fascination with and, in many cases, adoration of Mr. Putin – or at least a distorted image of him – first took hold among far-right politicians in Europe, many of whom have since developed close relations with their brethren in the United States. Such ties across the Atlantic have helped spread the view of Mr. Putin’s Russia as an ideal model. … Russia also shares with far-right groups across the world a deeply held belief that, regardless of their party, traditional elites should be deposed because of their support for globalism and transnational institutions like NATO and the European Union.

Building on this, the article paints Russia as a threat to national and international security, because of its ‘efforts … to organize and inspire extreme right-wing groups in the United States and Europe.’

And yet, buried in the middle of the article are a number of interesting titbits which undermine this thesis. After claiming that Russia has provided financial and logistical support to far-right forces in the West, the article admits that ‘the only proven case so far involves the National Front in France’. Moreover, Russia ‘has jailed some of its own white supremacist agitators’, and, as the New York Times confesses,

Mr. Putin has never personally promoted white supremacist ideas, and has repeatedly insisted that Russia, while predominantly white and Christian, is a vast territory of diverse religions and ethnic groups stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Pacific Ocean. Nor has he displayed any sign of hostility toward Jews, a fact that has infuriated some of Russia’s more extremist nationalist groups.

One might imagine that at this point the article’s authors would change tack and take the opportunity to argue that Putin had been wrongly tarred with the extremist brush. This, however, would undermine the apparent purpose of the piece, so instead the authors plough on ahead with the tarring, while making an increasing mess of themselves in the process.

For instance, after discussing alt-right activist Richard Spencer, who recently caused a scandal by making a Nazi salute and shouting ‘Hail Trump’, the article says ‘Mr. Spencer acknowledged that Mr. Putin did not share his ideology.’ Next, the authors mention a conference of European and American nationalists organized in Russia by the Rodina party (which got about 1% of the vote in the recent Duma elections), but cite organizer Fyodor Biryukov as saying that ‘the Kremlin had not supported the event.’ Despite this, the article concludes that ‘Mr. Putin’s Russia [is] now the home of a new global alliance of far-right groups.’

The New York Times never says as much, but with a sort of ‘wink, wink’ it implies guilt by association: ‘White ethnocentrists and neo-Nazis’ like Putin, ergo Putin must be a neo-Nazi. This is a classic example of what is sometimes called the ‘association fallacy’ or ‘bad company fallacy’. And yet, the evidence in the article doesn’t actually support the message implied in the headline. It isn’t ‘fake news’, but it’s misleading nonetheless.

Advertisements

67 thoughts on “Guilt by association”

  1. Well Putin is on right side of the spectrum and he isprobably too far right by modern Western standard. At the same time he is of course ideologically far away from any neo nazis. The thing is however that he is some kind of white knight for people of this political inclination since he does supports more benign of their values and that couldn’t be said of almost any modern western politician of any real power.

    Like

  2. I read through the voting sheets & resolutions for last 14 years of the UN resolution sponsored by Russia (14 yrs ago concerns were raised by Belarus and Russia)combating the glorification of Nazis. There is an anti racism one which also ran for a few years. US has always voted against and UK too or UK abstained apart from one year 2006.I think Canada are similar and they all cite same reason saying that it coulf be used to restrict rights. This year’s vote was 131 for, 3 no, 48 abstain. I have all of these in dropbox folder – happy to send / share link. I don’t understand why people ignore Russia’s history and make these comments, especially those who don’t provide any useful input into the UN which seems to be a logical place to start.

    Like

    1. “And we all know what happens to New Hilters (TM) and their countries, don’t we?”

      But Western Free and Independent Media ™ told me that Trump is a new Hitler! What, now America – kaput?!

      Like

  3. Aricle By Alan Fueur and Andrew Higgins.

    Fueur is totally unlike those “deplorables” and white nationalists, whom he viciously decry, oh, no-no-no!

    “New York Times reporter Alan Feuer was scolded Tuesday by the newspaper for the “inappropriate” language he used in tweeting a crude sexual suggestion to a female critic.
    On Monday, in an otherwise straightforward article about New York City tabloids, Feuer wrote that it was “hard to know what the [Post] cares about aside from sex, gossip and the shifting whims of its owner, Rupert Murdoch” — the sort of editorial jab not usually found in the Times’ news pages.
    When a Post writer took issue with a small aspect of Feuer’s article on Tuesday, Feuer responded via Twitter with the very un-Timesian taunt: “B— me.”
    It is unclear why Feuer, a staff writer at the New York Times since 1999, appears to have such disdain for the New York tabloid. But a Times spokesperson told CNN that Feuer’s comments to the Post reporter were inappropriate.

    He is still handshakable.

    And everybody know Adrew Higgins, chief of NYT’s Moscow bureau! His previous “distinguished” service includes:

    Won Pukitzer at 41, while serving under WSJ banners (1999).

    “The reporting team, led by Moscow bureau chief Andrew Higgins, 41 years old, won the prize for international reporting for a series of articles on the missteps and misfortune that led to the Russian economic meltdown.”

    Failure to obtain a visa to China in his capacity of WaPo’s China’s bureau chief (2009-12). He failed to do that even after enlisting Henry Kissinger to help him.

    “The Chinese, you see, haven’t forgiven Higgins for reporting on dissidents that earned him a boot from the country in 1991. That hasn’t stopped Higgins from covering China—-he follows the Chinese impact on the Asian countries he can travel to, and judging from his datelines, he can still go to Hong Kong.”

    – Steadfastly provided very handshakable spin on the developing European refugee crisis, going as far in his crusade for more tolerant tomorrow, as engaging in victim blaming of Danish man, who was nearly killed. (2013)

    – And after being reassigned to Alaska promoted to the head of Moscow bureau serving yet another paymaster (in total difference from Alan Fueur, who was loyal since he took NYT shilling back in 1999) he really had a chance to “shine” writing propaganda pieces concerning post-Maidan Ukraine and “Russian aggression”:

    “More to the point, just four days before Mr. Yatsenyuk issued his deceitful or ignorant Russophobic rant, the Times reached a new Russophobic low when it published propaganda designed to whitewash evidence that President Yanukovych was overthrown in a violent and illegal coup.

    Its propaganda piece was titled: “Ukraine Leader Was Defeated Even Before He Was Ousted.” It was written by the same reporters, Andrew Higgins and Andrew E. Kramer, who performed similar hatchet jobs for the Times, when reporting on the actual events in Kiev during the period February 18-21, 2014 — which led to the coup of February 22.

    Then, the Times was quick to blame the Yanukovych regime for the sniper fire that sparked regime change. Consider the February 20, 2014, article written by Mr. Higgins and Mr. Kramer, titled: “Converts Join With Militants in Kiev Clash.” Although the article mentions snipers only once, they are mentioned in the context of “thousands of riot police officers, volleys of live ammunition…and the looming threat of martial law.” In addition, Mr. Higgins and Mr. Kramer claimed, “few antigovernment protesters could be seen carrying weapons.” (Their observation would be refuted months later by a scholarly paper that identified snipers, fighting on the side of the protesters, who fired on police, news reporters and fellow protesters. These snipers were located in or on the Conservatory Building, the Hotel Ukraina, Kinoplats, Kozatsky Hotel, Zhovtnevyi Palace, Arkada Bank building, Muzeinyi Lane building, the Main Post Office, and Trade Union building, among others.) Thus, when Mr. Higgins and Mr. Kramer heard “reports” that “the police had killed more than 70 demonstrators,” they automatically concluded that “most of the gunfire clearly came from the other side of the barricades.”

    Buried within another article written by these reporters that same day was an admission that they did not know “which side” the snipers were on. But the article was titled “Ukraine’s Forces Escalate Attacks Against Protesters,” and it began with the following inflammatory opening sentence: “Security forces fired on masses of antigovernment demonstrators in Kiev on Thursday in a drastic escalation of the three-month-old crisis that left dozens dead and Ukraine reeling…”
    Predictably, Mr. Kramer and Mr. Higgins failed to substantiate the “reports” that the police killed more than 70 demonstrators. Even worse, however, was their failure to identify the ideological affiliations of those persons who formed the militant groups — called the “hundreds” (sotni) — that did much to transform a previously peaceful demonstration into a violent confrontation.

    Although Mr. Higgins and Mr. Kramer correctly acknowledged that the sotni “provided the tip of the spear in the violent showdown with government security forces,” they failed (or refused) to report that many leaders and members of the sotni were self-declared fascists and neo-Nazis from Pravyi Sektor (Right Sector) and Svoboda (Freedom). ”

    If not these two guys – then who else could possibly write an exemplar article about Russia for NYT?

    [Answer – any of the so-called “Russian liberal” émigré, that’s who! But they are even more unhinged]

    Like

  4. As for this article spreading fearmongering Russophobia – really, that’s their Western MSMs jobs! Who expected something else from them? That they do it in most schizophrenic way – well, d’uh, its not like their intended readership will notice that! It wants its daily dose of Russophobia and will get it, especially now, when the Trump any moment now will “sell up America to Putin” (c).

    So they have to double down. Having a population ideologically prepared for a war with Russia, or even for continued confrontation with it is always a good thing. And the reason is neither the current ideology of Russia and the West, nor the inner politics within RF. Its all really simple. Russia has the potential to annihilate America. Completely. Several times over. According to the reigning thinking patterns of the Powers That Be in the West, “potential” = “will surely do any moment now”. Does Russia have the capability to invade the Ukraine and create much beloved by Sen. John McCain “land bridge to Crime” (c)? Yes, it has. Does Russian Military have the forces needed to overrun Baltics in a matter of a few days (as the idiots serious and respected analysts scream about weekly)? Again, the answer is – “yes”. Can the missiles in Kaliningrad oblast (Russian sovereign territory, btw) be equipped with nuclear payload and THEN strike any NATO site in 400-500 km radius? Yes, yes, yes!

    So the job of al Western institutions is to neutralize this potential threat, be it via weakening Russian internally or economically (“pro-democracy NGO” and sanctions), or, when time comes – by the use of “preventive attack against aggressive Russia” (c) (what we used to call “and act of aggressive war against a severing country”, but it’s now okay as long as the US and/or their patsies are doing it). Everyone saying that Westerners should understand Russian position, concerns and demands, that they may be legitimate and well grounded in facts and reality are simply Putin’s Useful Idiots and must be sent into most democratic re-education camps of Liberty! As for the masses – they still might not see the Light Of Truth, so they must be whipped up in the Russophobic frenzy – regularly! To remind them, how Russia is evil, how Russians are totally not like Racially Superior Westerners, and that any war against these people and their Regime is in fact an act of utmost good!

    I think that you, professor, should run something like “Ilyin Watch”, to notice and catalogue the numerous abuses which this now long dead Russian philosopher suffers from time to time at the hands of overzealous pundits, think-tankers and ideologues of Universal Hanshakable Values. I present you this “balanced” and “truthful” article, which, as anyone would agree, is one enormous feast for a soul!

    WHY VLADIMIR PUTIN HATES US
    By John R. Schindler

    “Putin has talked warmly about what he calls “spiritual security“—which means keeping versions of Christianity other than Russian Orthodoxy out of the country—even stating that Russia’s “spiritual shield” is as important to her security as its nuclear shield. His inspiration for this comes from Orthodox thinkers, above all Ivan Ilyin, who hated the West with vigor and passion. This anti-Western worldview seems strange and even incomprehensible to most Americans, its reference points are utterly foreign to us, yet is grounded in centuries of Russian history and spiritual experience.

    In this viewpoint, which I have termed Orthodox Jihadism, the West is an implacable foe of Holy Russia with whom there can be no lasting peace. For centuries—whether led by the Catholic Church, Napoleon, Hitler or the United States—the West has tried to subjugate Russia and thereby crush Orthodoxy, the one true faith. This is the Third Rome myth, which became very popular in 19th century Imperial Russia, postulating that it is Russia’s holy mission to resist the Devil and his work on earth.

    Putin has reinvigorated such throwback thinking, making the Russian Orthodox Church—the de facto state religion—the ideological centerpiece of his regime. After Communism fell, the country needed a new ideological anchor, and Putinism found it in a potent amalgam of religion and nationalism which has far greater historical resonance with Russians than Communism ever did.”

    Well, I think there is no more point denying it! I, as Russian, had sworn to wage tirelessly a Jihad against all things Western, alhamdulillāh! I do belong to the infamous Cranberry Jihad (rus. “Клюквенный Д///ихад”). We are well funded and receive help from all hateful and moronic people of the world. Thus, Senator-sahib Abu-Jon al-McCaini gave us lots of money, after we promised to declare ourselves “moderates” (Astagfirullāh!). All infidels will learn to tremble before our trolling, Ma sha Allah!

    And now its time for me to personally (orally) eliminate a couple of butterbrods full of tasty pork meat haram!

    Liked by 1 person

  5. …the article admits that ‘the only proven case so far involves the National Front in France’.

    But even that is bs, as far as I know. This whole conspiracy theory is based on the fact that FN once took a loan from a Czech-Russian bank – which is laughable. To begin with, FN is now a respectable French political party with real chances (a bit weaker now, as the Republicans moved to the right) to win presidency. Aside from that, is it a fact that no right-wing party ever borrowed from a European or American bank? That would be amazing. And, of course, the bank in question is Czech-Russian, so why not blame the EU?

    Like

  6. Would a neo-Nazi order the skyline of his capital city to be disgraced with Europe’s largest Mosque? Would a neo-Nazi push for an amendment to the preamble of the Russian Constitution which hammers home the point of Russia’s multi-ethnic and multi-confessional background, and notably uses the word Российский in lieu of Русский? (https://awfulavalanche.wordpress.com/2016/11/03/the-ethnic-issue-in-modern-russia-part-i/ goes into great detail across a 5-part series)

    Lastly, is it Putin or the champion of “liberal opposition” in Russia, Aleksei Navalny who supports the “stop feeding the Caucasus” campaign?

    Like

    1. The Russian Empire, the largest and dominant member republic of the Soviet Union and the present Russian Federation have always been multi-ethnic and always “Rossiiskiy” (Российский ) and not “Russkiy” (Русский)

      Российская империя — The Russian Empire

      Российская Советская Федеративная Социалистическая Республика (РСФСР) — The Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR)

      Российская Федерация — The Russian Federation.

      In English “a Russian” can mean either an ethnic Eastern Slav (русский) or a Russian citizen (россиянин), who may or may not be an ethnic Eastern Slav, e.g. a Chechen or a Tatar.

      This fact is often lost on Anglophones, e.g. the statement “Many Russians are Muslim”, the truth of which depends on what one means by “Russian”.

      A parallel situation is that of my home country: ethnically I am English, but in British terminology I am “British”, a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which country was formerly in possession of the British Empire, not the “English Empire”.

      Like

  7. NYT having their cake and eating it.

    When Russia is weak (sic 1990s) the fear was loose nukes going to terrorists or by some resurgent commie General (as Hollywood tells us in films of the time).

    Now it has a President that is too strong because he doesn’t compromise with his betters.

    Translation: compromise, do what we want, our position will move minimally at most. It’s almost as if they think that the President of Russia should run his country for the benefit of other countries!

    Still, have a look at the NYT comment ‘picks’ alongside the article.

    The New York Times – The Paper of Broken Record*

    * LP, 45 or 78? Let’s put it this way, when the CD was adopted as the latest mass recording medium, soulness was lost, around the same time the NYT started loosing it.

    Like

  8. I find your use of terminology rather curious here. First you say the NYTimes “screams” about the Kremlin’s links to extremists. How exactly does a newspaper “scream?” This is clearly designed to prejudice the reader.

    Then you say the paper “confesses” to the fact that Putin has never explicitly supported Neo-Nazi ideas. Gee, I thought that was more of objectivity or balance than a “confession.” Would you have found the piece more objective if that caveat had been left out?

    Now it seems many of the readers here are confused about the state of race relations in Russia, most likely because you and they have little actual experience here and don’t speak the language. This makes you reliant on those sources that are translated. And of course since the entire “mainstream media” is engaged in a global conspiracy against poor little Russia according to you guys, you have to rely on pro-Russian sources like RT and Sputnik.

    The fact is this- the Russian government, via its media and astroturf groups, promotes all kinds of right-wing ideas. Just like past fascist movements, many of these ideas are not racially exclusionary- they are paternalistic. Tatars, Chuvash, etc. are fine so long as they stay in their places and acknowledge Russian superiority.

    In recent years, the racial nationalism has been on the decline because many nationalist leaders have been put in jail. Putin’s scared and obviously ethnic conflict is detrimental to stability. For one thing, many contract soldiers in the Russian army happen to be ethnic minorities. It certainly doesn’t pay to anger them.

    On Russian state TV, terms like tolerance are treated as a dirty word- tolerance means you want to let a Muslim pedophile rape your children. Russian state TV is constantly airing stories about evil Arab migrants overrunning Europe. At times they have even made up such stories, such as the Lisa story in Germany or one that was quoted by Putin himself about Austria.

    The Russian government has shown itself willing to tolerate neo-Nazis so long as they conceal their beliefs and work for the Kremlin’s purposes, whether as volunteers in Ukraine or as enforcers at home.

    For example, in the infamous BORN case, it was found that there were ties between the neo-Nazis in that organization and the Presidential Administration via a front group called Russkiy Obraz. There is also the case of Alexei Milchakov and the militant group Rusych, which operated in the Donbas and later started a paramilitary training camp on Russian territory.

    Individuals like these and supporters of such organizations such as the Eurasian Youth Front would easily be busted for “extremism” for certain comments, were it not for the fact that these groups advance the Kremlin’s foreign policy goals.

    And speaking of the Eurasian Youth Movement- virtually every year St. Petersburg hosts a World Conservative Forum with neo-fascist representatives from all over Europe and the West. Plenty of comments recorded at such meetings could reasonably violate Russia’s extremism laws about “inciting hatred against ethnic groups/religions,” and yet nobody is ever even investigated in connection with these shindigs.

    It’s also worth noting that every time they have organized “election observers” in Crimea or Donbas, the list of names typically consists of a long list of European fascist parties.

    As if that weren’t enough, the NY Times article is clearly about extremists looking to Vladimir Putin as some sort of ally (which is pretty stupid because the truth is that Putin doesn’t give a shit about ideology). If you survey far right-wing groups, you will find this Putin love among virtually all of them.

    So now that you know all this, please tell me what exactly was wrong about that NYTimes article? They said that far-right wing extremists admire Putin- this is demonstrably true. They noted that he has never explicitly endorsed neo-Nazism (though he has expressed far-right opinions), this is also true. Where’s the horrible bias here?

    Like

    1. I don’t normally reply to ad hominem attacks, but this is silly: ‘you and they have little actual experience here and don’t speak the language. This makes you reliant on those sources that are translated. … you have to rely on pro-Russian sources like RT and Sputnik.’

      I guess I somehow managed to write my last book by getting somebody else to read all those archival sources in Russian and never actually going to Russia myself. And the book before that, and the one before that. And I guess I never learnt a word of Russian while a student in the Soviet Union, or while working in Moscow in the mid-1990s, or on any of my many other trips there. And I guess this copy of volume 5 of Dostoevsky’s collected works published in Leningrad in 1973 which is sitting on my desk right now is going to have go unread, because it’s in Russian, and I can’t read it. I’ll have to get the Cliff notes version instead. If only RT did condensed Dostoevsky for idiots!

      You should check your facts before making charges like these.

      As far as the rest of your criticism is concerned, note that I specifically did not say that the facts in the article were untrue. On the contrary, I said that news doesn’t have to be fake to mislead. It’s true, but at the same time, if readers aren’t paying very close attention, they’ll walk away with a false impression.

      The problem with this article is that on the one hand it seems to be desperately trying to taint Putin personally by association, while on the other hand it admits that he isn’t really guilty as charged. It’s almost as if the authors have been given an editorial mission to write a piece linking Putin and the far right, and so have gone off and done it, but they’re not dishonest, so they have to admit that the connection isn’t quite what they’re making it out to be. But at the same time, they have an editorial mission to carry out, so they bury the confession deep in the middle and then gloss over it and go back to the main theme. The result, frankly, is a mess.

      Like

      1. I don’t see how this was an ad hominem attack.

        If I mistook your experience and language skills it is only because you seem to miss something that is really obvious to anyone living here for a significant amount of time.

        For that I apologize.

        But I cannot agree with your argument that the NYTimes is being unfair to Putin here. While Putin does not directly order these people around, it is a fact that his administration (as in literally the AP) has and still does support and work with far-right nationalist groups in Russia, who in turn work with groups in Europe.

        Thus it is by no means dishonest guilt by association. As I said before, Putin doesn’t micromanage everything but he does have the last word, and it’s the AP that sets the agenda for the state media as well as runs operations with all these supposedly “grass roots” groups. In the Surkovian system, neo-Nazis and nationalists are just another item in the toolbox.

        I don’t see how anyone would truly be misled by this article, particularly since they quite accurately pointed out that Putin doesn’t openly express these ideals.

        Like

      2. To summarise this article: ‘Far right, Putin; far right, Putin; far right, Putin. Actually, Putin isn’t far right. Far right, Putin; far right, Putin.’

        Of course that misleads. Psychologically, details (especially when buried deep in the middle of a long text) don’t really make much of an impression, but overall tone does.

        Like

    2. It’s also worth noting that every time they have organized “election observers” in Crimea or Donbas, the list of names typically consists of a long list of European fascist parties.

      I don’t know what exactly “European fascist parties” are – must be all those that deviate from the Brussels obkom’s Party Line. But I have the impression that they actually invite all observers, and then the Brussels’ faithful simply refuse to go. And so obviously all those who do come are, therefore, the infidels (fascists), by definition… Oh well.

      Like

      1. Well you’d be wrong, because many of these people are routinely identified on video. Lega Nord is a right wing party. Golden Dawn is a hell of a right wing party. So is Jobbik. These are just three of the parties that routinely send representatives to these shindigs.

        Somehow I doubt you’d be so skeptical about a party’s fascism if it were Pravy Sektor or Svoboda (they’re also “skeptical” of “Brussels’ Party Line”).

        Like

      2. I don’t think Lega Nord is a fascist party, by any standard.

        I think it was yesterday, I read an American article about the Italian referendum, and they described Five Star as ‘far-right party’… Ignorance is strength, indeed…

        Anyway, what about my main point; to rephrase it in a more neutral way: all are invited, the establishment EU parties refuse to come, the ‘eurosceptics’ (whom you identify as ‘fascists’) do come, and then you insinuate that only fascists are invited. Is it not clear that the real split here is the EU establishment vs. eurosceptics?

        Like

      3. Golden Dawn, Jobbik, and PEGIDA certainly are. All three have ties to the Kremlin or its proxies.

        The problem with your main point is that you don’t present any proof for it; you’re just grasping at straws. On the other hand, there’s plenty of proof that the Kremlin routinely works with far-right parties and throws shindigs for them in Moscow and St. Petersburg.

        The Nazis never made it to Leningrad, but Putin’s cronies invite them in.

        Like

      4. ‘The Nazis never made it to Leningrad, but Putin’s cronies invite them in.’ And yet, as I pointed out in my post, the NYT article says that the organizer of the meeting in St Petersburg, Fyodor Biryukov, said that ‘the Kremlin had not supported the event.’

        Like

      5. What about this one:
        https://euobserver.com/foreign/136166

        Russia’s Nord Stream II gas pipeline is a threat to European security, a US diplomat has said, amid calls for the European Commission to intervene.

        Adam Shub, the deputy US ambassador to the EU, in Brussels on Tuesday (6 December), mentioned the Russian-German project amid other instruments he said Russia was using to “create division” in Europe and to erode “shared transatlantic values”.

        It sounds like drivel, but I hear sometimes on Russian talk shows that the goal of the US is to prevent a German-Russian alliance (and I think I saw Stratfor saying the same thing), and this seems like a direct admission…

        Like

      6. ‘Russia’s Nord Stream II gas pipeline is a threat to European security, a US diplomat has said, … he said Russia was using [it] to “create division” in Europe and to erode “shared transatlantic values”.’

        Piffle. It’s a pipeline. What on earth has that got to with ‘values’?

        Like

  9. Hello, Jimbo! Good to see you here! How is Ukraine, btw? Surely, such staunch and unrelenting critic of the Bloody Regime ™, who expressed his unwavering support to the land of your ancestors – Вiльна Уркаiна – and who ran a series of articles about hard, but rich in peremogas life of new Ukrainian Heroes (to who, as we all know, Слава!) – troopers of the volunteer battalions of the NatzGuard, you find it unbearable to remain in the Mordor on Earth – Russia?

    That’s a big comment you have here. Seems like you put a lot of work into writing it. Just one little thing – I don’t seen any sources or links that would support your claims. Care to correct that fact? Anyone of us can write wall-of-texty comment about something, we feel to be “ideologically correct”. But we also kinda required to provide some proof, arguments, facts, documents etc. I can’t just say that Petro Poroshenko is a worthless drunk, and that Oleh Lyashko loves to swallow bananas wholesome – I need hard evidence to claim that. Understanding, that I’m just a common citizen and don’t have contacts in higher places, or some special (and very illegal) equipment my chances are very slim to ever find enough proof to confirm my would be claims.

    You, Jim, accuse Professor of misusing of the word “scream”, when describing the general tone of the article. Well, that’s his opinion – he sees it like that. Our 2 good authors – people thoroughly handhskable, and therefore, honest and good by all accounts – also see fit to use some expressive phrases while talking about this or that event or person. So, we have gems of punditry like these:

    “But what seemed inexplicable when Mr. Trump first expressed his admiration for the Russian leader seems, in retrospect, to have been a shrewd dog whistle to a small but highly motivated part of his base.”

    “But efforts by Russia, which has jailed some of its own white supremacist agitators, to organize and inspire extreme right-wing groups in the United States and Europe may ultimately prove more influential.”

    Oh, wait – what was that? “But efforts by Russia to organize and inspire extreme right-wing groups in the United States…” . The article from the very beginning accused Russia of either planning, or already carrying out the organization and “inspiration” (uhm, simply by existing?) the proverbial fifth column in the USA. And you failed to notice that. Or, maybe, you don’t see it as anything worth mentioning. Well, and Professor (and a number of his commenters here) see his use of the word “scream” as very descriptive of the general tone of the article.

    “Now it seems many of the readers here are confused about the state of race relations in Russia, most likely because you and they have little actual experience here and don’t speak the language.”

    Yeah, riiiiight… No knowledge of Russia and Russian in these parts, no-ope! 🙂

    “And of course since the entire “mainstream media” is engaged in a global conspiracy against poor little Russia according to you guys, you have to rely on pro-Russian sources like RT and Sputnik.”

    Cheap shot. First of all – the so-called Free and Independent Media of the Democratic West ™ seems to revert to a Borg/Zerg/Tyranid/Maidown-style hive-mind the very second they are asked to report/comment on Russia. The tropes and turns of phrases are the same, the images for scaaaaaarry covers for their rags are the same, the story is the same. Secondly – Jimbo, будь ласка, make an effort over yourself and scroll back to several past blogposts by the Professor. Then go a little bit more. And a bit more again. What – lots of RT and Sputnik have you witnessed there?

    “The fact is this- the Russian government, via its media and astroturf groups, promotes all kinds of right-wing ideas.”

    This phrase is very inaccurate and tells more about its author rather about the issue at hand.

    a) What, Mr. Kovpak, do you understand by the “right-wing ideas”? Given that in the Blessed West the “Left” nowadays means “identity politics” and “SJWs crying, paying and repenting for the common White Guilt – and demanding the rest to do the same”, I guess we have slightly different understanding of what is “Right” and “Left” – and your opinion might not be even a correct one.

    b) You talk about some sort of “astroturf groups” – care to elaborate here? Provide a list? Point out their 100% dependency on the Kremlin?

    c) You say – “promotes”. How? Does it orders people to accept some thought… or else? What about ordinary Russians? What, they are resisting actively these, clearly, unacceptable to them ideas?

    Or, maybe – just, maybe – it’s the other way round? Kremlin and various groups are finally starting to promote those values, which DO belong to the People of Russia?

    “Tatars, Chuvash, etc. are fine so long as they stay in their places and acknowledge Russian superiority.”

    If “Russian superiority” means “Russian state”, then – yes, that’s correct. Or you meant something different? I take it, you are an advocate of ethnic separatism? Or of separatism in general?

    “In recent years, the racial nationalism has been on the decline because many nationalist leaders have been put in jail.”

    “Racial”? Ugly question time, Jim – to which “race” do the Chechens belong? And the Jews?

    “Putin’s scared…”

    But-but-but, Jim!.. You just told us, that the use of such expressive word as “scream” was wrong-wrong-wrong by Professor! And here you claim to have a privy information to President Putin’s thoughts and feelings, to his fears! How so? Tsk! And I thought that you was such a Exemplar of the Top-Tier Journalism, Consistency and Non-Hypocrisy! ;(

    Oh, well…

    “For one thing, many contract soldiers in the Russian army happen to be ethnic minorities. It certainly doesn’t pay to anger them.”

    I’m absolutely sure that you have relevant statistical date to confirm that! And you WILL share it with us – any moment now!

    “On Russian state TV, terms like tolerance are treated as a dirty word”

    Oh, you should listen to what ordinary Russians are telling then! And, no – it’s the other way round. It’s the people, screwed over by the 90s dermokratia and liberastia influencing the narrative of the TV, not the other way round.

    “tolerance means you want to let a Muslim pedophile rape your children”

    Not true. “Tolerasts” are more like those who argue for the gay parades… and would surely take part in them. Please, Jim – give us complete and more accurate picture!

    “Russian state TV is constantly airing stories about evil Arab migrants overrunning Europe.”

    Just before sitting down and writing this response I watched 21-00 News on “Perviy Kanal”. No “evil Arab migrants” stories ;(. I switched to “Rossiya 24” – no luck here either 😦

    Where, where are these “constantly airing” stories?! Hey, guys! Let’s help Jimmy the Explorer Find Russian Horror Arab Stories!

    OTOH – hey, what we got here? No way! Did the DW sold out to Putin and his enormous propaganda-machine?!

    “At times they have even made up such stories, such as the Lisa story in Germany or one that was quoted by Putin himself about Austria.”

    Yes, everything made up by the direct orders of Putin. While the whole Western Free World is watching with trepidation for new tweets from 7 y.o. girl from Aleppo, calling for a WWIII with Russia [nods].

    Don’t mistake them, citizen! Beware of Russian propaganda – trust your Democratic Media!

    “The Russian government has shown itself willing to tolerate neo-Nazis so long as they conceal their beliefs and work for the Kremlin’s purposes, whether as volunteers in Ukraine or as enforcers at home.”

    Again – some example would be terrific! Or was you projecting here and talking about the current government in Kiev’s Modus Operandi?

    “For example, in the infamous BORN case, it was found that there were ties between the neo-Nazis in that organization and the Presidential Administration via a front group called Russkiy Obraz. There is also the case of Alexei Milchakov and the militant group Rusych, which operated in the Donbas and later started a paramilitary training camp on Russian territory.”

    For the first one – I have no idea what you are talking about. That’s all because you don’t post links, Jimmy! As for the Milchakov – uhm, yeah, how does “The Kremlin” fits in here?

    “Individuals like these and supporters of such organizations such as the Eurasian Youth Front would easily be busted for “extremism” for certain comments, were it not for the fact that these groups advance the Kremlin’s foreign policy goals.”

    Ah, I see! When you don’t have the facts – go for conspiracy theory! Good-good. Hard to disprove.

    “It’s also worth noting that every time they have organized “election observers” in Crimea or Donbas, the list of names typically consists of a long list of European fascist parties.”

    a) “Every time”?
    b) Define “European fascist party”.

    Oh, and btw – Jim, do you have a Law degree? To be more precise – have you studying, seriously, like, Higher Education and all, the Law of Russian Federation? I just want not confirm, that you are qualified more than anyone to judged, who deserves to be jailed in Russia for violation of its existing Legislation.

    “So now that you know all this, please tell me what exactly was wrong about that NYTimes article?”

    Easy one! It was the NYT article. That’s what was wrong with it.

    Hope, Jim, that you will time find time and effort to answer my questions.

    Niqud-ad Din ibn-Sallah al-Lytteni, Russian Orthodox-jihadi.

    Like

    1. Hello tard,

      Most of your rant consists of hilarious red herrings and failed attempts at jokes, but I’ll indulge you a bit.

      “and who ran a series of articles about hard, but rich in peremogas life of new Ukrainian Heroes (to who, as we all know, Слава!) – troopers of the volunteer battalions of the NatzGuard,”

      I’ve never run a series of article about volunteer battalions or anything of the sort. Always good to start off your comment with an easily checkable lie, right, dipshit?

      “That’s a big comment you have here. Seems like you put a lot of work into writing it. ”

      I’m not at all surprised you’d look at something like that and assume it must be a lot of work. Not so much for me.

      Since you’re so upset about sources, let me do your work for you and provide you with sources.

      This is about the BORN case: https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/nationalist-suspected-in-high-profile-killings-extradited-29408

      Since you clearly don’t know who Milchakov is and can’t figure out how he relates to the Kremlin, let me remind you that the Kremlin has allowed armed groups to cross Russia’s border for the sake of attacking another country. Milchakov was a former Russian military serviceman (VDV if I remember correctly), who was part of a militia called Rusich. After leaving the Donbas, he set up a para-military training camp in Russia, where he has yet to be arrested and charged with extremism.

      https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-23/is-russia-against-fascism-or-isn-t-it-

      “a) What, Mr. Kovpak, do you understand by the “right-wing ideas”?”

      Right-wing ideas are reactionary, authoritarian, supportive of hierarchy, metaphysical, etc.

      My definition is the same definition that everyone uses.

      “b) You talk about some sort of “astroturf groups” – care to elaborate here? Provide a list? Point out their 100% dependency on the Kremlin?”

      You’ve seriously never heard of Nashi? NOD? Set?

      “c) You say – “promotes”. How? Does it orders people to accept some thought… or else? What about ordinary Russians? What, they are resisting actively these, clearly, unacceptable to them ideas?”

      You’re aware that most of the major media in Russia is state owned or owned by people friendly to Putin right? Are you also aware that the media works closely with the Presidential Administration to coordinate on how they will cover certain topics?

      “Or, maybe – just, maybe – it’s the other way round? Kremlin and various groups are finally starting to promote those values, which DO belong to the People of Russia?”

      Nope. Are you seriously going to suggest that the media doesn’t shape attitudes in Russia? By your same child logic, I could claim that Western media is just reflecting the values of its audience.

      “And here you claim to have a privy information to President Putin’s thoughts and feelings, to his fears! How so? ”

      We can determine a lot from someone’s actions. Analysis of Putin’s actions shows that he reacts a certain way to certain ideas, movements, or events. You don’t have to read his mind to know that he’s clearly worried about what will happen if he’s not in power.

      “Just before sitting down and writing this response I watched 21-00 News on “Perviy Kanal”. No “evil Arab migrants” stories ;(. I switched to “Rossiya 24” – no luck here either”

      You watched two news programs and they didn’t happen to have any stories about that on them, and you’re actually going to use that as proof that the media here doesn’t promote stories about Europe being taken over by bloodthirsty, lustful Muslims.

      I want you to read your own words again, and then come up with an explanation as to why you now realize this was one of the stupidest things you’ve ever written. (HINT: Availability Fallacy, big time)

      “Yes, everything made up by the direct orders of Putin. ”

      Nobody ever said that. Putin did cite one of his state channel’s fake stories, however:

      https://themoscowtimes.com/news/putin-cites-fake-story-from-state-tv-55967

      And he Liza story was indeed false.

      “Again – some example would be terrific!”

      I’m only quoting this because you write it just before I actually give you some examples, which you dismiss by claiming either to not have heard of them or not understand how its connected to the Kremlin (showing what a savvy Russia watcher you are).

      “Ah, I see! When you don’t have the facts – go for conspiracy theory! Good-good. Hard to disprove.”

      What conspiracy theory, moron? It’s a well-known fact that plenty of people have been charged or even jailed for “inciting hatred against ethnic groups” whereas others do it with impunity.

      “a) “Every time”?
      b) Define “European fascist party”.”

      Every time that I know of.

      I find it difficult to believe that you don’t know what a fascist party is. I’m sure you have no problem calling Svoboda or Pravy Sektor a fascist party. But of course if you take a European party with basically the same beliefs as Svoboda or Pravy Sektor, but with a pro-Russia point of view, then it’s just fine. See Golden Dawn or Jobbik.

      “I just want not confirm, that you are qualified more than anyone to judged, who deserves to be jailed in Russia for violation of its existing Legislation.”

      This is really irrelevant. It’s pretty obvious that if a Russian can be charged with “inciting hatred against ethnic groups” for sharing something that says Crimea is Ukraine, something that is anti-Ukrainian can surely fall under the same charge, can it not? For example Alexander Dugin famously said in an interview that Ukrainians need to be killed en masse, and he was never charged with extremism.

      Here are a few cases: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Opinion/2016/06/07/Jailed-for-a-retweet-Russia-prosecuting-more-Internet-extremism-cases/7151465311241/

      Now do kindly find me a case of someone getting busted for extremism and inciting hatred against ethnic groups when they wrote something anti-Ukrainian, which isn’t hard to find all over VK.com or Russian Twitter.

      “Easy one! It was the NYT article. That’s what was wrong with it.”

      In other words you don’t have an actual coherent argument. I see.

      Like

      1. Also, since I did take the time to answer your nonsensical questions prefaced by an easily-debunked lie, maybe you could explain something to me?

        Every time I piss off one of you Western Putin fanboys you always respond with forms like “Jimbo” and “Jimmy.” Is that intended as some kind of insult? I’ve always found that rather amusing.

        Also I do apologize for skipping the part about your weird obsession with gay parade, but honestly I think that’s an issue you’ll just have to work out on your own.

        Like

  10. ‘What – lots of RT and Sputnik have you witnessed there?’ Obviously this blog is deficient. To compensate for the shocking lack of RT so far, I’ve added a link in the video section to the time I appeared on RT’s Crosstalk. Here it is as well:

    Like

    1. “I’ve added a link in the video section to the time I appeared on RT’s Crosstalk”

      8-0

      Paul, what are you doing here?! You understand that now you are losing like, over 9000 points of handshakability?! That Highly Motivated (Net based) StormBattalions will do their utmost to ritually (and democratically!) lustrate such pro-Moskal like you?

      I hope Putin and Surkov paid you enough for that! Oh, well – you can always join Paul Craig Roberts and other “exposed” agents of influence of the Bloody Regime.

      Like

      1. I was heartbroken not to be denounced as a Russian agent by PropOrNot, and so am working hard to be added to the list.

        Like

      2. “‘I hope Putin and Surkov paid you enough for that! ‘ – I’m still waiting for the cheque.”

        Oh, Paul! You must understand – it’s hard times we are living in. As Ukrainian “analysts” (pardon for the word analysts) pointed out, “Russia ran out of money, so they couldn’t pay enough for their candidate to win in Austria”. Several so-called Russian liberals also wholeheartedly supported this notion and proclaimed (yet again), that “The Downfall of the Regime is Imminent”. Because, obviosuly – Putin funds EVERY single despicable, nay – “deplorable” cause in the World.

        So I only can repeat Dima Medvedev’s (in)famous pharase.

        Like

  11. Wonderful thread, Gentlemen. Lyttenburgh, for what it’s worth, here’s one deplorable American wishing friendship between our countries who would gladly shake your hand.

    Like

    1. Mr. Lawlor – I’m all for furious handshaking with the people who can find be handshakable! You, as American, even a so-called “deplorable” one, still qualigy as a human being – can’t say that the Other Side ™ view me as such.

      Here’s my hand, Mr. Lawlor! As says Lev Nathanovich Shcharansky – “За вашу и нашу свободу! ТакЪ Победимь!”

      Like

      1. Thank you, Sir!, You are very kind.

        Ok, now for a brave attempt at translation using all the latest internet technology my browser can provide: For you and our freedom! So Pobedim!

        Like

      2. “Ok, now for a brave attempt at translation using all the latest internet technology my browser can provide”

        Ah, close, very close! “For yours and ours freedom! Thus [we] shall win!” (play on in hoc sign vinces)

        More about handshacable dissident, writer, civil rights activist and tireless fighter for money grants from the West Lev Nathanovich Scharansky and his teaching (Sharanism-Haykinism) could be learned ther

        Like

  12. Apart from representatives of the far-right, the Crimean referendum was observed by members of the Communist Party of Greece, the German party Die Linke and other individuals who could be described as ‘far-left’. Instead then of ‘far-rightness’, it would seem that ‘far-ness’, defined as not being part of the Atlanticist mainstream, is the best predictor on whether individuals/parties responded to the monitoring invitation. (source: http://anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.fi/2014/03/pro-russian-extremists-observe.html)

    That the Euro-American non-establishment political space is dominated by neo nazis and the far right instead of communists has of course more to do with the mainstream political culture of these countries than with any of the ideological preferences of Russia and its leadership. When for example the comically virulent anticommunism of Timothy Snyder passes as ‘progressive left thought’, it is scarcely surprising that the bar for non-left thought will be set at Mein Kampf.

    Like

    1. Do look at the list of the observers, however. You’ll see the left groups are far outnumbered by the right.

      Also, I don’t know if you consider yourself a leftist or not, but if you were, what would you think if you found yourself at a gathering consisting mostly of people who would be your bitter enemies back home? Wouldn’t it raise an eyebrow?

      Again I find it funny how easily pro-Kremlin people condemn failed parties like Svoboda, Pravy Sektor, Azov, etc. while endorsing parties and a government that basically preaches the same reactionary values.

      Like

  13. Well Paul, from one completely unpaid Russian propagandist to another, if you ever turn up in Dortmund, I am willing to buy you as much beer as you can consume in one afternoon.

    Like

      1. I do have a bunk in Berlin, so it wouldnt be big deal.

        Are you going to attend a conference there or something?

        Like

  14. It’s been a long time since I so enjoyed reading a post and comments section. I mean, not just here, but on any blog anywhere.

    Jim Kovpak — yeah, that was ad hominem. It can happen to the best of us, swept up by the emotions of the moment, etc.

    I just spent (wasted?) the afternoon reading Johan Galtung on the psychological factors that cause militaristic nationalism. The U.S. doesn’t come out looking very good. When things start going south for a militaristic culture, among its coping strategies, Galtung says, are projection. I wonder if that could explain (in part) not only this peculiar NYT’s study of Russia, but the whole recent obsession in the US with Russian evil?

    Like

    1. Sounds like quite a useful afternoon! I spent mine reading the first half of Konstantin Leontiev’s ‘Byzantinism and Slavdom’. I’ve just got to the bit where he talks about the three stages of progress – ‘initial simplicity’, ‘flowering complexity’ and ‘secondary complexity’, and says that liberal-egalitarian ‘progress’ is really sympton of stage three, and thus of decay. Can’t say I’m convinced.

      Like

    2. When things start going south for a militaristic culture, among its coping strategies, Galtung says, are projection. I wonder if that could explain (in part) not only this peculiar NYT’s study of Russia, but the whole recent obsession in the US with Russian evil?

      I don’t think it’s projection, any more than the ‘Saddam’s meat grinders’ was. Just the usual demonization and dehumanization of the Other, of the official enemy. The practice as old as the world itself. It’s deliberate, not subconscious. Not to mention that the media and government institutions are not human themselves, and have no ability to act subconsciously.

      Incidentally, if I was more of a conspiracy theorist, I might suspect that the preponderance of Zombie movies and TV shows these days is a clever plot to desensitize the population to the idea of cheerful killings of human-looking evil inhuman creatures. Would that be too much?

      Like

    3. There is certainly a very worrying element of projection in what certain media outlets (WaPo especially) have been doing as of late. Yes, Russia definitely meddled in the election, but I don’t believe they ever expected Trump to win and more importantly, this meddling simply does not explain the outcome of the election.

      Hillary was a very poor candidate with a deservedly bad reputation whose entire campaign consisted of “More status quo! Everything’s fine! And look at my opponent!” She barely campaigned in certain key states because she just decided they’d be with her- they weren’t.

      This has happened because of very serious problems in US domestic policy, because of decades of American, home-grown reactionary ideology and the utter failure of the left to properly respond to it (indeed the left has almost entirely been driven out of American mainstream politics by the Holy Centrists), and a long-held tradition of abusing the American people’s good will in order to support misguided foreign military adventures, the most relevant of course being Iraq.

      Essentially, blaming Putin for the results of the election is like claiming that Ukrainians only protested Yanukovych because they were paid by Nuland. It removes Americans’ agency.

      Like

      1. Essentially, blaming Putin for the results of the election is like claiming that Ukrainians only protested Yanukovych because they were paid by Nuland.

        Actually, these events are of the opposite nature, imo. What happened in Kiev was an organized insurrection, cultivated through the Ukrainian media infected with pro-western grant-eaters. I mean, what sane person could believe that hundreds of thousands of people would, just on their own ‘agency’, come out and battle the police, day after day, to protest the postponement of a stupid association agreement? No way Jose.

        And what happened in the US was completely spontaneous: Trump had no field organization whatsoever, he ran virtually no TV ads, and virtually all of the western equivalent of the media grant-eaters (the ‘opinion-makers’) were tasked with sinking him, in the nastiest way possible. Now, that was really amazing.

        Like

      2. The reason you think that is that you’re clearly not aware of the basic events that preceded Maidan and the timeline that unfolded thereafter. Don’t feel bad though, because I once made the same mistake.

        You’re right to say that people didn’t come out and battle police for an EU Association Agreement- just as they didn’t do it for some cookies.

        Euromaidan started as a relatively small scale student protest about the EU agreement, and it’s not surprising that people would be pissed about it because apart from all his other huge flaws, the EU integration project was Yanukovych’s own project and part of his party’s platform. I’m sure many of those people were probably thinking- “Yanukovych is terrible, but at least we’ll have that EU trade deal.”

        This initial protest was basically peaceful until 30 November, when police brutally attacked the protesters, who once again were mostly young students at the time. This is what brought a lot more people out and its what led to riots. The situation actually calmed down again for a while until the government later passed those anti-protesting laws.

        The point is that Maidan was anything but organized, and the very claim that it was is hilarious if you put yourself in the shoes of the alleged conspirators and try to work out how this would be planned. If anything, it would have had to have been planned in advance, which means that they’d have to somehow know that Yanukovych would suspend the signing of his own deal. Then there’s the whole idiotic aspect of the US organizing a coup against a president who was never really hostile to them all because he didn’t sign his own EU trade agreement.

        As for Trump, it’s not really a mystery or miraculous. The media, even that which was hostile to him, gave him literally millions, maybe tens of millions of dollars in free coverage. Even negative publicity helps in Trump’s case. Trump works in show business and he was very good at tapping into people’s anger and frustration at centrist politicians on both sides. In the end, Trump was a guy promising to shake things up while Clinton went full status quo and failed to campaign enough in key states. Of course Trump has almost immediately gone back on many of those promises, most notably all his anti-establishment, anti-Wall Street rhetoric.

        Also it’s important to remember that Trump won by the electoral college, based on victory in a few key states. Hillary’s popular vote leader is about 2.8 million now.

        Like

      3. “The point is that Maidan was anything but organized, and the very claim that it was is hilarious”

        Short and easy question – who paid for Maidan?

        Who paid for tents, Net-access, food, drinks and waste disposal for dozens of thousands of people in winter months for a significant period of time? Who?

        Maidan *was* organized – it’s been noted both by visitng liberats (foreign journos including) and Porsvirin and his natsi-y ilk.

        Again, J-word – who paid for Maidan?

        Like

      4. You do realize that Ukrainians have been organizing occupation style-protests on Maidan going back to the late Soviet period, right? Were those all financed by the West as well?

        In Ukraine they have civic organizations and people pitched in to donate what they could. I’ve actually talked to some of those people myself. Besides, it’s not like everyone was continuously on the square the whole time. Many people showed up on the weekend and worked during the week.

        How many Maidan activists or organizers have you personally spoken to? I’m sure they’d happily tell you where they got tents and stuff from.

        Is that really the best you can come up with? You don’t know who provided tents and food at Maidan so you think this is proof that it was a foreign-organized coup?

        BTW- Occupy had tents, libraries, teach-ins, etc. Who paid for those? Oh right- people can self-organize when they believe in things!

        Like

      5. “You do realize that Ukrainians have been organizing occupation style-protests on Maidan going back to the late Soviet period, right? Were those all financed by the West as well?”

        That’s an excellent question! Oh, and btw – I said nothing about *who* funded it. No-thing. I asked question. You are unwilling to answer it.

        “In Ukraine they have civic organizations and people pitched in to donate what they could. I’ve actually talked to some of those people myself. Besides, it’s not like everyone was continuously on the square the whole time. Many people showed up on the weekend and worked during the week.”

        The fact that you were on Maidan (I never doubted that you was there jumping with other fans of bezviz and lacy pants in the EU). Still, this doesn’t make you some kind of a prophet. Trusting 100% words of Maidowns? How about – no.

        But, for the lulz of it – did you actually asked them, who pays the bills? Who finds the Maidan? Sorry, people here (not on Maidan) have working brains, so no one believes that saintly granny managed to feed thousands on Maidan. Civic organizations? Well, one only had to admire the unprecedented level of life (and all those free money) which were available for the Ukrainians under the tyrant Yanukovictch!

        Again, Haime, do you have any friggest idea how much – daily – is it to supply such shitting, shouting, drinking, jumping, chanting, freezing and shitting army of Maidowns? Or, and don’t forget about it– all those well-trained (and supplied with flags, banners, colorful blue-yellow crap) sotniks of Maidan – who paid them, who fed and clothed them, who trained them?

        Who? Who did it?

        Like

      6. Tard, first of all I wasn’t on Maidan. Did you know that the people who WERE on Maidan continued existing after Maidan was over? Those are the people I talked to.

        How many have you spoken with?

        Also you claim I wouldn’t answer your question, when I clearly did.

        This is a pattern for you- ask for sources or answers, and when you get them, throw a tantrum like a little child.

        “Well, one only had to admire the unprecedented level of life”

        What are you talking about, moron? Again, who paid for Occupy? Who paid for any mass occupation protest around the world?

        Also several political parties participated in Maidan, and we all know that political parties have their own funding.

        This isn’t rocket science, but then again from the look of things basic arithmetic is probably beyond you.

        Oh…One interesting thing. We now know that the right-wing Svoboda party (which I think you share a lot in common with values-wise), received $200,000 from Yanukovych’s Party of Regions. So there’s that.

        Like

      7. BTW- Occupy had tents, libraries, teach-ins, etc. Who paid for those? Oh right- people can self-organize when they believe in things!

        If you are talking about Occupy Wall-Street movement – it’s hardly a secret anymore.

        Now, again easy question time – what’s the media income of Maidowns? And if we compare them to those who donated (or directly funded) OWS?

        Like

      8. Again, I’ve easily answered your idiotic question and the rest you can very easily find yourself.

        Yet you’re going to pretend you can’t understand basic English so you can keep up your argument from ignorance.

        Like

      9. “Tard, first of all I wasn’t on Maidan. Did you know that the people who WERE on Maidan continued existing after Maidan was over? Those are the people I talked to.
        How many have you spoken with?”

        You didn’t jump on Maidan? Oh, what a pity! You, J-name, lost a unique opportunity to join and spiritually meld with your fellow Racially Pure Ukrian (former) Countrymen! What a shame… OTOH, this just confirms that you, brave dirt-digging democratic journalist (aka durnalist) value comfort and the integrity of your arse more than any lofty ideals.

        So, you wasn’t on Maidan, yet you feel free to teach us all, low and sundry, about “how it was” ™. After all – you spoke with some people who were there! Well, that changes everything! We must totally trust both these unnamed few and you. Dum-dum-dum-duuum!

        I had no contact with Maidowns. At all. Have no desire to have any such contacts in the present or in the future, when they will crawl back begging forgiveness for their words and actions. How did they say? “Никогда мы не будем братьями”?

        “Also you claim I wouldn’t answer your question, when I clearly did.”

        No you didn’t. I asked specifically you one question, rather short one – who? Who financed the Maidan? Instead of giving me a straight answer (you are capable of doing something straight, do you?) YOU, Iakop, began strawmanning and crappy “psychic” stuff, in order to deduce what I was really saying.

        I was really and honestly asking one question – who? Who funded them, Jimbo?

        Because with OWS we, at least, can have some numbers and amount of money to trace back. What about Maidan?

        “We now know that the right-wing Svoboda party (which I think you share a lot in common with values-wise)”

        ;))))))))))))))))

        Oh, Haim, you are so pathetically funny, when you are lashing out, trying to smear with your own shit everything in the vicinity, but end up covered in crap yourself! Basically, your whole participation in this comment thread:

        1) “You, people, all are X!” – based on nothing.
        2) “I have some crappy proof!”. Gets refuted – “You are all meanies and bad guys, for refuting my proof! You must accept my proof, whaaaaaaaaaah! Mommy!”

        Your wild accusations towards everybody here are truly entertaining – butthurt hysterics on the net (of svidomite variety especially) always tend to be. Still, J-Ames, people here were not paying you with the same coin. I for one didn’t claim that you might be genderfluid pansexual theriantropic trans-beanstalk giant-kin, whose preferred pronouns are fee/fie/foe/fum. Or… am I wrong? With the internet people these days you can’t be 100% sure anymore! Did I trigger you?

        P.S. Who funded Maidan, Jim?

        Like

      10. Okay it’s pretty obvious that you can’t carry on a debate or form a coherent argument and thus can be dismissed as a retard.

        The cool thing is though, is that you’re actually conscious of this. You know you couldn’t form an argument and you also know that you could have easily checked anything I said, and you also know you’re not going to do that because it’s going to upset your worldview.

        And knowing that is going to burn you far worse than anything I might write to you.

        But by all means, feel free to make a futile attempt to act like it doesn’t bother you by writing childish nonsense that all amounts to “LOL U MAD BRO?”

        Like

  15. Part I.

    “Hello tard”

    Good day and seasonal salutations to you as well, Mr. Turd!

    “I’ve never run a series of article about volunteer battalions or anything of the sort. Always good to start off your comment with an easily checkable lie, right, dipshit?”

    Yes, it’s always a good thing to start your answer with an indignant refutation of other’s points! Doubly good, is when *it* is true. Are you going to deny that you run a 3-parter for now moss-covered and defunct propaganda outlet Ukraine! (from the creators of another net-rag – “Russia!”)? Or your articles on the Cracked?

    During your time in the ATO-zone you communicated with the personnel of the pro-Kiev military formations and presented their take on life there and opinions on various topics. And I never claimed in specific wording that you “never run a series of article about volunteer battalions” – my claim was though that you did “something of the sort”.

    Why no articles showing the perspective from the other side, Jim? Why such one-sideness? Or were the people in the people Republics already aware of your Russophobic bona-fides? Did you chicken out on your own? Or was it the blood of your ancestors, great and mighty Ancient Ukrs, which called you to make a reporting from the pro-Kiev side exclusively?

    But your political sympathies are not a big secret for anyone, James, given that you and your co-author from the Cracked were campaigning against RT and “Russian propaganda” even before it became a political mainstream!

    So, yes, I’m asking you – how it was returning back to Russian Mordor from the shining Ukrainian Gondor? Again – do you still live in Russia? Are you fearing for your life? Or did you are safe and sound in the most democratic and free Ukraine? How is your life here? Please, tell us!

    “I’m not at all surprised you’d look at something like that and assume it must be a lot of work. Not so much for me.”

    No efforts, you say? Nah! It just shows that you invested as little effort and intellectual capital in your scrawlings as possible and then just posted it. Won’t be the first time for you to do something like that.

    Re: Russkiy Obraz and your linked article.
    You linked us here The Moscow Times – a publication that has the same unfirm grasp on reality and penchant for unbiased click-bait claims as Novoya Gazeta or any other den of liberastia. From the article (which was written, I remind you, in 2013):

    “The Kremlin cooperated with Goryachev’s Russky Obraz when Surkov, who is reported to have invented the concept of “manageable nationalism,” oversaw domestic policy as deputy Kremlin chief of staff between 2008 and late 2011, according to Vladimir Pribylovsky, an expert on political elites.”

    Who the fuck is Prilovsky to claim such a thing and why should we believe him? OTOH, we learn that Goryachev’s lawyer was none other than… Mark Feygin! Oy vey, gevalt-gevalt! With lawyer like Feygin you don’t need persecution or any other confirmation of someone’s guilt – Mark Zakharovich chooses his clientele based on his… “principles”! 🙂

    In the end – a bunch of baseless and still unproven allegations. You had 3 years since then – and you failed to either confirm with 100% reliable evidence Goryachev’s alleged ties “to the Kremlin” (c)? Instead you have words of shit-tank “expert” Priblovsky and eternally butthurt anti-Kremlin Belov’s (aka Potkin) words. I mean – so now, this is how little you need to prove something?

    And even if you believe this article in TMT as if it was a Gospel, Jaime, why you cite only those demschizoids that help you to push your narrative? Alexander Verkhovsky is also very handshakable person, yet:

    “head of the Sova Center, which monitors xenophobia and extremism, said he did not believe that Goryachev’s extradition was an attack on Surkov, however.

    He said by phone that it was “unlikely that Surkov controlled Russky Obraz personally,” though “separate activities” of the group “might have been coordinated with the presidential administration.”

    Verkhovsky also expressed skepticism about Belov’s statements, saying that Belov could not be impartial about Goryachev because the two were rivals at the time of Surkov’s term as deputy Kremlin chief of staff, with Russky Obraz and the DPNI in direct competition. ”

    Oh, what a zrada! But in attempt to present us with your “evidence”, Yacub, you failed to point out the most obvious meaning and explanation of what happened back then – that the State did arrest a notorious nationalist and was in the process of cracking down on various radical nationalists. Nationalists, I must add, who year by year age getting more and more chummier with the so-called “democratic opposition”, which culminated in the appointment of Vyacheslav Maltsev as Kasyanov’s co-triumvir in the ParNaS, and Egor Prosvirnin past fanboyism and Navalny and present attempts to politically fellate criminal Anton Nosik (LJ dolboeb) in his quest to abolish Art. 282. When the most rabid nationalists are finding more in agreement with Former-regime-personnel-cum-pornstars (Kasyanov), “His brother’s jail-keeper” (Navalny) and Jewish racists who are all into kinky stuff (Nosik) – but NOT the Kremlin – this says abundantly both about nationalists, Kremlin and the so-called “Russian liberals”.

    Re: Milchakov

    A significant number of Russian citizens of various backgrounds on their own did indeed participate in the defense of Donbass. Thankfully, much smaller number of them, true neo-Nazis, pure and bred, went to fight for the other side. Whether Milchakov or anyone else of them did come from Russia already armed – you can not prove. Milchakov is for sure a piece of work and not someone with whom you’d like to associate with. But you are doing the same thing as the 2 esteemed authors of the article in question – you try to smear the whole movement by association with a minority of freaks. Why pointing out that some of volunteers in Donbass were of nationalist or religious persuasion immediately makes all of them “nationalists”, but if I, say, show communist and socialist volunteers, who fought for the People Republics this means nothing?

    If he is not arrested still – then the Police have some reasons for that. I thought that you, born and raised in the Free West, understand, that there is no place for the lynching and crowd justice, that all arrests and execution of the law must be done in accordance with due procedure. If you are so well-versed in Russian law, Jacopo, then forward a request to the Investigative Committee of Russian Federation. In this request (which you will surely fill out top-notch, in accordance to the rules, regulations and the law) you’d ask them to check Mr. Milchakov and his organization on extremism (citing enough evidence to make this claim stick and for the law enforcement take a look at that). Doing this is surely much more useful than bitch, moan and complain.

    Unless you are in the Ukraine now.

    As for the Bloomberg’s article you linked (again – old!), I do have some issues with what’s written in it. The most obvious thing here – again, no proof of “The Hand of Kremlin” ™ in this whole affair. Just usual sensationalism that sells the stories. Next:

    ““Hitler couldn’t capture Leningrad, but these guys did,” wrote liberal politician Leonid Volkov on Twitter before the forum.”

    To take Leonid Volkov as some sort of worthy moral paragon would either a person unaware of his past or a true liberast. Hardly anyone did more harm to Alexei Navalny’s electoral campaign than him. Despite having a wife and two small children (whom he left behind without divorcing), he spent his time “campaigning” for his boss by getting drunk, going to strip-clubs and sexually harassing at least one female member of Navalny’s volunteer staff. The great champion of the Democracy and Anti-Corruption Crusader ™, upon hearing this complain from the young woman herself just loled and said: “Oh! And I though he was just trying to fuck you!”.

    We are knowing this story thanks to Max Katz, in whose handshakabilty, I hope, there are one doubts. And – yes, both Katz and Volkov are Jewish, so there couldn’t be any accusations of anti-Semitism. What we should have doubts is then in any moral integrity of the “liberal politician” Volkov.

    “Other notable figures at the forum included German Udo Voigt, a member of the European Parliament, who glorified Hitler as a “great statesman” and claimed that the Holocaust’s death toll had been grossly exaggerated.”

    And that’s the second thing that impressed me most in the article. You, civilized Europeans, proponents of the “Universal (Western) Human Values” ™ elected him and people like him into the European Parliament. They are already there. They represent a certain, maybe not insignificant aspect of your, EU, society. Them. In your parts. And it’s completely legal from *your* stand point.

    So what are you complaining?

    If they are so deplorable, that their very existence harms the democracy and liberalism – bans them, lustrate them, did any kind of crazy shit that you allow Free and Democratic Ukraine do in its quest to become a part of Цэ Эуропа. Or do you pride yourself of the “freedom of speech” and freedom of assembly“, Westies? In that case you have no right to complain about that happening – especially, since you keep mum at Nazi-SS remembrance marches in Baltic countries. Or was this whole article just one big reason to kvetch about the insolent Russia? Well, in that case – you were right to choose the Bloomberg!

    Like

  16. Part II.

    “Right-wing ideas are reactionary, authoritarian, supportive of hierarchy, metaphysical, etc.
    My definition is the same definition that everyone uses. .”

    The last phrase is objectively untrue . Right/Left division came to us from France, where, originally, it meant only one thing – where were you sitting in the Parliament. So, it is purely by chance, that the back then the Right meant “the party of the Order”, and the Left – “the party of the Change”, and then continued to our days.

    That’s it. Nothing superfluous here.

    Of course, then Anglo-Saxon political discourse plundered this idea and thoroughly perversed it, and then mutated it again in the years of the Cold War, and then completely debased and degenerated in the 25 since its ending. Now “The Right” basically means – “anything non-kewl, dude”, while The Left means “yeah, more legalize, man!”.

    More accurate definition of the Right vs Left (to which I myself subscribe) is “The Power of the Elite” vs “The Power of the Narod”. And who are you to tell me, that my definition is wrong, and your is right, Yakov? Who’s gonna say, that measures, which improve the demographic situation in Russia, encourage the people to have more children and protect the institute of the family itself are “right-wing” and not “left-wing”? Why hating your country’s past is suddenly something “left-wing”?

    “You’ve seriously never heard of Nashi? NOD? Set?”

    Of course I heard. I also know that Nashi no longer exist. And you didn’t produce any proof of their dependency on Kremlin. Or, what – the people are not permitted to support their own government and the country?

    “You’re aware that most of the major media in Russia is state owned or owned by people friendly to Putin right? Are you also aware that the media works closely with the Presidential Administration to coordinate on how they will cover certain topics?”

    I asked you to present some proof – you responded with “Coincidence?! I don’t think so!” kind of logic. My question, if you forgot, was “How does said groups “promote” what you say they promote”? The question about ordinary Russians also remains unanswered.

    “Nope. Are you seriously going to suggest that the media doesn’t shape attitudes in Russia? By your same child logic, I could claim that Western media is just reflecting the values of its audience.”

    Yes. Especially in the West, where everything is so commercialized, that the Media have to toe the line of mainstream(s) to satisfy their target auditory tastes. There is a reason for the existence of the FOX News, MSNBC and the Breitbart – the demand. There *are* people whose views they reflect and then further confirm.

    You are naïve if you think that can zombiefy people following something completely alien and inimical to their views and tastes. Were it true, the Adorables of the Free World won’t be crying and raging now over Brexit and Trump’s election. As for Russia and Russians – you, Westies, got it wrong from the beginning. It’s not Putin’s Russia – its Russia’s Putin.

    “We can determine a lot from someone’s actions. Analysis of Putin’s actions shows that he reacts a certain way to certain ideas, movements, or events. You don’t have to read his mind to know that he’s clearly worried about what will happen if he’s not in power.”

    Why can’t you just write – “No, I don’t know, I’m guessing here”? That would be more honest answer. You have no credentials whatsoever in the professional analysis or even “kremlinology”. Instead you are so desperate to cover your exposed arse, still sticky of your latest “peek into Putin’s mind”.

    You watched two news programs and they didn’t happen to have any stories about that on them, and you’re actually going to use that as proof that the media here doesn’t promote stories about Europe being taken over by bloodthirsty, lustful Muslims.

    NO. I’m going to use this two programs (or any other number of different programs from several channels) to prove, that your initial claim (let me quote: “Russian state TV is constantly airing stories about evil Arab migrants overrunning Europe.” (c)) is bullshit. So the burden of proof in actually on you, Jamesey.

    “Nobody ever said that. Putin did cite one of his state channel’s fake stories, however”

    Moscow Times again – why I’m not surprised? But only they are not entirely honest. Technically speaking, Austrian Supreme Court refused to try the convict over a technicality and kicked the whole case (constructed by the prosecution) downstairs. Or maybe you know something we don’t know? Do you have your own sources in Austria? Any *real* proof this time? Because the MT are like you, Jimbo – shy on facts and any factual data.

    “I’m only quoting this because you write it just before I actually give you some examples, which you dismiss by claiming either to not have heard of them or not understand how its connected to the Kremlin (showing what a savvy Russia watcher you are).”

    Ah! A “savvy Russia watcher” ™ can claim any kind of insane shit and as long as it is handshakable and generally Russophobic no one should ask for a proof – am I right? Or maybe you yourself feel how weak are you arguments and they won’t pass the muster?

    “What conspiracy theory, moron? It’s a well-known fact that plenty of people have been charged or even jailed for “inciting hatred against ethnic groups” whereas others do it with impunity.”

    “Plenty” – is not a number.
    “It’s a well known fact” – is a last resort of either a liar or propagandon like you, Jim.

    Still would like to see your (Russian) Law diploma and some credentials that would allow you determine whether too much or too many of “right/wrong” people go to jail due this or that article.

    Or, if you are so supportive of the net-crowd justice and lynching by stronK-ly held opinion – then you must support 100% the arrest and lengthy prison sentence to the former US presidential candidate Hilary R. Clinton. Her guilt, after all, is a “well know fact” (c). “Plenty of people” (c) would be charged for real and end up in jail in her stead. Still, she enjoys her impunity.

    “Every time that I know of.”

    Well, in that case we must ultimately trust you! 😉

    “I find it difficult to believe that you don’t know what a fascist party is. I’m sure you have no problem calling Svoboda or Pravy Sektor a fascist party. But of course if you take a European party with basically the same beliefs as Svoboda or Pravy Sektor, but with a pro-Russia point of view, then it’s just fine. See Golden Dawn or Jobbik.”

    You might find anything you like – I was asking for a set criteria, and not for you to imagine what I think. You should do it less, Jimbo. First you claim to know what Putin think, now you claim what I think, and you began this whole discussion by proclaiming that you know what both the Professor and every other commenter here knows and think!

    No, I don’t think that you are a psychic. You’re too shitty in the precognition department.

    “This is really irrelevant.”

    No, it is very important. You wrote:

    “For example Alexander Dugin famously said in an interview that Ukrainians need to be killed en masse, and he was never charged with extremism.”

    Although you – again – fail to provide a confirmation for that, you still could have file an official request to the law enforcement agencies of Russia to see it through. If, granted, you really know Russian Law and what you say is true. Because, as it turns out, you, Jimbo like to lie:

    Yekaterina Vologzhenova’s trial was attended by the German and French diplomats. After the verdict, German consul said that there were “no political influence on the court”. Poor, innocent victim of the Blood y Regime ™ had been subscribed for a long time and re-posting messages from 2 organizations banned on the territory of Russian Federation – “Ukrainian People’s Self-Defense” (УНСО, aka “УНА-УНСО”) and “Russian Right Sektor” (“pobratims” of the Ukrainian Right Sektor). Bloody regime sentenced her to… 320 hours of public works! Indeed, new 1937 is upon us!

    Btw – should I cite instances, when in the proper, civilized Western countries people got fined/charged with various crimes for the shit they post on-line? Or the West is exceptional?

    More often that not, there is just pure sensationalism at work here, when someone guilty of, say “Murder, Arson and Jaywalking” ™ is always portrayed in the Free and Independent Media ™ as sentenced ONLY for “jaywalking” (“retweeting” in this case)

    “Now do kindly find me a case of someone getting busted for extremism and inciting hatred against ethnic groups when they wrote something anti-Ukrainian, which isn’t hard to find all over VK.com or Russian Twitter.”

    Oles Buzina was “busted” for good for what his assassins deemed to be “anti-Ukrainian”. FB regularly bans (due to Ukie narks) anyone using the word “хохол”, while doing nothing for those who use the word «кацап».

    “In other words you don’t have an actual coherent argument. I see.”

    Do you? For someone who was ASSiduously avoiding any contact with filthy, dirty, icky facts and relevant data you are not the one to tell me that!

    Like

  17. I’m sure many of those people were probably thinking- “Yanukovych is terrible, but at least we’ll have that EU trade deal.”

    Like I said, the official explanation for the protests is extremely unconvincing.

    You know who was the most unpopular (the most terrible?) Ukrainian politician? Viktor Yushchenko, the western darling. From wikipedia (and not just from wikipedia, but from the tightly controlled English-language wikipedia):

    According to a public opinion poll conducted by FOM-Ukraine in September/October 2009, 88.5% of those polled did not support the actions of Yushchenko as President, while 6.7% welcomed them. A Razumkov Center opinion poll conducted in October 2011 told that 80% of Ukrainians did not support his actions; it was the highest negative rating of any Ukrainian politician.

    So, where’s the Maidan-2009? No cookies-no maidan?

    Like

  18. Y’all are just talking past each other and namecalling. It’s upsetting because I think you’re both intelligent from what I’ve gathered on these comment sections and reading NoBS Russia (L if you have a site, I’d love to read.)

    Is it not possible that Maidan was *both* funded from abroad, and from within? Jim, I was associated with some folks from the Occupy Philly trainwreck, and yes, people funded themselves (partly because they were yuppie college kids or trust fund hippie “anarchists”) as well as held fundraisers, usually in the form of music performances or selling of goods with a high markup, with all the profits going to some group or other. People held jobs and on their lunch breaks or before/after shifts they would visit the camp, and even stay overnight. People also procure food from the restaurant industry and getting donations from their employers, letting people know about dumpsters where thrown away (put perfectly edible) food may be found, or straight up stealing. Moral questions aside, there are plenty of ways that people can fund themselves.

    So while it’s very likely that some of these same things took place on Maidan, we also have to look at the foreign (our) hand. The staging of the protest by Yatsenyuk’s internet rampage was unprecedented based on the delaying of the agreement alone. They kept talking about Euro-integration and NATO accession, despite having never been offered either. We know that Nuland, Pyatt and later Biden have been in CONSTANT contact with the new regime, even before Feb 21 2014. Everyone cites the “Yats is the guy / fuck the EU” call, but let’s be real about what that implies. They couldn’t have a) had a nickname for Yatsenyuk and b) known that he was “the guy” without any prior contact with him. You can’t ignore this, but of course it is also naive to say that they carefully planned every moment of the event. Hell, they might not have even known about the sniper attacks prior to them happening, but they sure as shit jumped on board the train of blaming Yanukovich. It’s not a matter of planning every move, it’s a matter of controlling the narrative.

    Like

    1. David, 2 points:

      1) “Is it not possible that Maidan was *both* funded from abroad, and from within?”

      I didn’t calim that Maidan was funded from [insert name here]. I was honestly asking Jim a question – WHO FUNDED THE EURO-MAIDAN?

      I’m asking all this question.

      2) Key differences – years since we now have more or less accurate picture about who and how funded OWC – see my links above. You say that participants themselves donated – and I tend to agree with that. Why? Because your typical American partcipant of the OWC was much, much richer (i.e. – with enough spare cash) than any given jumper on Maidan. Ukraine is orders of magnitude poorer than America, and the same goes to the people there.

      Another thing to think about – a lot of Ukrainians dutifuly donated money, foodstuffs, clothing, medicaments etc to the “Warriors of the ATO”. As recent scandals demonstrated – a lot said допомога failed to reach their indended recipients, but, OTOH, quite a number of former participants in Maidan (now firmly entrenched in Verkhovna Rada – or just having direct access to donated money) bough expensive watches, several apartments and/or brand new foreign cars – and that’s not mentioning their (sorry, sorry – officially their “realtives”, of course!) fat bank accounts.

      Question – how come that now after the victory of the “Revolution of Dignity” ™ donated money are embezzled in the in the most blatant way by the Heroes of Maidan ™, while at the time of EuroMaidan itself every hryvna of people’s money went to its intended target?

      And no matter the answer – this is zrada!

      Like

      1. I don’t disagree with your assessments re: income disparities and to be honest I’m not up on the loss of donations to “ATO” people. I am aware of the brazen and flagrant corruption at the level of the current regime, which I guess we think is just all nice because they’re like, fighting for democracy, or something. I’m sure if one were to be able to track down the source of every Gryvnia used for Euromaidan, you’d see a fair amount lead back to that 5 billion that Nuland admitted to us having spent under the guise of “democracy promotion,” plus Soros and other democracy-loving philanthropists.

        Like

  19. “Okay it’s pretty obvious that you can’t carry on a debate or form a coherent argument and thus can be dismissed as a retard. “

    Boo-hoo! “Обидели мышку, написали в норку” . Jame$, you came here with this kinda “I’m D’artagnan, and you are bunch of faggots!” (c) attitude, continued with personal attacks and then calmly and dutifully eat bucket loads of shit with your outlandish and insane accusations, leveled against all the people here.

    To recap:

    A) Accused the Professor of deliberately trying to “prejudice the reader”. To date – you failed to prove that or any other personal attacks against the Professor. Granted, you, somehow, found enough integrity to apologize – let’s make it only ½ of the bucket.

    B) Claimed that “many of the readers here” know jack shit about Russia and its inner workings because, and I quote “they have little actual experience here and don’t speak the language” (c) and “have to rely on pro-Russian sources like RT and Sputnik” (c). What’s the matter with all these “independently minded” and “free-thinking” Russophobes? Every time they see someone expressing a POV no to their liking they, as if a part of larger Hive-Mind, claim – “You are brainwashed by RT and Sputnik” and/or “How much Kremlin paid you?”. Full bucket here.

    3) Accused Russian government and administration of “promoting right wing-ideas” and that it “supports and works with far-right nationalist groups in Russia”. Failed to prove that. Totally ignored all possible definitions of the “right-wing” except those, that suited your narrative. Ignored the fact that Russian government continues to promote the Traditional Left values as well, which is clearly evident in its social policy. Another bucket.

    4) Claimed to have an inner insight into Putin’s head. Then claimed to have inner insight into *my* head. Failed to prove that. Bucket for you – down the hatch!

    5) Lied without batting an eye about Russian TV, probably believing his own delusion that no one here watches Russian TV. Proved to by lying. Remained hissy crybaby. Here-here – another bucket.

    6) Simultaneously, claimed that Russian state is omnipotent and all-knowing (gee, I knew that Putin is the God of Khohols – but entire Russian state?!) and then tried to pass himself as an expert on Russian law, who knows better than the authorities whether or not someone belongs in jail. Failed to prove either claim, cried bitter tears of anger and resorted to a name calling when his “arguments” were debunked. No soup for you – only this bucket!

    7) Tried to pretend that the article we all are discussing here does not try, as typical for the Westies, to smear Putin and entire Russia, in supporting Neo-Nazi types by using the so-called “guilty by association” trick. Because if you are successful in it – then nothing is true and everything in permissible! Now, Ukraine can have new Bandera streets not jus in Kiev (the Best Ukrajina of Lviv, Ternipil and Stanislawow voivodates already has enough of them) but all across the country. Now you can have torch-lit Neo-Nazi marches all across the Ukraine – and this will be kosher. After all – the saintly EU, a union of nations sharing “common values”, suddenly sticks its tongue down its collective long suffering arse when the same crap happens in the Baltic countries. 2 buckets – really, you deserved it.

    8) Claimed that Putin and his administration have “the last word” in influencing media and “grassroots” (parenthesis – not mine) nationalist group. Tries to convince us that Maida was crowdfunded by #онижедети, kreakls, hipsters and democratic intelligentsia (2-4% of not exactly rich population) who were fed by grannies and supplied by the intangible but omnipotent Spirit of Revolutions Past ™. Fails terribly. As I said previously:

    9) Since Crimea’s re-union with Russia it’s been visited by several foreign delegations of European politicians. Why you don’t mention that, Jah-Jah? Oh, right – they don’t fit into your nice clear cut-narrative, that Evul Euro-Nazis are the only ones endorsing Evul Putin’s “annexation” of Crimea. That’s why you repeat ad nauseum that among the electoral monitors during Crimea’s referendum there were [le gast] N-n-nazis! Only they are not 100% Nazis, as it turns out – just populist anti-EU and anti-austerity absolutely leagal and banned nowhere political organizations. Here’s a bucket – you know what to do.

    10) A lot of other wild-eyed claims and my questions, that you didn’t answer – because you don’t have the proof, and when you were saying all these insane things you really didn’t know that you’d have to answer for your words. Like your claim that “many contract soldiers in the Russian army happen to be ethnic minorities” (failed to prove), or you didn’t answer whether you support the idea of ethnic separatism (by your wording it appears you support it – but only in Russia), and many, many other.

    Look, I understand. You chose your side and will fight for it. Well, you are doing a crappy job, JMan. Really, no different that all those svidomites that I’ve met on-line since that fucking shame began.

    P.S. Who funded Maidan, Jim?

    Like

  20. As far as my own view on Maidan goes:

    There were both internal (Poroshenko, Kolomoisky, Pinchuk) and external actors (the US, EU, Poland in particular).

    The US was instrumental in creating this outcome by several things:

    1: They made Maidan go for a maximalist, rather then a compromise, solution. Both directly (by egging them on, preferentially supporting hardliners) and indirectly (US support is temporal, so the Maidan side wants to push as far as they can while they have US support).

    2: My guess is that much of the funding came from Ukrainian Oligarchs. They could, by seizing political power (which they did) expect to benefit quite handsomely from this. US propaganda support was instrumental in giving the Maidan regime international legitimacy, while considerably decreasing the legitimacy of the Yanukovich government. They were far more succesful in the latter (to a considerable extent due to Yanukovichs own mistakes. Had he played his hand in an average fashion, he may still be president) then in the former.

    3: US also took Firtasch out of the game. This had outsized effects because a) a voice of relative moderation was gone and b) the US could offer Firtashs former holdings as rewards for pro Maidan behaviour of other Oligarchs. This “Firtash cake” was enthusiastically doled out by Nuland etc.

    4: Nulands very very brazen interference greatly increased the political costs for Russia to perhaps accept Maidan (like they accepted the 2004 Orange revolution), because no one of consequence was buying the notion that the Maidan regime were not US puppets. Normally, pretending that a puppet government is a real government is a good way to deal with it. Most puppet governments, especially of a potential regional power like Ukraine, will rapidly develop ambitions to leave their puppet status behind, and thus increase the degree of political capital that their “overlord” will have to invest to keep them puppetted.
    Because the US was that brazen about it, the prestige loss Russia would have taken from just accepting the coup was too huge. Russia cares quite a bit about “prestige and honor”, but it would be weird to quote you on your own blog on that.

    5: The Russian perspective on Yanukovich was not that he was actually pro Russian. Yanukovich was willing to take the “best available deal” and did not give a damn on who offered it. I think they would have seen US actions against an actual Russian puppet differently (breaking other peoples toys is a part of the great game), the thing was, Yanukovich was actually in a neutral position, in to an extent out for the best deal which would have been in the interest of any Ukrainian patriot.
    Had Yanukovich been Abraham Lincoln instead, he still would not have signed the EU deal because that deal was simply too bad.
    That the US just crushed the “neutral” position made it clear that the US would not settle for a compromise, unless they are either compelled to consider one or at least deterred from achieving their maximalist gains.

    6: The Ultranationalist have a set of excellent incentives to participate on Maidan, and to do precisely what they did. The more violent everything becomes, the more power they can seize. Their plan was to make Ukraine sufficiently violent while turning themselfs into indispensable violence providers. Once their role as violence providers was established and becomes sufficiently monopolized, well, men with guns can always find money. Western support was useful for them, and allowed them to gain increased amounts of legitimacy. Western diatribes against anyone going for a compromise solution helped them immensely in getting the civil war they wanted. On balance, the Ukrainian far right used Maidan to become an actor of even international importance, and can effectively veto most of Ukraines internal policy decisions. As much as it pains me to admit this, they played their cards very well.

    7: Distinct from the Oligarchs (although I guess in practice much of them want to be Oligarchs) and from the far right are the neoliberal grant eaters. Some of them were actually quite informed of how totally terrible the EU deal is for Ukraine (including Ukraines odds of ever joining the EU as a member and not a colony) but they also (accurately) perceived that the EU deal will hurt their political enemies much more then it would hurt them. Some of the less industrial and more finance based Oligarchs in the Maidan coalition. To them, the EU deal means they cut off a hand, while Donbass in particular loses its head. They hope seize the remains on the cheap, effectively becoming the new Oligarchs at the expense of the old Oligarchs. Their real role and contribution was, imho, much more limited. They were basically lipstick on the skimasks of the actual actors, and acted as a bit of a force multiplier for western and pro Maidan PR.
    As they represent neither economical nor military potentials, their only powersource is being western proteges, and that is not a sustainable basis for surviving in Ukrainian “no holds barred” political beatdowns.

    As far as the US “deep story”, I am in a way agreeing with Anatol Lieven, the US regime change runs on a badly controlled Autopilot. Obama honestly prefered to not give a fuck about Ukraine and Russia, he also wanted to appear bipartisan, so he handed of some sinecures (sinecures he considered to be of marginal relevance) to neocons (whom he probably also considered to be of marginal relevance) like Nuland. Obama appears to me a bit petty, and I think his particular ire for Putin is because Putin has repeatedly proven him wrong. He cannot accept this, certainly not publically, and that turns into a lot of anger.

    Nuland then promptly pretended to have way more White House backing then she actually did, ran roughshod over a bunch of people and presented the White house with created “facts on the ground”. Had Hillary won the election (something that was out of Nulands control), then Nulands power play would have paid off handsomely.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s