• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nuclear War and Clashing Ukraine Narratives

Is Investigative Reporter Parry's narrative accurate?

  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .
joG said:
I know there are people that believed that. There are fewer now and the resistance to stationing major Nato units in the Eastern European member countries is crumbling. That is what would have been required in Ukraine before the "Trade" Treaty with the EU was forced through. But without forces in those countries ie the way it was, Russia could repeat its game.
Click to expand...

Not so. The Baltic countries, Poland, etc. are in NATO. Ukraine is not. There is a reason for that.
 
DaveFagan said:
** Nuclear War and Clashing Ukraine Narratives :* Information Clearing House - ICH

Nuclear War and Clashing Ukraine Narratives

America and Russia have two nearly opposite narratives on Ukraine, which is more an indictment of the U.S. news media which feigns objectivity but disseminates what amounts to propaganda. These divergent narratives are driving the world toward a possible nuclear crisis.

By Robert Parry

February 07, 2015 "ICH" - "Consortium News"- The U.S. government and mainstream media are swaggering toward a possible nuclear confrontation with Russia over Ukraine without any of the seriousness that has informed this sort of decision-making throughout the nuclear age. Instead, Official Washington seems possessed by a self-righteous goofiness that could be the prelude to the end of life on this planet. Nearly across the U.S. political spectrum, there is a pugnacious “group think” which has transformed what should have been a manageable political dispute in Ukraine into some morality play where U.S. politicians and pundits blather on about how the nearly year-old coup regime in Kiev “shares our values” and how America must be prepared to defend this regime militarily.
Though I’m told that President Barack Obama personally recognizes how foolhardy this attitude is, he has made no significant move to head off the craziness and, indeed, has tolerated provocative actions by his underlings, such as neocon Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland’s scheming with coup plotters to overthrow Ukraine’s elected President Viktor Yanukovych last February.
Obama also has withheld from the American people intelligence information that undercuts some of the more extreme claims that his administration has made. For instance, I’m told that he has detailed intelligence reporting on both the mysterious sniper attack that preceded the putsch nearly a year ago and the shoot-down of the Malaysia Airlines Flights 17 that deepened the crisis last summer. But he won’t release the findings.
More broadly over the last year, Obama’s behavior – ranging from his initial neglect of the Ukraine issue, as Nuland’s coup plotting unfolded, to his own participation in the tough talk, such as boasting during his State of the Union address that he had helped put the Russian economy “in tatters” – ranks as one of the most irresponsible performances by a U.S. president.

** Nuclear War and Clashing Ukraine Narratives :* Information Clearing House - ICH


Why doesn't MSM media investigate Ukraine?
Are we supporting crooks and Nazis in Ukraine?
Is it wise to war with your largest trading partner?
Is investigative reporter Robert Parry's synopsis of events accurate? Poll Question
Click to expand...

This post makes me laugh for so many reasons. But I think it is most summed up in the very first post, when instead of exploring the differences between the two points of view, you immediately go to point the finger at the US. I suppose it's also the US that's responsible for all those Russian planes flying so close to so many sovereign air spaces huh?

But you know what? How about I offer a compromise? Russia can keep the predominantly Russian half of Ukraine for a mutually acceptable compensation, and Western Ukraine gets to join NATO. That sound fair? Russia gets to *cough* protect native speaking Russians, and Kiev gets the backing of the west. Then in a few years when Russia is again a failed state and can't support Eastern Ukraine, they can rejoin the West just like Germany did.
 
Last edited:
There will be no nuclear war over Ukraine and the paranoia pitch is the most desperate support of Putin.
 
Fleming said:
Not so. The Baltic countries, Poland, etc. are in NATO. Ukraine is not. There is a reason for that.
Click to expand...

It takes boots on the ground, where the county is taken over like Russia did Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Even then, it is not sure that thugs being supplied by an external neighbor could be contained. But the support with armored vehicles, troops and the missiles pouring over the boarder would be easier to countermand.
As it is, the outbreak of violence would be provoked by a large minority that would be supplied and supported by Russian volunteers. That would be far less likely, if there were tanks and armor breaking weapons right there. As long as you have to ask the Germans to act, you run the risk that they will call for talks till it is too late and Crimea is gone.
 
joG said:
I know there are people that believed that. There are fewer now and the resistance to stationing major Nato units in the Eastern European member countries is crumbling. That is what would have been required in Ukraine before the "Trade" Treaty with the EU was forced through. But without forces in those countries ie the way it was, Russia could repeat its game.
Click to expand...

Again, if they try that with NATO countries, the gloves would be off and they would be defeated. Russia cannot compete with conventional U.S. military power. No one else can for that matter.
 
MildSteel said:
Again, if they try that with NATO countries, the gloves would be off and they would be defeated. Russia cannot compete with conventional U.S. military power. No one else can for that matter.
Click to expand...

This would certainly be the case, if there were a full and open attack. In the case of Crimea or Eastern Ukraine there was no full and open attack. There was a blame game and nothing more. Or do you really think that Germany would support sending Troops into Latvia to beat down a minority at arms against its own government? Would you support the US doing so? That was how we got into Vietnam. Slip slide and you are there. :peace
 
joG said:
This would certainly be the case, if there were a full and open attack. In the case of Crimea or Eastern Ukraine there was no full and open attack. There was a blame game and nothing more. Or do you really think that Germany would support sending Troops into Latvia to beat down a minority at arms against its own government? Would you support the US doing so? That was how we got into Vietnam. Slip slide and you are there. :peace
Click to expand...

We are committed to the defense of NATO countries. We need to honor those commitments. If our interests are better served by not honoring those commitments, we need to get out of them ASAP.
 
Fleming said:
Not so. The Baltic countries, Poland, etc. are in NATO. Ukraine is not. There is a reason for that.
Click to expand...
Indeed. At independence in 1991, Ukraine declared itself to be a militarily non-aligned and neutral country. Ukraine also voluntarily relinquished its nuclear weapons, which at the time constituted the worlds third largest nuclear weapons stockpile. Ukraine transferred the Soviet nuclear weapons on its territory to the new Russian Federation and ratified the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). As a result of the aforementioned, Russia, the United States, and Great Britain signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances with Ukraine. With their signature, these nuclear nations pledged to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the neutral/NPT Ukraine. Russia unilaterally violated the Budapest Memorandum in early 2014 and this violation continues today.
 
MildSteel said:
We are committed to the defense of NATO countries. We need to honor those commitments. If our interests are better served by not honoring those commitments, we need to get out of them ASAP.
Click to expand...

That was not the point. The point is that the land grab would be hidden in a freedom movement of a large minority trying to protect itself like in Crimea or Eastern Ukraine or in Georgia. Or would you attack Russia because freedom fighters were fighting their government.
 
joG said:
That was not the point. The point is that the land grab would be hidden in a freedom movement of a large minority trying to protect itself like in Crimea or Eastern Ukraine or in Georgia. Or would you attack Russia because freedom fighters were fighting their government.
Click to expand...

Your hypothetical is to vague for me to try to comment on. I would need more details and more context. All I can say is that we are committed to the defense of NATO countries and that we need to honor those commitments. If we cannot do so realistically, then we need to get out of those commitments.
 
joG said:
That was not the point. The point is that the land grab would be hidden in a freedom movement of a large minority trying to protect itself like in Crimea or Eastern Ukraine or in Georgia. Or would you attack Russia because freedom fighters were fighting their government.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Latvia for example. A NATO nation. It shares a border with the Russian Federation. Latvia's current population is ~25% ethnic Russian, a vestige from when Latvia was a Soviet SSR. As in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, it would be very easy for Putin to stir up trouble in Latvia and then threaten military action to "protect ethnic Russians, Russian-speakers, and compatriots" if the Latvian government tried to quell such subversion.
 
MildSteel said:
Your hypothetical is to vague for me to try to comment on. I would need more details and more context. All I can say is that we are committed to the defense of NATO countries and that we need to honor those commitments. If we cannot do so realistically, then we need to get out of those commitments.
Click to expand...

Vague? Didn't you watch how Ukraine developed? How real world do you need it? I mean, this is basic level power politics from the textbook.
 
MildSteel said:
Your hypothetical is to vague for me to try to comment on. I would need more details and more context. All I can say is that we are committed to the defense of NATO countries and that we need to honor those commitments. If we cannot do so realistically, then we need to get out of those commitments.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be the first time Putin made a military move to protect ethnic Russians.
 
joG said:
Vague? Didn't you watch how Ukraine developed? How real world do you need it? I mean, this is basic level power politics from the textbook.
Click to expand...

Yes vauge. Ukraine has context. If you want to ask a specific question about Ukraine, I can answer it.
 
MildSteel said:
Yes vauge. Ukraine has context. If you want to ask a specific question about Ukraine, I can answer it.
Click to expand...
So can I. I've lived in both mainland Ukraine and Crimea.
 
MildSteel said:
Yes vauge. Ukraine has context. If you want to ask a specific question about Ukraine, I can answer it.
Click to expand...

What do you think the precedence of allowing Russia to grab Crimea, the coastal resources and Eastern Ukraine directly following and as a consequence of the EU forcing through a Trade Treaty with Ukraine?
 
joG said:
Yep. Some actually believe that theory of the all powerful monster and its vast conspiracy.
Personally I see humans. And they cannot swing that type of thing.
Click to expand...

CORPORATIONS are not human, but Citizen United gives them more power than you.
Clean your goggles so you can see past the humans to the CORPORATIONS that are
running and ruining our World.
 
DaveFagan said:
CORPORATIONS are not human, but Citizen United gives them more power than you.
Clean your goggles so you can see past the humans to the CORPORATIONS that are
running and ruining our World.
Click to expand...

You are right. Corporations are not people. They are people organized.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
This post makes me laugh for so many reasons. But I think it is most summed up in the very first post, when instead of exploring the differences between the two points of view, you immediately go to point the finger at the US. I suppose it's also the US that's responsible for all those Russian planes flying so close to so many sovereign air spaces huh?

But you know what? How about I offer a compromise? Russia can keep the predominantly Russian half of Ukraine for a mutually acceptable compensation, and Western Ukraine gets to join NATO. That sound fair? Russia gets to *cough* protect native speaking Russians, and Kiev gets the backing of the west. Then in a few years when Russia is again a failed state and can't support Eastern Ukraine, they can rejoin the West just like Germany did.
Click to expand...

The Eastern Russians wanted to be annexed by Russia and Russia refused. Ukraine attacked Eastern Ukraine. Eastern Ukraine did not attack Ukraine. The Kiev coup, now in power with a vote of approval by 18% of eligible voters was not acceptable to Eastern Ukraine. Kiev attacked and is likely to get its' ass kicked instead of making serious efforts to negotiate a settlement. Brennan (US CIA) showed up in Kiev to reinforce the work done by CIA lackeys in installing the 18% gov't, and about 300 mercs' showed up to help out and Ukraine attacked its' own people. It only attacked the Russian speaking section where they tried to make the Russian language illegal. In Kiev, these Eastern Ukrainians are referred to as "colorados" (beetles) and a term similar to calling black people niggers. Just take a good look at the people in charge in Kiev to measure the quality of the gov't. A bunch of CIA assets and agents to administer the theft of the patrimony of the Ukrainian people. Pretty simple. You cant't for one moment believe there is any movement of liberty, freedom, justice or democracy unless one is common sense challenged. When the USA helps, we helps, don't ya' know, like Vietnam, Honduras, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Nicaragua, Egypt, Cuba, etc. Hot dam, mon, I sees the light and hope it's not a nuclear flash.
 
joG said:
You are right. Corporations are not people. They are people organized.
Click to expand...

CORPORATIONS are a "fictitious entity" by legal definition. They are formed to insulate from
legal liability the humans behind them, but they are always a fictitious entity. The said
CORPORATIONS do not breathe nor suffer from old age, but have continuity beyond human
lifespans. CORPORATIONS don't have any problems with chemical, biological or nuclear
contamination because they are a fictitious and need only concern themselves with the
bottom line/profit. It is legal for CORPORATIONS to own all the politicians it can afford and
they can afford most of them. No Greens or Barney Franks, it would seem. I acknowledge that
there is a human component behind CORPORATIONS, but the human component dies and the
CORPORATION continues doing whatever it started doing, good or evil. I will add that there is
not much profit in good, don't ya' know?
A short homily to give meaning to Corporate. You own a Nuke plant near its' end of useful life.
Now this plant and all its' radioactive waste will become a financial liability soon. No problem,
CORPORATE will accept a rubber check to sell the plant to my goombah Justin O. Peewillie. Now
Justin can't afford a roll of toilet paper, but no problem because the sale is done and he has title to
the plant and all its' waste. CORPORATE never cashes the check because it might bounce, ergo,
don't aggravate the chance to bail out on waste liability. Justin promptly files bankruptcy through
his Justin O. Peewillie Corporation. Now the Fed or State must pay Justin to keep the waste from
migrating into now green pastures under bankruptcy protection. Somebody gonna sue somebody
for sure, but it's all CORPORATE so there really aren't any warm bodies to get a hand on except
Justin who still has to get paid to manage the cleanup or no cleanup as the case may be. The best
part is that the original CORPORATE profiteers are positioned legally blameless and besides they
are a fictitious entity and who you gonna sue? Now that's what CORPORATE is all about.
 
Last edited:
DaveFagan said:
CORPORATIONS are a "fictitious entity" by legal definition. They are formed to insulate from
legal liability the humans behind them, but they are always a fictitious entity. The said
CORPORATIONS do not breathe nor suffer from old age, but have continuity beyond human
lifespans. CORPORATIONS don't have any problems with chemical, biological or nuclear
contamination because they are a fictitious and need only concern themselves with the
bottom line/profit. It is legal for CORPORATIONS to own all the politicians it can afford and
they can afford most of them. No Greens or Barney Franks, it would seem. I acknowledge that
there is a human component behind CORPORATIONS, but the human component dies and the
CORPORATION continues doing whatever it started doing, good or evil. I will add that there is
not much profit in good, don't ya' know?
A short homily to give meaning to Corporate. You own a Nuke plant near its' end of useful life.
Now this plant and all its' radioactive waste will become a financial liability soon. No problem,
CORPORATE will accept a rubber check to sell the plant to my goombah Justin O. Peewillie. Now
Justin can't afford a roll of toilet paper, but no problem because the sale is done and he has title to
the plant and all its' waste. CORPORATE never cashes the check because it might bounce, ergo,
don't aggravate the chance to bail out on waste liability. Justin promptly files bankruptcy through
his Justin O. Peewillie Corporation. Now the Fed or State must pay Justin to keep the waste from
migrating into now green pastures under bankruptcy protection. Somebody gonna sue somebody
for sure, but it's all CORPORATE so there really aren't any warm bodies to get a hand on except
Justin who still has to get paid to manage the cleanup or no cleanup as the case may be. The best
part is that the original CORPORATE profiteers are positioned legally blameless and besides they
are a fictitious entity and who you gonna sue? Now that's what CORPORATE is all about.
Click to expand...

I was interested in what they are socio-economically. The legal only defines the framework within which the rules of interaction within and towards the outside of the group are cast.
 
SBu said:
I would say the writer's assessment is fairly accurate in its indictment of media generally and US media specifically (other than the hearsay he suggests), but then again, what else is new?


Because media is too easily distracted by other flashy stories like fergusan* and the grammys and don't find themselves obliged to inform a generally disinterested public until a serious crisis develops.


Are there Neo Nazis in the Kiev camp? Yes. Are there despotic communists in the Rebel/Russian camp? Yes. Are they all crooks? Yes. I think we are supporting Ukraine because of what it could be, not what it is, and in response to an aggressive Russia. Apart from hyperbole, I don't think the Ukrainian leaders are Nazis, but it does seem Putin is inclined to hyperbole because he actually believes it to one extent or another.


No. But what do you do when that trading partner begins to forcefully take over your country's territory? The fact is that Russia reacted militarily way too early to even give dialogue and diplomacy a chance to accomplish it's objectives and alleviate its concerns. This is what ultimately led everyone into this situation. There is no reason to believe that the Ukrainian coup in and of itself couldn't have been diplomatically maneuvered by Moscow to achieve similar objectives without becoming an outcast and drawing the west into conflict.

According to recent reports, Merkle and Hollande are extremely pessimistic about peace and are alluding to an inevitable escalation in hostilities that could quite possibly turn into all out war instead of relatively static conflict. What is going on right now and in the coming weeks is very important, and should be given the media coverage it deserves. To say that nuclear war or an incursion into NATO states is imminent or even more likely than not is a bit reckless. However, a total dismissal of the possibilities over time is equally reckless. At the moment we are a bit closer to midnight and serious confrontation, but we must not forget that the hands on the clock are adjustable.

Should we arm Ukraine directly? No. Should we 'find a way' for 'certain arms and munitions' to get into the hands of the Ukrainians? Yes. Should we bolster Europe's defenses? Yes. Should we station large numbers of troops and equipment in the baltics? No. Close to the baltics? Yes. Should the President publicly brag about how big and bad he is by crushing Russia's economy? No, reckless. Should we continue with sanctions and other regime pressure instruments? Yes.
Click to expand...

I agree to a point, but your assessment of US media is totally wrong. A is usually the case, when the White House shifts its focus to the president's new issue, the MSM follows. While the US media was going ape **** over "income equality" and "higher minimum wage" British, Canadian, German, French and many other media were leading with the "War" in Crimea then Ukraine. At the least G-8 summit Canada's Stephen Harper greeted Putin with "get out of Ukraine" while Obama was waxing poetic about global warming, causing one Canadian columnist to quip "Obama is ensuring Eastern Europe will get a lot hotter"

Ukraine has been the single largest international news story in this country while America's MSM covers anything but...because Obama is avoiding it like the plague
 
Fearandloathing said:
I agree to a point, but your assessment of US media is totally wrong. A is usually the case, when the White House shifts its focus to the president's new issue, the MSM follows. While the US media was going ape **** over "income equality" and "higher minimum wage" British, Canadian, German, French and many other media were leading with the "War" in Crimea then Ukraine. At the least G-8 summit Canada's Stephen Harper greeted Putin with "get out of Ukraine" while Obama was waxing poetic about global warming, causing one Canadian columnist to quip "Obama is ensuring Eastern Europe will get a lot hotter"

Ukraine has been the single largest international news story in this country while America's MSM covers anything but...because Obama is avoiding it like the plague
Click to expand...

It sounds like you're in total agreement with my assessment of the US media then. As I said "fairly accurate in its indictment of ... US media specifically".

Even while other countries' media has been covering the story more frequently, including the big hitters in US print media, the majority of even those reports etc. focus on the big bad actions of Russia and don't give an equally critical assessment of the actions of other participants and influential powers. Russia of course deserves more than a preponderance of the blame, but our media needs to be equally critical of all actors objectively, investigate the actions and accusations of those actors, etc. In other words, the western media isn't misleading in that it doesn't report the truth with respect to Putin and Russia, but is misleading in what it tends to leave out in an effort to frame the picture, to the under-informed information consumer, in a decidedly pro-western way. The danger being, of course, that our society adopts a distorted view of reality, a reality that is only mostly or partly true, but missing critical pieces of the greater truth.

For example, I haven't seen much in MSM (including BBC/Sky/etc) about the profile and history of the current leaders of Ukraine (but plenty exists on Putin the adversary), it's difficult to find Lavrov's Munich speech from a couple days ago (mostly BS, but still important for people to see and hear for contextual purposes), I haven't seen much coverage/investigation regarding Ukrainian shells hitting in the middle of rebel held population centers (while plenty of news coverage exists about the Mariupol attack a week or so back. I'm not suggesting these omissions are intentional, but the effect tends to paint a dishonest picture overtime and gradually galvanizes a society's perception of reality. Having said all of that, and in conjunction with my previous statement, it is still quite easy to despise Putin and Russia's actions while at the same time knowing that our partners in Ukraine aren't squeaky clean and innocent, etc.

We probably don't disagree on much here. I am just long-winded.
 
joG said:
What do you think the precedence of allowing Russia to grab Crimea, the coastal resources and Eastern Ukraine directly following and as a consequence of the EU forcing through a Trade Treaty with Ukraine?
Click to expand...

I think that you have to consider the context of Crimea in terms of it's history, the ethnicity of it's population, and it's strategic significance to Russia. When seen in that context, your characterization of "grab" is somewhat of a distortion, though not entirely inaccurate. As such, although it is bit of a stretch, it is not entirely inconsistent with the notion of the right of self determination. There is a reason why Russia can be effective in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, and not Western Ukraine. That is simply that they have a significant amount of support from the population. When viewed in that light, the precedence is not entirely out of line with international norms like the right of self determination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom