Ukraine III: appropriate handling required

[baxus]

All of which is to say that, personally, I think majority of Slavic nations would be wiser to choose someone backed by Moscow over someone backed by USA&Germany.

while i wouldn't put it as bluntly as polishgenius did, i must admit i somewhat share his stance on this one.

i am yet to see any single country benefit from siding with russia.

in serbia we suffer from this delusion that russians are our brothers and russia will stand by us if someone tries to bully us and yet they have repeatedly shown they're more than willing to ditch us on the first sign it might get them anything.

the best reason i can think of for NOT wanting my country to side with russia is that i'd much rather live in a country that resembled western european countries (and northern european) than in a country resembling russia.

Turkey is the patron of the Crimean Tatars. It also is the principal patron of Georgia.

i was only a kid back then so my memory may be off on the matter, but when i was in georgia i got the impression they wanted to have as little as possible to do with turks, since over the centuries they were heavily opressed by ottoman empire.

[baxus]

A Polish neo-nazi is about the most embarrassing thing imaginable.

we have those in serbia, too.

the kind of idiots who adore the phylosophy that had their grandfathers rounded up and sent to concentration camps or take up arms to fight it.

[Prince Alexander]

The big difference between west and russian governments is that the west fucks you quietly and secretly and gives you enough to stay more or less happy (in some cases too happy). Russian government fucks you nice and loudly and in obvious ways and gives you just enough to survive. So while both are shit, one is less shitty than the other...

That being said, there are non government related advantages to living in russia or eastern europe as opposed to west. Certain opportunities for certain professions also allow to make loads of money there that you couldn't in the west. But that's ot.

[jurble]

Vice's second video update

innerestin' stuff

[Horza]

You mean my comment that Easterners are more distrustful of information, especially from mass media, than Westerners? If so, there are plenty of historical and contemporary reasons for that. As any general statement, you can always find individual examples to disprove it, but on average people in the East trust the media less. If you disagree on this point, we can continue the discussion in a new thread or via PM.

I'm aware of the history of Soviet and other authoritarian regimes and their attitude to information. How strongly those systems have inculcated skepticism of mass media in Easterners is less apparent to me, in this thread alone I've seen Easterners be quite credulous of mass media information when it supports their preconceptions. Talk about average distrust is irrelevant - you made that comment in reference to the interlocutors in this thread.

Otherwise whether or not someone shares my views bears no significance as to my critical approach towards his sources. I have been unable to validate most of Miodrag's sources (can't watch videos at work), therefore I only commented that I agree with his argumentation. It is entirely plausible than both him and I have our opinions based on completely falsified sources of information, it is a possibility and I am aware of it. I only wish that everyone else participating in this discussion (or any other discussion for that matter) bear that same thing in mind for the sources of their opinions.

What I notice in your discussion of this topic of sources is an extreme approach to evidence and information, as seen in bold above, where mass media is an undifferentiated lump of state-controlled organs and one is either being scrupulously open-minded or living in a completely falsified narrative. I don't see how you can be seriously considering the possibility that you're adhering to confirmation bias when you frame the question to yourself in such a way, as by having the alternative be your total delusion you put the question to yourself in a way that is going to stack the deck fairly heavily in favour of telling yourself "no, on reflection my opinions aren't based on totally falsified information".

In reality things are never that clear-cut, and the best thing we can do is try and compare between competing claims. In this regard, I'm going to put very little faith in sources that are still straight-out lying about who is standing outside Belbek airport.

I think you are being deliberately obfuscate here. I notice that you pick and chose certain parts of articles and conversations to make your case while conveniently ignoring others.

I offer a different interpretation of evidence, you accuse me of deliberate obfuscation and cherry-picking. I guess it's a step back from calling me a liar based on claims I didn't make but something tells me you've sort of made up your mind about this discussion already.

What is unsupported by the tape? It's clear that they want Yats as their main guy in the government. They want Klitschko and Tyanibokh on the outside. But they want them involved in the government which is supported by the fact that Nuland wants Yats to communicate frequently with both Klitschko and this Neo Nazi. You can try to ignore that statement all you want, but it's there.

I didn't ignore it, I addressed it here. To reiterate: they wanted the three to co-ordinate. That's not the same thing as Miodrag's claim that the tape showed they were backing Tyanibokh - they wanted him on the outside. You appear to agree with that interpretation, but think that it was bad enough as it is because he's a neo-fascist. I'd argue that they were dealing with the leadership was there and couldn't immediately sideline any group, which is kind of my main point for your accusations of US 'midwifing' below: there wasn't anything to midwife as US had very little influence on the protest movement.

Yes, but you conventiently left out the fact that they would think about talking to him after waiting to see how the situation turned out. You said and I quote:

Which is false. They never reached out to Yanukowich. They only considered doing that if it suited them to do so. See?

I don't know how you're managing this when my words are right in front of you, but I'm not going to hold your hand and work you through it.

Yes, the US and EU trying to 'midwife' the government after supporting the overthrowing of a legally elected democratic government in Ukraine is meddling. Russia meddles with their neighbors, just like the US meddles with it's South American neighbors. Do you see the Russians trying to 'midwife' governments in Argentina, Cuba, Venezuela etc?

Ukraine's location matters. It's important. There's a difference between the EU and the US meddling in Ukraine and Russia meddling there. This should be clear to a third grader. India will try to meddle in the affairs of Bangladesh and Sri Lanka because they are her neighbors. But they are not going to try and meddle in the affairs of Taiwan. Because that region is important to China and India has no business being there except for stirring up trouble and geopolitical gains.

When the Russians and the Chinese try to manipulate governments in South America then we would have the US right there with their fighter planes and tanks. Let's not kid ourselves about that.

Why is the US, EU and NATO so obsessed with extending their sphere of influence right upto Russia's borders?

We were here two days ago, only this time you're back with more aspersions on the intelligence of those who disagree with you.

Russia will always have close ties to Ukraine, through history, language, culture etc. It will continue to wield substantial economic influence as a main trading partner and gas supplier and realistically political influence will come with those things. None of that amounts to a right to abrogate Ukrainian sovereignty with armed force, attempt to suborn Ukrainian armed forces on home soil or threaten further incursions and annexation unless its demands are met. These measures aren't justified and they weren't even necessary in the light of Russia's enduring influence on Ukraine and Crimea.

No defence of this is possible from a critique of US imperialism: you can't credibly argue against the hegemony of one power while defending the hegemony of another. One doesn't justify the other - if anything, they prop each other up.

[baxus]

That being said, there are non government related advantages to living in russia or eastern europe as opposed to west. Certain opportunities for certain professions also allow to make loads of money there that you couldn't in the west. But that's ot.

for me, biggest advantage to living in eastern europe is that i was born and raised here, most of my family and friends are here etc.

other than those sentimental issues, i'd dare say everything (or close enough) would be on the side of western europe

[Wicked Woodpecker of West]

"Maidan fighters were trained in Poland and Lithuania, they were professional and effective as Specnaz" (Putin at the press conference).

Ach, that would be cool. Rebirth of Commonwealth of Three Nations. Pity it's just lame propaganda.

f yes, then sorry to say, but it doesn't make a lot of sense, nor is it in agreement with historical facts, like the one with Crimea: once again, what kind of Russian imperialists would take Crimea away from Russia and give it to Ukraine?!

Well for instance the guy who believed that Ukraina is part of Empire, so that doesn't really matter.

But I can agree that Chruszczow weren't really Russian imperialist. But I'm not so sure about Stalin and Breżniew.

And Russian Federation of today just kinda mixed those two kinds of imperialism. Soviet with old Tzar imperialism.

Explosive mix.

A Polish neo-nazi is about the most embarrassing thing imaginable.

For me they were usually just hilarious. I somehow cannot feel real shame about such totally unimportant small groups of people. Laugh from them... yes, that's different thing.

[3CityApache]

I think majority of Slavic nations would be wiser to choose someone backed by Moscow over someone backed by USA&Germany.

The only thing I can say to that is: I've been there. I've seen it. And never again. Not in a million years, thank you very much. Cos' I've been privileged to see the other side as well.

[Maltaran]

A Polish neo-nazi is about the most embarrassing thing imaginable.

I discovered the other day that there are Israeli neo-Nazis. The Law of Return has unintended consequences.

[Miodrag]

<snip>

1) Americans acted softly in Bosnia, you say. Which means you actually know very little about what happened there. Prior to the war, Portugal foreign minister Cutileiro invited leaders of all three constitutional nations of Bosnia – Muslims, Serbs and Croats – in Lisbon, to try and find some kind of agreement that might prevent the war. And they actually did find, and they signed it, all three of them. all three sides accepted somewhat less than they hoped for, but they did sign the deal. It’s called The Lisbon Agreement, or The Cutileiro Plan. It looked like the war was ruled out. However, when those three came back home, American ambassador in Belgrade Warren Zimmerman went to Sarajevo and met separately with Alija Izetbegovic, the leader of Bosnian Muslims (Bosnia still belonged to Yugoslavia at the time, so there was no ambassador in Sarajevo). There and then, Zimmerman persuaded Izetbegovic to withdraw his signature, because “USA thinks Bosnian Muslims can gain much more without this agreement” (I’m paraphrasing, but the essence is there). That's how those soft-acting Americans initiated a war in the first place. Here’s a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_plans_offered_before_and_during_the_Bosnian_War

2) I didn’t say Clinton ordered Srebrenica massacre. Not even Hakija Meholjic said that. He only said that Izetbegovic said Clinton really made that request over the phone. If Hakija speaks the truth (and I tend to believe him more than the other two guys involved in the story, because he has no reason whatsoever to make up anything like that), then either Clinton is hiding something, or Izetbegovic was lying. Either way, it’s big, considering nothing any of those two claimed about Bosnia was ever doubted by the mainstream media. (Hilary is another matter, because she was caught shamelessly lying about Bosnia at least once, and embarrassed because of that, when she was running against Obama in 2008.) At the very least, it’s a strong hint that not everything went down as usually reported.

3) In his memoirs, Carl Bilt estimates that 4.000 fighters of the Bosnian forces from Srebrenica died in combat, while trying to break through Serbian lines around Srebrenica in July 1995. In its report from July 17, 1995, UNPROFOR officials estimated those casualties at around 3.000. Bosnian Army supreme commander stated, while testifying in the Hague, that around 2.600 of those fighters died in combat. All of that is significant because those deaths keep getting listed among the victims of Srebrenica massacre, even though they fell in legitimate military operations.

4) Mirsad Tokaca, head of the Research and Documentation Center in Sarajevo, claims that at least 500 living persons are registered as ‘dead’ and ‘buried’ at the Srebrenica Memorial.

5) The number at the Srebrenica Memorial Site states that 8.372 (and counting) men were massacred in Srebrenica in July 1995. The actual number of bodies buried there, however, is less than the half of it: around 3.800 (as of three years ago).

6) The number of actual bodies the forensics from The Hague Tribunal collected and analyzed in regards to massacre, is less than 2.000. More precisely, 1.923. That is all the bodies they found in the vast area around Srebrenica from 1995 till now. Out of those bodies, the number of those that were almost certainly shot execution style is around 450. As for all the other bodies, it’s either impossible to determine the cause of that, or they probably died in combat (for example, they died of shrapnel wounds).

7) John Schindler, top NSA official for the Balkans during the 90s, whose book “Unholy Terror” I recommend, claims that no more than 2.000 Muslim men were executed in July 1995.

8) The late Phillip Corwin, an American who was the top UN official on the ground in July 1995, up until his death in 2011 claimed that no more than 700 Muslim soldiers were executed by Serbs.

9) Yossef Bodansky, former Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare of the US House of Representatives, all this time claims that no more than several hundreds Muslims were executed in July 1995.

10) The death toll in the entire Bosnian War is around 100.000 (as per Amnesty International, Sarajevo Research Center and Serb Center), and not 250.000, as was claimed by mainstream media and Hollywood snobs like Angelina Jolie.

11) The only soldier connected to and tried for the actual executions of Muslim men in July 1995, is Drazen Erdemovic, an ethnic Croat and a mercenary who fought for all three sides in the Bosnian War. How he ended up in all this? A year after the war, he was arrested in Serbia, after he was wounded in some gunfight against his fellow mercenaries in a bar. As soon as he was behind bars, he asked for The Hague officials, and told them he wants to testify. Chances are, he was scared that he’d be killed in prison by the guys he came in conflict with, so he wanted to be far away from Serb prison. Soon he was handed over to The Hague, where he made a deal with a prosecution to plead guilty for a number of executions, and in return he’ll get a short penance of few years in some high-class Western European prison. But, in order for his trial to be postponed as much as possible, so he can testify as much as the prosecution needs, he was declared unable to sustain a trial for at least two years; but, and here comes the crazy part, immediately after that he testified for bringing up charges against Karadzic and Mladic; literally, the guy who was declared unfit for his own trial, was the only witness in starting the persecution of someone else. As for his testimonies, Dutch-Bulgarian journalists Germinal Civikov wrote a book about it, called “The Crown Witness”. With all the inconsistencies and blatant lies and crazy talk of Erdemovic, it reads like a satire, but unfortunately it isn’t.

And I could go on and on and on. But, whatever I can say, American professor Edward S. Herman wrote it better, in his books about Srebrenica and everything that happened there (I recommend “The Politics of Genocide” for starters).

And the biggest cover-up is the fact that more than 3.000 Serbs, mostly civilians, were murdered in the villages around Srebrenica in prior years, by Bosnian troops from Srebrenica (the town, by the way, was to be demilitarized at the beginning of the war by UN, but it never was, and Bosnian forces from there were responsible for some of the most horrific crimes in the entire war). Which means that whatever happened in Srebrenica in July 1995 was a revenge, rather than genocide. That is why only men were executed there. So, to conclude, the numbers are exaggerated, and the very nature of the crime is misinterpreted. What happened in Srebrenica in July 1995? How many Bosnian men were executed? By whom? Was there an order to execute those men, or was it committed less organized? Practically, none of that is determined, neither in The Hague, nor in any other court. Maybe it would’ve been, had The Hague was actually doing its job and pursued the truth, instead of fulfilling someone else’s political agenda.

But, you say you know. You, who weren’t able to read my post properly (which is not the first time you’re having a hard time understanding what I’m saying, by the way). You, who keep repeating one propaganda lie after another about Ukraine which is happening right now, and not some 20 years ago like the Bosnian War. You, who responded with insults early in this thread, only because a fellow Serb dared to question US/NATO’s motives. You seem to think you understand what happened in Srebrenica. It would’ve been hilarious if it wasn’t tragic, actually.

You know, I think I’d have much easier time agreeing over Srebrenica with the hardest Serb-haters from Sarajevo, than with some outsider like yourself, who saw a couple of prime-time news and thinks now he knows everything. At least, we who live here, we know what we did to each other. And we also know that there would be much less of it, only if outsiders weren’t ‘helping’ us. Just like one day, when this Ukraine mess settles down, people there would realize they would’ve been much better off without outsiders helping them.

And don’t get me started on Kosovo. Just a teaser: find any Serb official or a soldier being at least charged with any case that predates the NATO bombing of Serbia. Let me help: you won’t. There isn’t any. Not a single Serb was charged with and tried for a single crime committed before NATO started an attack on Serbia. You know why? Because there weren’t any. Not even the infamous Racak incident, that served as a pretext for bombing, appeared in any of the trials. Care to explain how all that fits in your theories of evil Serbs that had to be bombed before they commit ‘another genocide’? Don’t bother, you can’t. And the fact is, it’s the same as with me being appalled: the truth is not something you are really interested in, it seems.

P.S. What would be the point of those citations that you say are needed? Had you followed those links other posters and myself posted earlier today, you’d already have your citations. But, I guess it’s one more thing you’re not interested in. Which is fine, I guess. Just don’t know why you keep asking for stuff that doesn’t interest you.

[Miodrag]

in serbia we suffer from this delusion that russians are our brothers and russia will stand by us if someone tries to bully us and yet they have repeatedly shown they're more than willing to ditch us on the first sign it might get them anything.

By far the biggest delusion in Serbia is that EU/US are well-intended toward us. That delusions is so strong, especially among the ruling 'elites', that almost no voice against joining EU is allowed to be heard in the mainstream media, even though at least 50 percent of the population is very skeptical (to put it mildly) about what awaits us on the "Road to EU".

And honestly, a lot of people are saying the same thing you are: that we Serbs are deluded into expecting from Russians much more than they'd ever give us. Which is funny, based on my experience. I love Russia, and I happen to know many Russophiles here, and yet, not a single one of them (including me) has some unrealistic expectations from anyone, Russians included. For what it's worth, I think West-lovers such as yourself are more naive in my eyes, but that's not to say I don't get what attracts you to the West. (Believe me, not for a second I lost the perspective that I'm currently posting on a American-Swedish web site, dedicated to a books I adore that were written by an American author.)

[Miodrag]

we have those in serbia, too.

the kind of idiots who adore the phylosophy that had their grandfathers rounded up and sent to concentration camps or take up arms to fight it.

For all of my 40 years in Serbia, I have never ever encountered a nazi supporter here. I guess there are some individuals, cause there are few swastikas handwritten on public walls in Belgrade - but I literally mean few, as in, less than a dozen in total. But there isn't a single nazi organization here. No nazis in rallies, or in sports matches, or in any other type of events where they'd be expected had they existed. There was only one guy, Goran Davidovic, who was all alone on his 'organization', as it revealed eventually, and, even more crazy, it turned out he was actually financed by the regime, because the regime needed some excuse before EU (like "We have to deal with nazism in our country, give us some slack"). But, other than that, not a single political or social entity with anything that resembles nazi ideology exists in Serbia. And as a journalist, I had the chance to interview all the 'usual suspects', e.g. groups that are sometimes described in the media as 'right-wing extremists': even if they are extremists, it still doesn't make them nazis, just like they definitely aren't. Did you perchance thought of those groups, like 'Dveri' and 'Obraz' and 'Nasi'?

[Shryke]

For all of my 40 years in Serbia, I have never ever encountered a nazi supporter here. I guess there are some individuals, cause there are few swastikas handwritten on public walls in Belgrade - but I literally mean few, as in, less than a dozen in total. But there isn't a single nazi organization here. No nazis in rallies, or in sports matches, or in any other type of events where they'd be expected had they existed. There was only one guy, Goran Davidovic, who was all alone on his 'organization', as it revealed eventually, and, even more crazy, it turned out he was actually financed by the regime, because the regime needed some excuse before EU (like "We have to deal with nazism in our country, give us some slack"). But, other than that, not a single political or social entity with anything that resembles nazi ideology exists in Serbia. And as a journalist, I had the chance to interview all the 'usual suspects', e.g. groups that are sometimes described in the media as 'right-wing extremists': even if they are extremists, it still doesn't make them nazis, just like they definitely aren't. Did you perchance thought of those groups, like 'Dveri' and 'Obraz' and 'Nasi'?

This is wiki on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism_in_Serbia

[The Marquis de Leech]

I discovered the other day that there are Israeli neo-Nazis. The Law of Return has unintended consequences.

There were also Zionist terrorist groups who tried to ally with Germany during the war to drive the British out of Palestine.

[Miodrag]

This is wiki on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism_in_Serbia

This 'Nacionalni stroj' organization they mention as the most well known, is actually that Goran Davidovic guy I was talking about. He is the sole member of it, and it is highly suspected - though not proven, to tell the truth - that he was financed by the regime. And that is, as the article claim, the most well known nazi organization in Serbia. This Obraz group that is also mentioned, it is true they had some trouble with the laws, but none of those cases is closed, as the trials are still unfinished: which means that, theoretically at least, they might be completely innocent. They are tried for clashes with police, clashes that were, compared to Majdan situation, or to the clashes in Belgrade during the 90s, very low-scale. And, since I covered their activities few times and interviewed their leader, allow me to be blunt: they are as far away from nazi ideology as possible. In fact, they despise Hitler so much that they cite nazi crimes against Serbs as one of the main reasons why they strongly oppose EU.

As for this 'Combat 18', I honestly never heard of it. And I'm pretty sure nobody heard of them, which makes me doubt they actually exist. At least, I see no evidence they exist. I checked some Serbian sites, and it appears that the only source this article was based on, was an very dubious news-article from a tabloid 'Kurir', which, to say it mildly, isn't to be trusted so easily on any matter whatsoever. If you read that 'Kurir' article and think about it, you'll see how illogical and full of inconsistencies it is, just like any media sensationalism tends to be.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Eastern Europe was under the rule of a totalitarian state which exercised total information control over every aspect of its citizens' lives for almost half a century (and some parts, for another thirty years before that).

A bit off topic, but totalitarian (a term invented by Mussolini) is a bit inaccurate to describe most of these places. Communist regimes (post-Stalin anyway) tended to depoliticise the population - if you weren't part of the governing apparatus, there was no need for the state to pay attention to you, so long as you kept your head down and didn't cause trouble. There's stories of ordinary Hungarians being asked by Western journalists who Karl Marx was, and not really knowing.

[Galactus]

5) The number at the Srebrenica Memorial Site states that 8.372 (and counting) men were massacred in Srebrenica in July 1995. The actual number of bodies buried there, however, is less than the half of it: around 3.800 (as of three years ago).

6) The number of actual bodies the forensics from The Hague Tribunal collected and analyzed in regards to massacre, is less than 2.000. More precisely, 1.923. That is all the bodies they found in the vast area around Srebrenica from 1995 till now. Out of those bodies, the number of those that were almost certainly shot execution style is around 450. As for all the other bodies, it’s either impossible to determine the cause of that, or they probably died in combat (for example, they died of shrapnel wounds).

In any massacre (historical or contemporary) bodies are going to get lost, or simply never found. (and yes, in most cases this means there is a level of "false positives" of people who have simply disappeared, or for one reason or another not been counted) but not being able to find all the bodies isn't an indication of a cover-up: It's pretty much routine.

Moreover, a shrapnel wound isn't neccessarily indicative of a combat death either. (especially not if there's eg. shelling of civilians)

There were also Zionist terrorist groups who tried to ally with Germany during the war to drive the British out of Palestine.

Not quite as weird, but the forebears of the Likud did recieve funding from Mussolini.

In another odd twist, the first victory of the Israeli AIr Force involves an Israeli Messerchsmidt (bought from czech war-surplus) shooting down a Spitfire.

[Galactus]

As for this 'Combat 18', I honestly never heard of it. And I'm pretty sure nobody heard of them,

Huh. Now that's a name I hadn't heard in a while. They used to be a big "international" neo-nazi organization in the 90's. (involved both in attacks and in "marketing", selling White Power music, etc.) Haven't heard of them in a while.

EDIT: They were mostly a british outfit, IIRC; although as said they were pretty "international" for neo-nazis.

[Galactus]

Because likely they aren't actually accurate in that assessment and just basing it on "we're having so much fun on vacation". Or on "these people party like crazy fuckers".

More likely it's a cultural difference: Western (and northern) europeans are famously dull and introverted. (laugh less, etc.) than people in southern and eastern europe.

[Miodrag]

In any massacre (historical or contemporary) bodies are going to get lost, or simply never found. (and yes, in most cases this means there is a level of "false positives" of people who have simply disappeared, or for one reason or another not been counted) but not being able to find all the bodies isn't an indication of a cover-up: It's pretty much routine.

Moreover, a shrapnel wound isn't neccessarily indicative of a combat death either. (especially not if there's eg. shelling of civilians)

So, it's a routine to claim 8.372 deaths and counting, even though you don't possess any reliable evidence those people were actually executed, and not killed in combat? Wouldn't say so. I'd really like anyone to explain to me what evidences exist that those 8.000 men were executed. I know people from Srebrenica Memorial Site claim they possess DNA evidence. Now, DNA is a powerful evidence, for determining identity or whereabouts. But, for determining the cause of death, DNA is totally unusable. So, besides DNA, is there any evidence that proves, or strongly hints at least, that those people were executed, and not killed in combat?

As for shrapnel wounds, I know what you're talking about. I was in Belgrade when NATO bombed us, even the residential areas, with cluster bombs. And Srebrenica shrapnel isn't that case at all. For starters, nobody says they were civilians. They were all fighters. The only question is whether they were taken prisoners and then executed, or they died in combat.