Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Petro Poroshenko

5 (29.4%)

Yulia Tymoshenko

2 (11.8%)

Oleg Lyashko

2 (11.8%)

Anatoly Hrytsenko

2 (11.8%)

Serhiy Tihipko

0 (0%)

Mykhailo Dobkin

0 (0%)

Other

6 (35.3%)

Total Members Voted: 17

[miljan]

... stepped into some weird shit, apparently.

Any actual confirmation that youtube video means anything? Proof it was who they say it was, any signs of actual substantial involvement, etc., etc.?

Though, uh. No, Nuland hasn't apparently said anything on the subject*, from what I could find out checking those and a few other sources. Someone else said some diplomatic non-speak (which I'd honestly expect to come out sounding about the same regardless of whether the video was real or not), according to the articles flapping around, but that was about it. Not really sparking my US!shadowpuppetting switch. Maybe a "politician being politician" one (assuming that's actually who was involved in the conversation), but not much more than that.

*Did Pyatt? Standard cursory skimming and whatnot didn't notice any mention on that end. Most I can find on apparent official statement comes from Psaki's words a few days after the video was posted.

Yea. One of the person in the video apologies for saying fuck EU, including US blaming russia for leaked content. So it's pretty much confirmed that the transcript is legit.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/02/official-apologizes-for-f-k-eu-comment/
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/06/us-ukraine-russia-eu-victoria-nuland
http://www.justice-integrity.org/faq/627-top-u-s-diplomat-caught-on-tape-in-profane-plot
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

Not sure I would say this is standard politics, as it is US involvement in gathering opposition in ukraine and saying who is good to get push.
This is just to show that US in involved in all this from almost beginning, and that it is very interested in what is happening there and acts there, unlike what you said.
Still, this is not a excuse for russian support of rebelion, but saying US is not involved is very hard to believe after this (and several other things, like head of CIA visit to ukraine).

[Frumple]

Yea. One of the person in the video apologies for saying fuck EU, including US blaming russia for leaked content. So it's pretty much confirmed that the transcript is legit.

... you do realize Nuland isn't physically on record for apologizing, and the actual source for your statement is from a person who is basically "Political Double-Speak, the Job" claiming it happened (without any context or framing for whatever nuland actually said, if anything), right?

[Knit tie]

Yea. One of the person in the video apologies for saying fuck EU, including US blaming russia for leaked content. So it's pretty much confirmed that the transcript is legit.

... you do realize Nuland isn't physically on record for apologizing, and the actual source for your statement is from a person who is basically "Political Double-Speak, the Job" claiming it happened (without any context or framing for whatever nuland actually said, if anything), right?

I still wonder why nobody has tried to do a voice analysis of that tape. I mean, it is possible to find videos of Nuland speaking into a camera and then compare her voice to the one on the tape.

[Sheb]

Knit Tie, the more I read your response, the more I feel that we actually are in agreement, but that you just dislike the way the subject is treated in the Western press.

[miljan]

Yea. One of the person in the video apologies for saying fuck EU, including US blaming russia for leaked content. So it's pretty much confirmed that the transcript is legit.

... you do realize Nuland isn't physically on record for apologizing, and the actual source for your statement is from a person who is basically "Political Double-Speak, the Job" claiming it happened (without any context or framing for whatever nuland actually said, if anything), right?

I do not understand what you are trying to say. State department spokeswoman Jen Psaki   acknowledged that the recording was authentic.
You also have this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpzSwWPUfIc
Yes there is no record of apologizing on TV, is that what you want (as it was done in private)? Are you trying to say someone else apologies for her from US so it means the thing she said is not true on the transcript (or that generally US government said she apologies in private)?

[miljan]

Yea. One of the person in the video apologies for saying fuck EU, including US blaming russia for leaked content. So it's pretty much confirmed that the transcript is legit.

... you do realize Nuland isn't physically on record for apologizing, and the actual source for your statement is from a person who is basically "Political Double-Speak, the Job" claiming it happened (without any context or framing for whatever nuland actually said, if anything), right?

I still wonder why nobody has tried to do a voice analysis of that tape. I mean, it is possible to find videos of Nuland speaking into a camera and then compare her voice to the one on the tape.

The thing is if this was not valid, it would be denied the moment it was posted, But that didn't happen, and opposite thing happened.

[Knit tie]

Knit Tie, the more I read your response, the more I feel that we actually are in agreement, but that you just dislike the way the subject is treated in the Western press.

Well, yeah. I am not a jingoist (I am a still a patriot, just not a rabid one) and I do not support invasion of foreign countries, but at the same time I find the widespread hypocrisy, sensationalism and propaganda in the western press, to which I've only relatively recently had wide access, appalling and not at all better than what we have on the state-sponsored channels. In other words, I do not condone Russian actions, but I do believe that everything is much more complex and morally ambiguous than what the Telegraph, for example, says.

That said, I have to confess that more than once in this discussion, I've become overly confrontational and tried to refute my opponents' (mostly Mictlan and mainiac's) arguments specifically because I wanted to put them down for being such jerks (sorry), and not because I generally disagreed with them. I mean, mainiac's right, Russia's appeal to western hypocrisy does not mean that it is justified in going Libya on poor Ukraine, but he's been such an ass about it that I would rather defend Putin than agree with him.

Yea. One of the person in the video apologies for saying fuck EU, including US blaming russia for leaked content. So it's pretty much confirmed that the transcript is legit.

... you do realize Nuland isn't physically on record for apologizing, and the actual source for your statement is from a person who is basically "Political Double-Speak, the Job" claiming it happened (without any context or framing for whatever nuland actually said, if anything), right?

I still wonder why nobody has tried to do a voice analysis of that tape. I mean, it is possible to find videos of Nuland speaking into a camera and then compare her voice to the one on the tape.

The thing is if this was not valid, it would be denied the moment it was posted, But that didn't happen, and opposite thing happened.

I've seen more than enough false arguments getting accepted and circulated eidely because nobody was interested in refuting them, such as the common myth about swine flu, for example. That said, I do believe that the conversation was genuine, since BBC, a pro-western source, reported its transcript. What isn't clear is how much does the conversation actually mean, it can be just a conversation, after all, and not at all a plotting session.

[smjjames]

Swine flu, yeah that got overhyped and turned out to be not so bad. I mean it was bad, but not as bad as the media made it out to be.

[Knit tie]

Swine flu, yeah that got overhyped and turned out to be not so bad. I mean it was bad, but not as bad as the media made it out to be.

Or bird flu. Or ADHD in the USA. Or AIDS in Russia. Or ebola in Africa.

Btw, I remember how one of my dormmates at a boarding school got swine flu. We all but buried him, and when he "miraculously" started getting better, a correspondent of a local newspaper appeared to take his interview.

[Frumple]

Yes there is no record of apologizing on TV, is that what you want (as it was done in private)? Are you trying to say someone else apologies for her from US so it means the thing she said is not true on the transcript (or that generally US government said she apologies in private)?

I'm trying to say when you say a person in question apologizes, you should probably save saying that until you've got a record of it happening. If you want to say other officials said, second/third hand sources said, etc., then fine, but maybe don't say things you can't actually back up, y'know? Context and framing is ruddy important, and without that one tends to pull entirely too much from the aether.

I do not understand what you are trying to say. State department spokeswoman Jen Psaki acknowledged that the recording was authentic.

Mostly trying to say that you seem to be reading considerably more into what's actually been said than seems warranted. Psaki, who's effectively got a job description that reads "double-speak all day erry day", is going to say something like she did bloody regardless of whether the recording was authentic. Bugger'd sound like that if she were talking about the color of the sky on record.

It's going from "Other official said things" to "Nuland personally apologized for crass words" (when there's any dozen other things regarding the situation she could have been apologizing for) to "Suddenly the US is the prime driving force behind euromaidan." Which is... stretching. Just a bit.

You, possibly -- hell, even probably -- have a record of politicians being politicians. If there's anything else -- abnormal material support, obvious interpersonal collusion, etc., etc. -- it would be interesting to know, but one internal conversation does not a significant influence or interest make.

[smjjames]

Swine flu, yeah that got overhyped and turned out to be not so bad. I mean it was bad, but not as bad as the media made it out to be.

Or bird flu. Or ADHD in the USA. Or AIDS in Russia. Or ebola in Africa.

Btw, I remember how one of my dormmates at a boarding school got swine flu. We all but buried him, and when he "miraculously" started getting better, a correspondent of a local newspaper appeared to take his interview.

Don't tell me that Russia doesn't take AIDS seriously though.

Ebola though, that one is bad all right, most of the hype is coming from the misunderstanding of Ebola and the fear of it, also the politicians major overreactions.

[Sheb]

Yeah, the media love sensationalism: it sells. But at least they're selling you newspapers, not a country's foreign policy.

You know what I find really ironic about your situation Knit tie? It's that you may underestimate how much of a Western liberal you are. Your point of view, that Russian TV is propaganda, but that the Western media are corrupt as well, that Putin's actions are evil, but that all condemnations are just hypocritical bullshit, that kind of cynicism that leads to accepting Putin's foreign policy, is actually quite popular in liberal circles in Europe, especially in the UK and Germany.

From my point of view, I find it incredibly ironic that you've successfully avoided Putin's internal propaganda, only to fell to his external propaganda once abroad.

P.S. Please do not feel insulted by this post, but your new views are exactly those espoused by some of the smartest people that I know, all of the Western liberals that, IMO, fell for Putin's PR offensive.

[Darvi]

Yeah, the media love sensationalism: it sells. But at least they're selling you newspapers, not a country's foreign policy.

But not for the lack of trying.

[Sheb]

Unrelated, but trying to find a nice article I'd read about RT and Russia's media strategy, I found this. Don't have the time to read it now, but it seems like a well-researched, detailed account of the supposed American support for Euromaidan. Might be worth reading.

[Knit tie]

Yeah, the media love sensationalism: it sells. But at least they're selling you newspapers, not a country's foreign policy.

You know what I find really ironic about your situation Knit tie? It's that you may underestimate how much of a Western liberal you are. Your point of view, that Russian TV is propaganda, but that the Western media are corrupt as well, that Putin's actions are evil, but that all condemnations are just hypocritical bullshit, that kind of cynicism that leads to accepting Putin's foreign policy, is actually quite popular in liberal circles in Europe, especially in the UK and Germany.

From my point of view, I find it incredibly ironic that you've successfully avoided Putin's internal propaganda, only to fell to his external propaganda once abroad.

P.S. Please do not feel insulted by this post, but your new views are exactly those espoused by some of the smartest people that I know, all of the Western liberals that, IMO, fell for Putin's PR offensive.

That's honestly intriguing, I never thought that Putin's PR offensive, given how crude Russian propaganda usually is, had as its point the creation of "Invasions are just what politicians do. Pigs." mentality, I always considered it was just "No, U!"-flavoured classic Soviet whataboutism.