Thread: Latest from Ukraine

I was trying to find information in Belarussian papers about Eastern Ukraine, but strangely they are almost ignoring the situation.

I was thinking that Belarus opinion would be interesting. It's not directly involved, yet knows both countries better than anyone else. (RU and UA). I thought they'd be able to understand both parties in the conflict and have a really balanced and nuance view. However, for whatever reason they are almost ignoring the events in Donbass.

... OR ... you were looking in the wrong place

http://charter97.org/ru/news/ukraine/
This one looks really biased towards the West.

Why would Belarus want to get involved? What do they have to do with any of it? They agreed to offer a neutral site for negotiation for 'both sides.' Seems generous to me.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

Why would Belarus want to get involved? What do they have to do with any of it? They agreed to offer a neutral site for negotiation for 'both sides.' Seems generous to me.

Скажем так, экономический партнер №1 для Белоруссии - Россия, а экономический партнер №2 - Украина. Соответственно, батьке Лукашенко не хотелось бы ссориться ни с теми, ни с другими.

Originally Posted by Medved

... OR ... you were looking in the wrong place

http://charter97.org/ru/news/ukraine/
This one looks really biased towards the West.

Isn't this a Belarussian anti-government site?.. Well I looked anyway.
These guys have decided that whatever Kiev says, is the truth. Fine, to each his own...
However, I don't need to struggle with the Russian text this type of info - it's exactly what English speaking papers are already saying. I am familiar with this narrative.

Isn't it interesting that the the guy who runs Charter97 speaks English like a native and provides perfect translations of most of his articles? I smell CIA "democracy" money. This guy is definitely no ordinary Belarussian. People there rarely speak English at a useful level at all. Let alone with perfect grammar and vocabulary. I hope Belarussians think very carefully before throwing their country into turmoil because of anything they read on Charter97.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

Why would Belarus want to get involved? What do they have to do with any of it? They agreed to offer a neutral site for negotiation for 'both sides.' Seems generous to me.

I am not proposing that they get involved and it's wise of them not to. But the media there is essentially state run, and I was interested to see what position they take on the conflict. I suppose it's possible that Belarus took a policy decision to deliberately under report the story to make sure that nothing biased is said either way - so they can remain credible as a mediator to both sides.

http://www.sb.by/byvshiy-sssr/

Another reason to read Belarus news is that people accuse Russian media of being biased, and that is probably true. I think mainstream Russian media is exaggerating a bit to get their point of view across. Just like when Western media reports about somebody that's fallen out of favour, then everything about them is bad.

With Belarus I thought that they'd be in a good position to sympathise with the complaints of the Ukrainians, while at the same time being closely allied with Russia.
For Russia both economic and military considerations are at stake, while Belarus isn't hugely invested in Ukraine, so doesn't have a lot to lose. Also it already borders lots of NATO states, so one more wouldn't make a big difference.
Also Belarussian media is quite different from Russian, so it's not singing the same tune at all.

Therefore I was thinking that Belarus would have a well-informed and nuanced view on the conflict because it knows both Ukraine and Russia like its own backyard. I thought it would be able to cover both sides in depth.

Instead what I am seeing is that they almost pretend the conflict doesn't exist, when it ought to be first page news there - it's their old neighbour and friend, and they are just ignoring events. Strange.

Вытерта картинка, неуместная на этом форуме. Л.

удалено

Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Мне интересно, что же такое было на картинке Ханны, что даже картинка с Гитлером более уместна чем ее картинка.

Originally Posted by hddscan

Мне интересно, что же такое было на картинке Ханны, что даже картинка с Гитлером более уместна чем ее картинка.

Гитлер - картинка тоже неуместная, но это прошлое, так что ладно.
Сохранила в Ворде, и не знаю, как обратно повесить

Originally Posted by Lampada

Гитлер - картинка тоже неуместная, но это прошлое, так что ладно.

Это была исключительно ответка. Персонально я против её удаления не возражаю, раз уж устранена причина.

EDIT
Ладно. Вспомнил, что и сам могу удалить. Сейчас сделаю, что называется в качестве жеста доброй воли.

The meaning is in the people and not in the words. Identical logic can be used either to mask evil deeds or to start a humanitarian quest. This time is 2015 and I only see humanitarian goals.
ON-TOPIC:
I seriously doubt that any news about the Donbas will be unbiased. But I agree with SergeMak - The Belarus media would need to be silent since they are mediating the crisis in Minsk and since they both do trade with Belarus.
Imo, the only real way to get unbiased news is to look only at the undeniable facts. There's lots of those facts out there. For example:

1. What was happening on New Year's day in Kiev?
They held a parade to honor a Nazi collaborator named Stepan Bandera.

2. What was happening on New Year's day in Lugansk?
They managed to have some New Year's lights and a huge tree in the square but there were serious rolling blackouts and the houses don't have heat.
A lot of presents for kids were included in the 10th Russian humanitarian aid convoy so that was really cool. But Donetsk and other cities, in the Donbas, are having similar shortages of power and heat.

3. While Russia has been working in Minsk to create a lasting peace, the US passed an anti-Russian bill to allow our President to send lethal aid to Kiev.
The message that sends is that the US supports war while Russia supports peace. For me, that's a seriously unacceptable massage for my country to be sending.

4. Khrushchev had no legal right to give Crimea to the Ukraine. Where was the Internationally recognized referendum? When did the Crimeans vote on annexation to the Ukraine? So the annexation of Crimea by the Ukraine was not legal and is not binding.
Btw, was there ever a referendum to annex Novorossiya to the the Ukraine? I mean, it was Russia that won that land from the Ottoman empire in the 18th century, right?

Anyway, I found a site called "Новороссия" that seems to support a revival. And what's really interesting is how I found it. The link to the site was included in a Washington Post article:

Putin's comment might be taken as it was portrayed – as an aside, or a little tidbit of information – if it weren't for the fact that Novorossiya has been brought up so often in recent days by pro-Russian activists, who have reportedly been chanting the word as they argued against staying with Kiev. Someone has even set up a Web site that appears devoted to bringing the historical region back.

The Washington Post article

The words in bold linked to this site:
appears devoted to bringing the historical region back

So yeah, you can even find news sources in other news sources.
С Новым 2015 годом! Любви, здоровья, успехов, счастья! - I totally do hope this year will be TONS better than last year for Russia and the Russian people.

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

They held a parade to honor a Nazi collaborator named Stepan Bandera.

Richard Nixon / Bill Clinton: "Sometimes in order to fight one evil you should cooperate with an other evil".

My first question is why Stepan Bandera cooperated with Hitler? He was a мизантроп? He wanted people to burn in gas chambers? He was just insane?
What he wanted from that cooperation with that beast Hitler?

Originally Posted by Antonio1986

Richard Nixon / Bill Clinton: "Sometimes in order to fight one evil you should cooperate with an other evil".

My first question is why Stepan Bandera cooperated with Hitler? He was a мизантроп? He wanted people to burn in gas chambers? He was just insane?
What he wanted from that cooperation with that beast Hitler?

Was Bandera insane? Was Stalin insane? Was Chamberlain insane? Who knows. They all cooperated and Hitler fooled them all.
For some reason, Bandera thought Germany would help to establish Ukrainian state. Instead, shortly after invading the Soviet Union, in 1941, Hitler put him in prison and later in a concentration camp. So much for cooperation.

An important thing to know about Bandera -- he had nothing to do with "дивизия СС "Галичина". Those who associated themselves with him fought against Germans as well as against Soviets or Poles (after his imprisonment, I mean).

Originally Posted by E-learner

Was Bandera insane? Was Stalin insane? Was Chamberlain insane? Who knows. They all cooperated and Hitler fooled them all.
For some reason, Bandera thought Germany would help to establish Ukrainian state. Instead, shortly after invading the Soviet Union, in 1941, Hitler put him in prison and later in a concentration camp. So much for cooperation.

An important thing to know about Bandera -- he had nothing to do with "дивизия СС "Галичина". Those who associated themselves with him fought against Germans as well as against Soviets or Poles (after his imprisonment, I mean).

Looks like you are portraying him rather like a stray sheep and not a true cold blood murderer. But how about this passage;

What else separates the Banderas from every other genocidal perpetrator of the war is this: Even though the German SS had units dedicated to genocide, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) approached this mission with a zeal and barbarity that Hitler’s own units could not muster. (Deleted. L.).

Ukraine’s Neo-Nazis. Stepan Bandera and the Legacy of World War II | Global Research

He seems to be different from Hitler only in the scale of his misdeeds but not in its character. And why do some Ukrainians so desperately want to revive this "skeleton" from the "cupboard" right now? My guess it's mainly done in order to troll Russians even more assiduously

Originally Posted by diogen_

Looks like you are portraying him rather like a stray sheep and not a true cold blood murderer. But how about this passage;


Ukraine’s Neo-Nazis. Stepan Bandera and the Legacy of World War II | Global Research

He seems to be different from Hitler only in the scale of his misdeeds but not in its character. And why do some Ukrainians so desperately want to revive this "skeleton" from the "cupboard" right now? My guess it's mainly done in order to troll Russians even more assiduously

You're going to cite Global Research as your source?

There's a lot of ridiculous assertions in this thread and I can see why Ukrainians just abandoned it.

Originally Posted by diogen_

Looks like you are portraying him rather like a stray sheep and not a true cold blood murderer. But how about this passage;


Ukraine’s Neo-Nazis. Stepan Bandera and the Legacy of World War II | Global Research

He seems to be different from Hitler only in the scale of his misdeeds but not in its character. And why do some Ukrainians so desperately want to revive this "skeleton" from the "cupboard" right now? My guess it's mainly done in order to troll Russians even more assiduously

Did you see this in the article? :
"Under the militant leadership of Stepan Bandera in World War II, the ultra-nationalists organized the Ukrainian Waffen SS Galician".
That's enough to stop reading right there. It's not a credible source. Just a piece of Soviet/Russian style propaganda.

"The Banderas, or Banderites, are activists in the Ukrainian Ultra Nationalist movement that is now in control of the government in Ukraine."
I recognize the pen of Mr. Lavrov.
Ridiculous. You can not even begin to understand how ridiculous this is.

Now. I am not saying UPA did not commit any atrocities. There hardly exist an army that didn't. But it wasn't in the question I was answering.

About trolling -- yes, there is a bit of that.

Originally Posted by Antonio1986

Richard Nixon / Bill Clinton: "Sometimes in order to fight one evil you should cooperate with an other evil".

My first question is why Stepan Bandera cooperated with Hitler? He was a мизантроп? He wanted people to burn in gas chambers? He was just insane?
What he wanted from that cooperation with that beast Hitler?

Probably thought there wasn't any choice of an ally who would confront the SU. The USA didn't. No one else did. Of course, most of the sources nowadays are maintained by Russia, USA etc., soviet/communist sources so you will only get one side.

In Russia, certain cronies and clans turn against each other when interests no longer coincide. Is it possible that this happened then? I read that Bandera wanted a 'Greater Ukraine' and when Russia/Novorossiya decide to occupy territory, no one bats an eyelash. But, because these aren't neo-Soviet types, they are villains. It's a matter of perspective or point of view and those nationalists probably thought they wanted to secure their own territory. There were a lot of territorial disputes then and various nationalities/ethnicities all living in the same area.