3rd August 2005, 04:11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
 Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy, Russia 
|
|
3rd August 2005, 10:53
|
|||
|
|||
|
"A free media is an important check on the power of the Government. A government will be less likely to do shameful things if the media are keeping an eye on it.
Without a free-media, elections can be rigged without people in Russia knowing about it. Political opponents can be tried on trumped-up charges e.g. Kasyanov, to stop them standing against Putin when he changes the Constitution to run again in 2008. The death of free TV media in Russia has a lot to do with what Westerners are talking about. Even the press are afraid that if they criticise Putin too much, the tentacles of the Kremlin will close them down too. Also, in a democracy political opponents have to be allowed to criticise the government. Not get banged up in jail for doing so, e.g. Kasyanov, Khordokovsky." ****************** The above is complete crap. If Khodor were an American tycoon, he would be doing time in an American prison. As for Kasyanov, he's fair game: GLOBALIZATION & ITS RELATION TO 2% MISHA http://english.intelligent.ru Color-coded revolutions in the former Marxist-Leninist Eurasian sphere have seen the phenomenon of circumspect characters achieving political sainthood as their respective domains suffer greater socioeconomic decay. Even more phenomenal is how the political elites in the victorious West can successfully orchestrate these moves in a manner that's somewhat reminiscent (though clearly not the same) of the way the Warsaw Pact leaders could sack certain nations in favor of those seen as more agreeable to the Soviet Politburo. A current debate of sorts involves the Kremlin’s responces to former Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov's possible presidential candidacy. Peter Lavelle (who gets my vote as the best active English language journalist covering Russian affairs) believes that the Russian government should not be involved in any investigation of Kasyanov's past, which no doubt includes taking personal financial benefit from business deals when he served in a prior government capacity (hence his nickname of 2% Misha). With some sound foundation, Lavelle argues that Kasyanov will probably fail as a candidate without the Russian government investigating him (see http://www.untimely-thoughts.com/index.html?art=1795). Lavelle adds that a formal investigation of Kasyanov serves the interests of anti-Russian propagandists abroad. Lavelle is certainly correct on the last point. A July 12 New York Times editorial (refer to http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/op...wed3.html?8br) piously smears the idea of investigating Kasyanov as an example of an increasing return to dictatorship in Russia. The editorial makes no mention whatsoever of Kasyanov's shady past and America's own related political experience in such matters. Upon seeking high office, Americans get heavily scrutinized by media and elements within government. During the 1972 presidential campaign, Thomas Eagleton withdrew as George McGovern's running mate after it was revealed that he had seen a psychiatrist (sarcastically put, America was a very tolerant society back then). In 1984, Gary Hart was a serious contender until his affair with a younger woman was revealed (Hart was married with children at the time). In more recent times, candidates for the Supreme Court have withdrawn over nitpicking procedures. In certain instances, a truly progressive government intervention is needed to preserve the betterment of the society it's supposed to serve. The late Zoran Djindjic of Serbia, along with the current presidents of Ukraine and Georgia, show that when left unattended, a not so perfect situation can be arguably made worse. In those three previous examples, such intervention was impossible because of the questionable nature of those previously holding office (namely Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia/Yugoslavia, Leonid Kuchma in Ukraine and Eduard Shevardnadze in Georgia). Current in the present-day Western mainstream propaganda is the view that Russia hasn't yet had a color-coded revolution because it isn't at an “advanced” stage. Just what's meant by “advanced?” Milosevic's Yugoslavia, Shevardnadze's Georgia and Kuchma's Ukraine weren't more democratically advanced than Putin's Russia. Should Russia actually spiral downward to reach an advanced stage of decay? If Freedom House and Michael McFaul of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace are to be believed, Georgia, Ukraine and Serbia have leapfrogged ahead of Russia in democratic development. This quite frankly flies in the face of reality and has the potential for a great extended debate (such exchanges seem like an increasing rarity in the “free press”). Since achieving “revolution,” the glaring economic problems in Serbia, Georgia and Ukraine seem secondary for Freedom House and McFaul. Their main concern is establishing a firm beachhead (offices and lucrative American government grants) in these lands and elsewhere. Their commentary about Russia expresses a desire to expand such influence. It's fair to say that their views very much restrict those opposing them. Likewise with George Soros' Orwellian-named “Open Society Institute,” where no one opposes the billionaire's warped weltanschauung comprising such goals as creating an Albanian-dominated nation of Kosovo and dismantling Republika Srpska. Awhile back, a Serb acquaintance of mine told me of the problems George Bogdanich had in getting his documentary on Russian television. The documentary “The Avoidable War” ( http://sane-boston.org/articles/avoi...srelease.html) covers the Bosnian Civil War with detailed facts and commentary from key players in that conflict. Though his piece was well received by those reviewing it, its airing was shot down because of a stated reason having to do with a desire for more “global” programming. In the post-Cold War “new world order,” globalization is frequently used by some as a code for greater American influence. A documentary showing valid views on the part of Serbs and not so valid views of the Serb adversaries is the exact opposite of such global programming, as was once again evident in the way Western mass media covered the recent tenth anniversary of the “Srebrenica massacre.” Lavelle notes how Kasyanov is being considered by Western NGO's and Russian liberals for support should he run for president. The debacles in Serbia, Georgia and Ukraine show how scoundrels have assumed power with great support from abroad (the Ukrainian example being the most glaring one for Russians). The dumbing down of Russian media with corrupt oligarch and Western funding can potentially succeed in reinventing Kasyanov. It's quite clear that Russia can't get a fair hearing in Western media (especially the Anglo-American one). Therefore, Russia shouldn't suck up to the smug elites at The Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Washington Post. These sources slander Russia in print and then have the luxury of further discussion on TV and radio shows with little if any opposition. If Kasyanov is a corrupt figure, then of course he should be investigated. Stable governments act accordingly. Unstable governments suck up to foreign interests. It's not as if every potential rival of Putin is getting hounded. Globalization need not be the diktats of billionaires like Soros and-or the neo-conservative desire to forcefully change the world. With English as the lingua Franca, Russia should enter the propaganda game in full force. This leads me back to my earlier thumbs up for a powerful worldwide English language Russian news television network, featuring thought provoking advocates of mainstream Russians views; as well as those thinking differently. Western mass media stunts mainstream Russian views from being heard (instead choosing to prop anti-Russian Russians). Therefore, the nurturing process must start on Russia's end. Michael Averko ----------------------------------------------------------- Regarding crappy media: COVERING THE COVERAGE: SOME PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS http://english.intelligent.ru I lean towards the view that the way Russia is covered is more interesting than the subject matter itself. My main indignation isn't directed at Russian media, but its Anglo-American mainstream counterpart, which continues to be the more biased. My ongoing activism on the net and elsewhere has led to diverse responses. The pleasant rebuttals come mostly from a choice few professional academics and journalists who provide an array of compliments, constructive criticisms, follow-up points and questions. On the less pleasant side are those dissenting replies that question my background without challenging the specifics I raise. This latter grouping consists of people not professionally involved with the subject matter. They should nevertheless be taken seriously because it's these people who get polled on policy issues that influence the political decision making process. Who the bleep am I? On paper, nobody special. An undergraduate degree concentrated in the study of East European History and International Relations from a small not so well known university. Keep in mind that the considerably better known former Polish president Lech Walesa, late American congressman Sony Bono and Fox News host Sean Hannity didn't receive college degrees. Having seen a good number of educated idiots as opposed to brilliant individuals lacking a formal education, I'm not impressed with paper credentials alone; thus explaining my chutzpa to second guess some of the undemocratically selected intellects given the power to spew their views in high profile bully pulpit-like environments, where they often go unopposed. Don't get me wrong, a brilliant well-educated individual is the ideal. However, this should in no way disenfranchise talented others with great input to offer (Walesa, Bono and Hannity as reference points). The very selective scrutinizing of my background by some highlights the hypocrisy on what passes as “credible.” Should I undertake a politically correct course, my credentials will not likely come into question. American Middle East “experts” Tom Friedman, Judith Miller and Daniel Pipes aren't second-guessed even though they can't speak Arabic, Turkish or Farsi. Newsday's Roy Gutman won a Pulitzer Award for covering the wars in former Yugoslavia from the side of the Serb adversaries. Gutman achieved this despite not having a formal education in Balkan history and politics, along with his not knowing Serbo-Croat. The media and body politic are tainted by the not so talented achieving professional stature via dirty politics which periodically promotes such individuals to glamorous positions where they prosper under shielded conditions. What highly acclaimed academic work has American Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice had? What made her stand out as a Stanford University provost? In her appearances on panel discussions dealing with Russia (her field of expertise), when was Rice ever seriously challenged? For all of my apparent shortcomings, in the early 1990s, I had seven letters of mine published within a two year span in The New York Times. It was music to my ears when several academics noted to me how a letter in The New York Times is on par with getting an article published in a “lesser” paper and that the success ratio I had was well above average for a renowned personality in the field of Russian studies (perhaps this is a sad commentary on the state of such purported expertise). The short-lived Russia-friendly environment immediately after the Cold War led to Russocentric views being suddenly welcomed. My success at getting published in The New York Times was due in large part to its American readerships’ unfamiliarity with Russocentric commentary. This is because the anti-Russian slant had the upper hand (as it still does). I kind of cornered the market. Thanks to my Columbia University educated Russocentric father (a remarkable man who lived history and studied it), there're pro-Russian missives I know about which are probably not known by the more Russia-friendly of American academics. The American media elites eventually soured on Russia for two main reasons. The divisive proposal to expand NATO at Russia's exclusion (care of the anti-Russian lobby) and Washington officialdom's misguided view that the Serbs (who Russia was somewhat allied with) were the overwhelming bad guys in the Bosnian Civil War. Some ugly commentary blamed Russia and Russians for Communism's negative aspects, while pretending that others (notably Poland and Hungary) were history’s innocents. The Russia-haters saw the Slavic Orthodox Christian Serbs as miniature Russians who could be stomped on unlike the real McCoy. Added to that was the Machiavellian attempt to reach out towards worldwide Islamic sympathies (for the Bosnian Muslims) at the expense of the Serbs, who possessed no significant lobbying clout and conducted themselves poorly in communicating their cause. The Russian military action in Chechnya was utilized as a propaganda tool, as shown by the number of Russia-bashers who are mum when it comes to the brutal manner in which Turkey has behaved towards the Kurds over the past thirty years. Whereas Chechnya (in the last decade) was twice given great cultural and political autonomy, the same can't be said of the Turkish-occupied Kurds at any point in history. It's absurd for Zbigniew Brzezinski, Fareed Zakaria and William Safire (among others) to laud Turkey as a “democracy,” while proclaiming that Russia isn't. Even more bogus is the way establishment media talk-show hosts like Charlie Rose don't challenge this skewed stance. With the Russia-friendly mood of the early nineties reversed, my Russocentric commentary was no longer as welcomed by The New York Times. The advent of the Internet hasn't leveled the playing field. Most Americans still rely on sources like NPR, the BBC, Washington Post and CNN for news and analysis about Russia. The naive supposition being that these are credible venues not likely to distort as much as some relative unknown. The likes of Yulia Latynina, Yevgenia Albats, Anna Politkovskaya, Pavel Felgenhauer and Dmitri Trenin get plenty of play in Anglo-American mainstream media and the “suppressed” Russian variant. In Anglo-American mainstream media, they're demagogically portrayed as “dissidents” for incessantly providing commentary that's critical of Russia and its president. Truth be told, the American-based Russocentric observer who believes that Putin is doing a good job is the greater dissident. Back in December, I sarcastically listed myself as “President of Ukraine” on the tagline which appeared under my moniker for every New York Times forums post of mine. With the Ukrainian presidency now resolved (albeit imperfectly), I update my sarcasm with a proposal for “revolution” in Belarus with yours truly as president. This occurrence would be a propaganda disaster for George Soros and Zbigniew Brzezinski. My state-controlled media would regularly cover the flaws in Western media and invite the likes of Soros and Brzezinski on television for live unedited debate with me. Should they chicken out, this would be openly noted. I would also establish a fund for newly created NGOs to promote a furthering of political pluralism and press freedom in the U.S. and other countries in dire need for such. Michael Averko SOVIET STYLE JOURNALISM IN THE "FREE" PRESS http://english.intelligent.ru I not so fondly recall the Public Broadcasting System's Monday January 24th NewsHour segment on Ukraine featuring a brief film background, followed by host Gwen Eifil's carte blanche treatment accorded to Ukrainian orange activist Taras Kuzio, who was introduced as a visiting fellow at George Washington University and a monitor at the recent presidential elections in Ukraine. This mild introduction of Kuzio covers up his extreme orange advocacy. Having election observers like him give an unchallenged perspective on his findings is like having a referee call a game, where he/she has a direct rooting interest in one of the two teams. At an earlier CSPAN televised “Project for the New American Century” gathering featuring the Polish nationalist likes of Radek Sikorski and Zbigniew Brzezinski – Kuzio appeared with an orange scarf. Needles to say, there were no opposition views at that PNAC orgy of anti-Russian advocates. Much on par with what mainstream America has seen on the PBS NewsHour features dealing with Ukraine and Russia over the past few months. Whether at the BBC or NewsHour, Kuzio's modus operandi as biased Yushchenko supporter is rarely if ever challenged in the very managed segments he has appeared on. Kuzio easily gets away with the heavily skewed image of thuggish, anti-democratic pro-Moscow forces against freedom-loving orange supporters. Missing from his Potemkin Village are the circumspect Yushchenko-supporting oligarchs like Yulia Tymoshenko (repackaged as "maverick" activists) as well as the neo-Nazi support the orange candidate received and accepted from groups like UNSO in western Ukraine. It's not as if the NewsHour hasn't been petitioned to provide even-handed journalism on this topic. Beside myself, I know of one other person who did such. Weeks prior to Kuzio's above-mentioned appearance, that other individual received a reply from the NewsHour to suggest analysts with opposing views from Kuzio. A detailed reply with suggestions was submitted (if necessary, I can provide further details on this). The NewsHour segment referred to above shows a film clip of Yushchenko's parliamentary entrance for inauguration as president. The moderator in the background said there was great enthusiasm for him there. Oh really? Others noted how many in the Rada (parliament) stood in stone cold silence, as a sign of non-support for Yushchenko. The film clip shown sure seemed to indicate such. Thereafter and completely unchallenged, Kuzio calmly went into a barrage of questionable (putting it mildly) claims, where Russia was caricatured as an illegitimate state run by dubious interests. No mention made of how Vladimir Putin's tenure as Russian president has seen a decline in the role of oligarchs in government. Unlike Kuzio, and rather ironically, Yulia Tymoshenko (herself an oligarch) applauded Putin on this very point in a recent Moscow Times article. Just one example of how the American masses viewing the NewsHour were getting subconsciously duped by an extreme wing of the orange coalition. Another beauty was Kuzio downplaying the importance of Russo-Ukrainian cooperation and his propping the otherwise farfetched notion (at least for the immediate future) of Ukrainian entry into the so called “European Union,” which does not at present include Europe's largest nation in population and land mass (Russia). Never mind just how socio-economically interwoven Russia and Ukraine are with each other. It must annoy Kuzio that the very open Russian-Ukrainian border isn't a modern-day version of Checkpoint Charlie. Without any foundation presented or asked for, Kuzio suggested that Russia played a direct role in Yushchenko getting poisoned. Weeks earlier on the same program, Kuzio parroted the orange propaganda about Russian special forces said to be present in Kiev to crush dissent. These statements remind me of two respected Russia watchers, who recommended I tone down my rhetoric. Such are the double standards. Perhaps Tymoshenko poisoned Yushchenko for the Machiavellian purpose of starting a Reichstag fire. On the matter of Ukraine joining NATO, Kuzio and Eifil completely ignored Tymoshenko's recent statement in the previously mentioned Moscow Times article about how Ukraine should only join NATO when Russia does. Tymoshenko said this because pro-Russian sentiment in Ukraine remains high. Kuzio and Eifil overlooked this because it didn't fit the blatantly anti-Russian spin of that segment. Therein lies the ongoing imbalance of American mainstream commentary on Russia. Passionately anti-Russian commentary gets the nod with just as passionately pro-Russian advocacy getting politically censored. Michael Averko STEPHEN COHEN: MAINSTREAMING FOR THE ELITES http://english.intelligent.ru How the media covers a topic can often make for a more intriguing story than the covered subject itself. “Self-censorship” is the term used by the Anglo-American media elites when describing the supposed state of contemporary Russian media. Quite ironic (putting it mildly), given the sort of misinformation regularly peddled in the “free” (for those who can afford to influence it) press. I was at a party recently among some of my upper-middle-class politically interested American friends when the matter of Russia and NYU History Professor/CBS News Consultant Stephen Cohen were mentioned. A somewhat surprising occurrence since Russia no longer commands the attention of a good many Americans. As a result, less time is focused on that topic, with Americans more prone to looking elsewhere for global intrigue. This decrease in following Russian events only serves to further nurture the continued large-scale ignorance about Russia. As a means of promoting a greater interest in Russia, it often seems as if some of the leading professional Russia-watchers engage in a sensationalistic presentation, where Russia is negatively portrayed to the delight of some influential anti-Russian interests. Peter Lavelle, Robert Bruce Ware, Edward Lozansky and Ira Straus receive good to excellent marks from mainstream Russian academics familiar with how Russia is covered in the American mass media. Make no mistake about it, their views are very much muted in the U.S. These gentlemen are primarily seen at relatively obscure venues like Johnson's Russia List (a very good academic source of information about Russia that isn't so well known among the American masses). By himself, Stephen Cohen has been on American television much more than the combined appearances of Lavelle, Ware, Lozansky and Straus. In a sea of Russia-hating ideologues and those subconsciously duped by them, Cohen often stands out as the designated “softie” on Russia. His slant, though, appears noticeably different from Messrs. Lavelle, Ware, Lozansky and Straus. Call it mainstreaming, to please what the top media/political elites prefer. Too bad if those conflicting realities are left out. In 2002, there was an instance when “the paper of record” (The New York Times) published the like-minded analyses of Yevgenia Albats, Masha Gessen and Anna Politkovskaya within a 13 day period. There was no published criticism of those views at that venue. Politically, those three are very much on the fringe of Russian society. Put simply, their views are likely to be readily accepted by anti-Russian elements and detested by Russia-friendly advocates. Having their minority views disproportionately propped up in The New York Times sends a clear message to the rest of American mass media on how Russia is to be covered. Very often, other American news outlets take their cue from the slant of The New York Times. A point noted on the somewhat respectable Fox News Watch show which critiques media coverage. Stephen Cohen is a man of great intellect. Dr. Cohen remains the fairest of America's most frequently seen talking-head Russia experts. Rather tragically, he periodically spirals downward, saying some pretty pc things about Russia that are warped upon critical review. Cohen's Jekyll and Hyde moments are nowhere near the about-face lunacy of one time progressive turned left wing neo-conservative Christopher Hitchens. Cohen still makes enlightened points that many of his peers don't. A couple of his less than perfect observations have yet to be critiqued. In The Moscow Times, Cohen had an article stating that Russian tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky could never become Russian president because of his Jewish background. He repeated this claim during an appearance on the PBS Charlie Rose Show. Cohen thus engages in a crude caricaturing of Russia, overlooking numerous particulars. Skilled propagandists are adept at mixing fact with fiction for the purpose of creating a certain image for popular consumption. Yes, Jews have collectively had instances of misfortune in Russia (as elsewhere). However, to play on that in a manner ignoring the positives is nothing short of demagoguery. In the over two-hundred-year political history of the United States, there have been no American presidents or vice presidents of known Jewish background. In the short political history of post-Soviet Russia, there have been three Russian prime ministers of Jewish heritage, including the current one (Mikhail Fradkov). Over the past several years, migration from Israel to Russia is around 50,000, whereas migration from Russia to Israel is about 10,000. In all probability, Jews have intermarried more with Russian Gentiles than with any other European group. Factoids like these aren't advertised in Anglo-American mainstream media because they go against the Brzezinskiite and neo-conservative picture of Russia as a growing authoritarian cesspool under the evil Vladimir Putin. The responsible analysis from Cohen would have been an addendum to his statement about Jews having a troubled past in Russia. Notably, that such problems aren't exclusively indicative of Russia itself. A great interconnect would be noting how many African-Americans are patriotically proud of the United States, despite the great hardships that community has faced. Likewise, I have run into my share of Russian Jews who have been offended by unfair comments directed against Russia. It could be legitimately argued that within the comparative realms of Russian and American societies, Jews have had it better in Russia when compared to Blacks in the U.S. Especially vulgar were the appearances of Cohen on Charlie Rose, CNN, CBS and MSNBC around the time of the Beslan tragedy. In all of these segments, Cohen uncritically stated how the Chechen hostage-takers say that the Russians kill their children. Imagine a Cohen-like pundit on American television discussing the Israeli killing of Palestinians just after the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. In more recent times, that spin is on par with a pundit casually connecting America's support for oppressive regimes in the middle east to 9/11. American conservative and liberal media elites staunchly denounce such commentary. It has reached a point now where Leon Aron of the American Enterprise Institute and Dimitri Simes of the Nixon Center are with Cohen the most Russia-and Putin-friendly of American mainstream talking-head Russia pundits. Over the past couple of years, Aron and Simes haven't been getting much play in the media of CNN, NPR, BBC, WP, WSJ and NYT. Michael Averko Notes: Yevgenia Albats article of Saturday 10/26/02 http://query.nytimes.com/search/abst...archive:search Masha Gessen article of Friday 11/1/02 http://query.nytimes.com/search/abst...archive:search Anna Politkovskaya article of Friday 11/8/02 http://query.nytimes.com/search/abst...archive:search Cohen article in TMT http://www.themoscowtimes.com/storie...11/12/006.html PUTIN REEXAMINED http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/8375-25.cfm Anglo-American mass media's shamefully one sided commentary and reporting of Russian President Vladimir Putin's proposed changes for Russia's political system overlooks several realities. Ironic how this very same media has the gall to assert that Russian media isn't open. As a mater of fact, Russian media is filled with plenty criticism about the Russian president, with much of it being unfair. The mantra of condemnation of Putin is grossly hypocritical. Even if his proposal takes effect, Russia will remain far more democratic than Saudi Arabia and Communist China. In relation to the Bush administration's criticism of the Putin proposal, where is the similarly stated opposition to the regimes in Riyadh and Beijing (the same can be asked of Anglo-American mass media)? The answer lies with the economic ties that Washington has with those two countries. Especially pathetic is the suggestion found in neo-conservative circles of punishing Russia with sanctions. U.S.-Russia trade is insignificant as is, unlike Russia's trade with Asia and Europe. Contrary to the imagery found in much of Anglo-American mass media, it's not only Putin's inner circle desiring his proposal in Russia. It could be said that it isn't actually his own and that he has caved in to popular opinion. The Russian population and body politic at large show support and little opposition to the proposal. All this is muted because Anglo-American mass media often props some dissenting Russian political minority, while muting out the more mainstream Russian perspectives. This is on par with having the fringe American Socialist Workers' Party reflecting the U.S. with the views of the Republican and Democratic parties shelved. This kind of slanting does little to reflect reality. Since the Soviet breakup, the Russian republics having the most autonomy from Moscow (like Kalmykia and Tatarstan, as well as Chechnya when it had broad autonomy) are also the most authoritarian and corrupt, thereby debunking the faulty notion that less centralized authority automatically transcends into greater human rights. It's astonishing how many Anglo-American analysts overlook this point. The American South's clamoring for "states' rights" was a veiled attempt to better enact discriminatory measures against Blacks. Likewise, Yugoslav dictator Tito's granting of autonomy to Kosovo in 1974, resulted in the increased discrimination of non-Albanians in that south Serb province. The Russian citizenry generally welcome Putin's proposal of more centralized governance as a means of making local leaders more accountable. The local leaders in turn welcome it because the Kremlin will be held more responsible when screw-ups occur. Many of these local leaders also correctly see themselves as individuals who Putin is more likely to trust over untested upstarts. Putin didn't inherit a Jeffersonian democracy. Try as they may to be open minded, many Anglo-American analysts subconsciously apply their own political upbringing to the Russian experience. Other issues include the influence of extreme anti-Russian prejudices by some non-Russian commentators from eastern and central Europe as well as those indicted Russian oligarchs (namely Boris Berezovsky and Mikhail Khodorkovsky), who have made great financial donations to some groups involved in analyzing Russia. In America, there's no legitimate denying that the anti-Russian view gets far greater emphasis over the Russia friendly view. Someone passionately pro-Russian as Zbigniew Brzezinski is passionately anti-Russian doesn't come close to getting the same consideration in American mass media, academia and body politic. Russia has been poor in making efforts to have its view positively portrayed in the U.S. Recently, Moscow seems aware of the need to better enhance its image abroad. Other foreign governments have been successful in employing the use of public relations firms to enhance their image in America. Such pr gamesmanship has its disingenuous aspects. For Russia to have a more positive image in America, it's perhaps a necessary evil. Michael Averko [Edited by mikeaverko on 3rd August 2005 at 19:19]
|
|
3rd August 2005, 15:23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The only real autonomy they had was from 1994-6. UN observers and Russian recognised the election of Aslan Maskhadov as free and fair. Like many countries that have become independent, Maskhadov faced a very unstable situation, which later culminated in him being unable to stop Shamil Basayev from invading Dagestan. But to invade Chechnya was the wrong reaction. Numerous times since the Republic of Ireland became independent, the IRA in its various guises bombed Britain and NI. Britain did not invade the Republic of Ireland. The ROI's government was not involved. If they had invaded the ROI, then we would have taught them lessons. I would like to ask a question: How do you people see this war in Chechnya ending? Do you accept that eventually negotiations are going to have to happen? The British negotiated with the IRA and the violence has stopped. The time for imperialism is long gone (in the West anyway). The longer this killing goes on for, the greater the risk of a wider war in the Caucasus. Remember the shoot-out in Nalchik in Kabardino-Balkaria and the brief seizure of the government buildings by rebels in Ingushetia. Considering about 20 million Muslims live in Russia, you could end up creating the beginnings of the breakup of Russia. Muslims tend to have a world view that says "an attack on one Muslim is an attack on all of us". It's dangerous to make an enemy of 1 billion Muslims worldwide. Beware.
|
|
4th August 2005, 12:29
|
|||
|
|||
|
A very unctuous reply on your part.
Chechnya twice had the greatest form of autonomy known worldwide. The Israeli occupied Pals and Kurds of Turkey have yet to come close to having such great political and cultural autonmy.
|
|
4th August 2005, 21:28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
They wouldn't be missing much. When I used to watch news on the Russian TV channel eventually I would end up yelling at the TV set. So I stopped watching. It's not (objective) news, but news with a Russian twist. For example, Ukrainian political "experts" and "insiders" who are invited to the Russian studios would be someone that wouldn't know how to spell "Ukraine" in Ukrainian and otherwise marginal politicians. Right now the presented Russian view of Ukraine is shaped by the tales of the current opposition. Another recent example of news rwporting- Russia published, that in the year, Ukraine has the highest inflation of the CIS countries. The only thing it implies is that Yu. is bad president. It was news site "Ukrainian Pravda" who pointed out that the year in question is not a calendar year but a year from summer 2004 to summer 2005- with half of this period belonging to Kuchma, half to Yuschenko. Now if we were to look at the inflation starting from January, guess which CIS country was found to have the highest inflation. (Answer starts with "R", ends with "ussia") [Edited by Mazepa on 6th August 2005 at 04:32]
|
|
4th August 2005, 21:54
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Chechnya twice had the greatest form of autonomy known worldwide."
Are you talking about Alu Alkhanov and Akhmad Kadyrov? The presidential election in Chechnya was so democratic the OSCE refused an invitation to monitor it.
|
|
5th August 2005, 02:26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy, Russia
|
 |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Linear Mode
