Quote: (02-23-2014 12:28 PM)Roosh Wrote:
Let me put it this way: if the Washington Post was owned by the US Government, what part of that article you shared would be changed to better represent US interests in a way that wouldn't cause readers to suspect they're being deceived? Probably nothing. Just like how RT articles are Russian propaganda, using the Post or Times to get your analysis ensures you will get a very biased view of what's going on. Check out earlier links in this thread for sources that are more in the middle and closer to the reality.
I appreciate the analysis but I think we just have different ways of looking at news information. I didn't think of the Wapo article as a propaganda piece. I felt the article's message was "despite the transformation that has taken place in Kiev, other parts of Ukraine are by no means on board with the protesters."
I think the focus on Crimea shed many significant facts about that region and why it's going to be important as developments take place elsewhere in Ukraine. I didn't get the sense that Russia was subtly being cast as villainous, but that the mentioning of Russian interests is necessary when discussing Crimea. As the article pointed out, Crimea is a majority ethnic Russian population, geographically very close to Russia, has a Russian military base, and belonged to Russia up until 1954.
Whether or not the writer of the article - or the publication - happens to serve American interests is not particularly important to me given the message I gleaned from the article was generally broad and factual. I doubt many people regardless of their POV would disagree that Crimea's population is largely unsympathetic to the protesters in Kiev and that it will have an important role to play for where Ukraine goes from here.
In fact, I welcome the US perspective on the events in Ukraine given that the US is generally the most dominant and influential global player in world events. So, it's always good to know what the pov from that angle is because the US is definitely going HAM when it comes to pursuing its interests.
Also, I've seen posters all throughout this thread making the same points as the Wapo article about how Crimea will be different from what has transpired in Kiev.
But I don't get all my news from one source at all. I just thought the Wapo article set some good context about Crimea and how that region is distinct from the changes taking place in the west.
I also think Yanuk's being cast as a victim is ridiculous. The man is clearly a shrewd politician who overplayed his hand, drawing the ire of both Russia (which deeply distrusts him) and the West alike. He masterfully played both of them against each other while not carrying out either of their interests as they had hoped, enriching himself and his cronies all along.
I'd also be suspicious of reports that he's tried to leave the country. He still has strong power base in the east of the country and he might have a future in where Ukraine goes from here. Hard to know what exactly is going on behind the scenes or what his relationship to Russia is at the moment.
I think by and large this was a Ukrainian domestic issue, inevitable considering the country's history (independence from USSR, Orange Revolution, etc) but of course outsiders from all fronts supported their interests to the best of their ability.