dagblog - Comments for "Are the Kiev insurgents neo-nazis?"

Pretty well tips me over to

artappraiser — Thu, 27 Feb 2014 10:17:25 +0000

In reply to Are the Kiev insurgents neo-nazis?

Pretty well tips me over to believing Synder's version is far more accurate than Luhn's

http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2014/02/a-message-from-ukrainian.html

Especially given that Angry Arab is a proud extreme socialist (hence he often uses "comrade") and would not normally repost something that dissed the World Socialist website unless he believed it.

That said, the far right groups that were involved in the protests are going to cause trouble now, no doubt about it.

Always guaranteed to put an

artappraiser — Thu, 27 Feb 2014 10:12:42 +0000

In reply to You may or may not enjoy this

Always guaranteed to put an unusual spin on anything....

You may or may not enjoy this

EmmaZahn — Wed, 26 Feb 2014 02:06:14 +0000

In reply to Wary Stance From Obama on

You may or may not enjoy this take on that article:

Steve Sailer: iSteve: Violent overthrow of elected government = "Democracy"

I think you imagine too much

A Guy Called LULU — Wed, 26 Feb 2014 01:57:22 +0000

In reply to I was not in any way

I think you imagine too much power being given to a multi-administration career civil service officer like Nuland to execute her own rogue private policy decisions rather than gather and report her knowledge of her area of designation. When she started out working under Strobe Talbott during the Clinton administration and was placed in current position by Hillary Clinton, not exactly the neo-con faithful.

So, after Nuland reports back does she return and give the message she is told to deliver? And, regarding Clinton, there are a lot of folks who suggest she is quite a bit neocon-y

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/jacob-heilbrunn/hillary-clinton-neocon-...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/does-hillarys-silence-on-_b_...

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/is-hillary-clinton-neocon

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/22/1233066/-Hillary-Clinton-is-a-N...

The Obama administration is not Bush, and I fully believe they would not let her "do Bush," as the NYT article says.

Maybe correct but your faith in the New York times is a bit stronger than mine.

If you want to really understand wassup, I would suggest you should be more concerned with Malinowski than Nuland.

I really do want to understand wassup. Could you explain why I should pay more attention to the guy not yet on the job than to the person actually carrying out the diplomacy?

I just do not buy that things are always going to be as simple as "another Cheney conspiracy" forever in eternity, sorry.

I said above, "The one thing I am convinced of is that lots of reporters, pundits, and all propagandists portray such stories as being simply of one side versus one other and then ..." That was an apparently failed intention to say that I do not think anything about the opposing sides is simple.

... mho, you've got to get a handle on realities first to even be able to understand a conspiracy if there was one.

I try, oh my God how I try, but http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbst9_4-non-blondes-what-s-up_news

I was not in any way

artappraiser — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 22:25:57 +0000

In reply to From that NYTs article: On

I was not in any way purporting the Obama administration are major isolationists, they are not like "if they really want a relationship, we will still ignore them". Here's a great example no one is paying attention to:

Obama, Biden Meet with Georgian PM, Civil Georgia, Tbilisi / 25 Feb.'14 /

but note, from the article, they do not get into trumpeting anything that might stoke neo-conservative dreams of democracy promotion:

Meeting with the U.S. President was not announced beforehand; Georgian Foreign Minister Maia Panjikidze said that the meeting was pre-planned but not made public in advance upon request from the White House. “Of course we knew it in advance, but it was a request from the White House not to pre-announce details of scheduled meetings,” she said

Turned off by what he saw as Mr. Bush’s crusading streak and seared by the dashed hopes of the Arab Spring, Mr. Obama, aides said, was wary of being proactive in trying to change other societies, convinced that being too public would make the United States the issue and risk provoking a backlash. The difference, aides said, was not the goal but the methods of achieving it.

“These democratic movements will be more sustainable if they are seen as not an extension of America or any other country, but coming from within these societies,”

Did you also notice from the NYT article:

One of the strongest advocates for democracy promotion in Mr. Obama’s circle has been Michael A. McFaul, first the president’s Russia adviser and then ambassador to Moscow. But Mr. McFaul is stepping down. Mr. Obama’s nominee for the assistant secretary of state who oversees democracy programs, Tom Malinowski, has been languishing since July waiting for Senate confirmation.

If you want to really understand wassup, I would suggest you should be more concerned with Malinowski than Nuland.

I just do not buy that things are always going to be as simple as "another Cheney conspiracy" forever in eternity, sorry. I really think it leads to misunderstanding by even approaching things that way.

If you're going to talk about biased journalism, then I will give my opinion that I think a lot of the sources you seem to like to frequent as "alternative" sources to MSM are actually driven by a desire to not let go of Bush derangement syndrome, since it was the source of their claim to fame while Bush was around, which got them their readers, and they just can't let go, can't widen their vision to see a different picture and paradigm, bypassing new and different threats which might also alarm them if they weren't so fixated on old narratives. Like, a meeting with the Georgian government that was actually held and where actual real policies and initiatives were discussed, not some supposed conspiracy with an Asst. Sec. of State with neo-con sympathies going rogue. Always hunting for conspiracies while ignoring reality is not a smart modus operandi, mho, you've got to get a handle on realities first to even be able to understand a conspiracy if there was one.

From that NYTs article: On

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 21:38:24 +0000

In reply to Wary Stance From Obama on

From that NYTs article:

On the ground has been Victoria Nuland, an assistant secretary of state who previously worked for Mr. Bush’s administration and is passionate about anchoring Ukraine in the West. A leaked recording of a conversation she had during the height of the events showed her discussing ways to bring the opposition into the government.

Maybe everything she discussed was just of a theoretical nature. Maybe, but how did they spend that five billion dollars 'promoting democracy in Ukraine" and was it all for high minded reasons? Has that been our consistent way of affecting governments in the past? All do-goodery?

The one thing I am convinced of is that lots of reporters, pundits, and all propagandists portray such stories as being simply of one side versus one other and then for the justification for taking sides they paint one side as good and the other as evil-bad. I think there is more than one string being pulled and the resulting puppet dance is hard to interpret.

Here is what Max Blumenthal says.

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/us-backing-neo-nazis-ukraine...

Wary Stance From Obama on

artappraiser — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 19:42:47 +0000

In reply to Are the Kiev insurgents neo-nazis?

Wary Stance From Obama on Ukraine
By Peter Baker, New York Times, Feb. 24/25, 2014

While George W. Bush was inspired by Ukraine’s 2004 revolution, Barack Obama has approached the unrest of 2014 with a more clinical detachment aimed at avoiding instability.

I did not have an advance copy of this article when I made similar comments upthread, I swear.

I've been to the Prospekt,

Peter Schwartz — Sun, 23 Feb 2014 03:06:08 +0000

In reply to Keeerect, (step aside as the

I've been to the Prospekt, too.

I was studying Russian in high school back in the late 60s, and our teacher arranged a trip to the USSR. Brezhnev's time. We were located in this resort on the Finnish Gulf outside of the Leningrad and took side trips to Novgorod, Moscow, and our choice of Georgia or Tashkent/Samarkand, which is what I took.

A few weird tales...it was all amazing to my young eyes.

Keeerect, (step aside as the

jollyroger — Sun, 23 Feb 2014 00:37:19 +0000

In reply to I was in Novgorod. It has a

Keeerect, (step aside as the duck descends with your $50.00)

As a bonus,Alexander Nevsky

Edit to add: Mel Gibson, eat you cheesy heart out...

I was in Novgorod. It has a

Peter Schwartz — Sun, 23 Feb 2014 00:19:31 +0000

In reply to Because the world needs it

I was in Novgorod. It has a Kremlin and was a former capital of Russia.