Disgusting behavior from the US President and the UK PM.

Feeling KJ's passion. Well said/done KJ... Wish I had the ability to convey as much through a second language. Bravo... Have learned more here than could through other means.

Pardon if this sways a tad from main discussion. But it was raised, so fair game:

Am curious as to how Finland is crowned #1 in freedom of press (saw the link). Every country puts a spin on things...Maybe just list Russia at 148, but putting Finland at 1 was rubbing it in. lol. Would like to see how that came aboot. Maybe start a new thread, 'cause that would be a good one.

 

All of the top 10 are small countries with well open media and freedoms, defamation laws are restricted, with New Zealand leading the Anglosaxon countries.

1. Finland
2. Netherlands
3. Norway
4. Luxembourg
5. Andorra
6. Liechtenstein
7. Denmark
8. Iceland
9. New Zealand
10. Sweden
16. Ireland
18. Canada
28. Australia
33. UK

It is based partly on a questionnaire that is sent to partner organizations (18 freedom of expression NGOs located in all five continents), to a network of 150 correspondents, and to journalists, researchers, jurists and human rights activists.
Using a system of weighting for each possible response, countries are given a score of between 0 and 100 for each of the six overall criteria. These scores are then used as indicators in calculating each country’s final score.

Pluralism [indicator Plu]
- Measures the degree to which different opinions are represented in the media
Media independance [indicator Ind]
- Measures the degree to which the media are able to function independently of the authorities
Environment and self-censorship [indicator EnA]
- Analyses the environment in which journalists work
Legislative framework [indicator CaL]
- Analyses the quality of the legislative framework and measures its effectiveness
Transparency [indicator Tra]
- Measures the transparency of the institutions and procedures that affect the production of news and information
Infrastructure [indicateur Inf]
- Measures the quality of the infrastructure that supports the production of news and information


Reporters Without Borders meanwhile calculates a score of between 0 and 100 reflecting the level of violence against journalists during the period considered. The score is based on the monitoring carried out by RWB’s own staff. The longer a journalist, netizen or media assistant is imprisoned, the more this imprisonment penalizes the country concerned.

http://rsf.org/index2014/data/2014_wpfi_methodology.pdf

They had this to say about the US:
"In the United States, 9/11 spawned a major conflict between the imperatives of national security and the principles of the constitution’s First Amendment. This amendment enshrines every person’s right to inform and be informed. But the heritage of the 1787 constitution was shaken to its foundations during George W. Bush’s two terms as president by the way journalists were harassed and even imprisoned for refusing to reveal their sources or surrender their files to federal judicial officials."
"There has been little improvement in practice under Barack Obama. Rather than pursuing journalists, the emphasis has been on going after their sources, but often using the journalist to identify them. No fewer that eight individuals have been charged under the Espionage Act since Obama became president, compared with three during Bush’s two terms."
" Amid an all-out hunt for leaks and sources, 2013 will also be the year of the Associated Press scandal, which came to light when the Department of Justice acknowledged that it had seized the news agency’s phone records."

 

A humble thanks for your kind words!

Am (not too...) sorry, that I could not resist the temptation to include Finland too... ;-)
However the point was not the nr 1 place of Finland but the nr 148 place of Russia - in comparison with the placings of the largest Western countries.

Green Slime already did a great job of explaining the background of that list of the freedom of press. Am pleased that we could "beat" the Kiwis in something for a change... ;-)

 

Man, I would have thought we in Australia had much more of a free press than number 28! And that New Zealand, of all nations, should be in the top 10 as our neighbour and most trusted friend! Journalistic standards in this country have taken a huge nosedive in my lifetime. We used to be just like the BBC, even speak like them.

Now, our journalists are too busy licking the boots of rich businessmen and industrialists, slavering over movie and screen stars and providing free publicity for them, and contributing to the general deterioration of the manner in which the english language is spoken, by generous use of 'slang', something a good journalist should never do, turning the common vernacular into something that cutsey television journalists bandy about. And the journalists used to be professionals in their thirties before they even got a sniff of television or radio. Now it's all make up and hairstyle, and big tits and arse for the cameras.

Whoops, off topic. Poppy is right, this would have made a pretty good thread on its own.

 

OK. I'll buy that. You've made it back to caps status GS. Nice work.

 

It looks like only northern hemisphere countries with small populations make the top ten. Feel free to speculate.

 

I'd go further and state that the list is dominated by liberal democracies with relatively small populations, a history of stability and clear national identity. Thus, few burning issues of "national interest" outside their borders, and few perceived threats internal or external.

(It's harder to get further south than New Zealand)

 

I wouldn't be surprised that if you looked at the actual scores the first dozen or so were extremely close.

It looks like the big hit the US takes is due to a debate as to whether or not journalist should be able to shelter possible criminals. I can see arguments on both sides of this (and indeed I think I have).

 

Since Russian sources are unreliable here are American ones.

This interview was taken in Germany.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/09/former-u-s-ambassador-ussr-u-s-nato-provoking-ukrainian-crisis.html

Another one with a famous US senator...

http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccain-meets-oleh-tyahnybok-in-ukraine-2013-12

 

Indeed.

And they are both interesting articles. Thanks for sharing.

I have some comments, however... (come on, you knew I would!)

Ukraine was never offered NATO membership. It still isn't. Furthermore membership in the EU, and membership in NATO are two different things altogether. Something which the Russian leadership is well aware, but doesn't appear to like to inform people about. (Norway: NATO Member, not a member of the EU, Sweden, EU member, not a member of NATO).

Russia herself expressed interest in NATO partnership, none other than by Putin himself, but this was back when the Russian economy was in much worse shape. It's natural for people to seek mutual protection with like-minded. It's also natural to want to determine their own future (self determination). So whatever was agreed upon 23 years ago, in a mutual understanding, can be said to be somewhat passé when world developments have changed, and most of the former "Communist" dictatorship states have given way to democracies, some of them struggling. Many with very bad collective memories from Communist and Soviet misrule (some of which may be justified). And, fairly or not, in the eyes of many of the inhabitants of these countries, Russia bears the responsibility for these injustices.

So while the Russian position is understandable (encroaching into it's "sphere of interest", if one accepts that premise), its current actions are not justified. This is not a Cold War situation. Europe is not out to humiliate Russia, nor spread fascism. There was still enormous amounts of space for dialogue to take place. EU membership takes a long time to implement, and the EU is well known to procrastinate. Firstly, they'd even have to apply formerly. So Russian reaction was a tad premature. Sort of like a three year old having a paddy "just in case". Except people are dying.

Secondly, right-wing movements are making gains across the world. The Ukraine is not special in this regard. The fascist-inclined "Swedish Democrats" (not to be confused with the "Social Democrats") is looking to get 10% of the vote in the next election (in less than two weeks). As a visiting politician, you don't get to dismiss other people from the stage. How aware are you of the exact political alignment of people you met? Considering the electorate polls, two people in the room I'm currently in are going to vote Swedish Democrat, and on the floor of the building, at least 15, but I've no idea who. Iran's Khatami shook hands with Israeli President Moshe Katsav at the Pope's funeral. Shit happens.

Putin has met unsavoury characters:

Alexander Lukashenko aka "Europe's last dictator":
"The history of Germany is a copy of the history of Belarus. Germany was raised from ruins thanks to firm authority and not everything connected with that well-known figure Hitler was bad. German order evolved over the centuries and attained its peak under Hitler."

Iranian Ahmedinejad, who is a Holocaust denier.

Chinese and North Korean dictators. Don't tell me there weren't unsavory characters around at those meetings.

Saudi "royalty". Harbouring deviants and fanatics of all kinds, and suffering severe repression this place is a veritable minefield. Never mind Fascism, this is Medieval Justice at its best.

Even the Swedish King, for the love of God...

(Image is of a coin released into circulation by an artist, imitating the Swedish 1 crown, but with the text in Swedish stating roughly translated "Our Whoremongering King")

The point being; if you travel, and are on a political stage, you're going to meet unsavoury characters. Sometimes you just have to bite the bullet, smile and open the dialogue in order to achieve the results you need.

 

Finally, I would like to remind Sloniksp, that earlier in '91, that the KGB leader Vladimir Kryuchkov was saying publicly that he believed the CIA was manipulating Gorbachov.

Its the same nightmare fantasies every Russian leader imposes on opponents that don't agree with their reasoning or conclusions.

 

Green Slime already did an excellent job (again) in responding to your post. I still want to add my input...

- NATO is not seeking expansion to the East - nor does it especially want it
- at the same time NATO, as a democratic defence organization of democratic countries, does not want to stop any country applying for it's membership, if that country meets the criteria
- it's not NATO's fault, that so many countries want to get protection from NATO. Maybe Russia should ask herself why...
- the last thing NATO wants is to let an outsider, such as Russia, to decide which country can join and which can't
- the very fact that Russia is telling not to, might lead to the granting of NATO memberships to countries, which the rest of the members would not even want to join otherwise!

- unfortunately also the Western politicians have to meet all kind of weird and bad people - even Putin...
- it does not mean, that they shared their views
- unlike Putin and his gang would like us to believe, the right wing parties are a small minority in Ukrainian politics without any real power, just like in many other European countries

 

Over a week old but a good acount of what's going on in the Ukraine:
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/russia/articles/20140901.aspx

 

Now this is a post worth responding to. A well thought out post with no rhetoric or demonizing.

The question that Mr. Matlock poses is why expand NATO? Where are NATOs bounds? Is the whole world going to be NATO? NATO was created to counter the Soviet Union, it is an anti Russian alliance. Russia is unnerved by the notion that an anti Russian alliance is again
Surrounding her.....

As Mr. Matlock put it, why hasn't NATO reassured Russia that Ukraine will NOT be a member? Not to mention that many in Ukraine don't want to be a member (hence the current problem).

Russia sees the Ukraine military coupe as Americas doing (unfortunately there is more evidence to back that up than not). I think it is important to convince Russia that she has nothing to worry about. How this can be done I do not know but it needs to be done. If one thing can be take out of Russian history is that Russia will never allow herself to be bullied. This is exactly what Mr. Matlock meant when stating that Russia's reaction was predictable and the fact that the leaders today were unable to see that is a bit scary.

Russia does not want to conquer Ukraine. What she wants is a stable non-NATO neighbor and anything and everything is on the table in order to accomplish that

Let's hope for all of our sakes such will not occur.

Cheers

 

Lol about Gorbachev I don't know, but the U.S. Did have a big role to play in Yeltsins victory. There was even a movie made about it here in te states unfortunately the name escapes me.

 

Slonik...

I really object to you slagging my posts off as DEMONIZING. This is something Russian imaginations do all on their own.

Fact...if you don't want the rest of Europe and a lot of the world seeing your country as agressive, stop what you are doing, turn around, and GTF out of the Ukraine. No need for ME to demonize anything.

Secondly, I think you'd better go back to your english dictionary and find out exactly what rhetoric is. For the uninitiated, it's making statements, factual or otherwise, that cannot be argued with. It's an art, but your politicians make it look like a necessity when dealing with foriegn affairs.

stop dodging the flak. This is YOUR thread. You are the one trying to convince everyone else of the righteousness of the Russian 'cause'.

there you are....not a bit of rhetoric, or demonizing. And I bet you don't reply anyway.

 

You quoted..."What (Russia) wants, is a stable non-NATO nieghbour, and she has everything on the table to achieve that."

What a bunch of @#$%!

Who are the Russians to decide whether their neighbours will be non-Nato or not? Surely this is something up to the Ukrainians themselves to determine? Not some school bully with nuke weapons, throwing it's weight around. If you wish a non-NATO neighbour, why not stick to your own affairs, stop meddling in other country's political dealings, and set a damned example for others to follow.

Or is this too much to ask? Historically speaking, it probably is

Just as an afterthought, if your neighbours were all non-NATO, it would leave the door open for the Russian military to carry on however it pleased, and no possibility of outside help from those non-aligned. What a wonderful utopia for your President to expand into. Makes your neighbours far easier to kick around, doesn't it?

Has the thought occurred to any of you in the pro-moscow camp that the very reason countries like the ukrain clamour for NATO inclusion is to protect themselves against their nieghbours, mostly from Moscow, imposing their military and economic policies on countries like the Ukraine that want nothing to do with them?

You people don't derserve to be a nuclear power. You haven't the restraint nor the political maturity to deal with owning them. They are just toys for your government to blackmail concessions out of.

No rhetoric there either. And the demonization comes from Moscow. so reply to that. Of course you won't!

BTW...note the word POLITE, and it's similarity to POLITICS. So, by definition, "Politics is the art of being polite to one another". We in the west gave up on all that Clausewitz tosh a long time ago. But Russia still believes that "War is state politic by other means." Get with the program, modernize and stop living in the late 1940s, Oh I forgot, that was when the Maximum Leader was still alive, and every Russian could hold his head up hifgh with a meglomaniac in charge.

I see the present meglomaniac tested another missile today. What gall, and in the middle of a ceasefire as well. Just toys for your government, eh?

 

In the Cuban Missile Crises, Kennedy and the USA correctly objected to the presence on Cuba of Soviet Strategic Weapons. The Russian view of NATO expansion into Ukraine is broadly analagous to that earlier example. The Ukraine has never been a Western European interest; it's EAST of Poland and clearly within the Russian sphere of influence.
My worry is that we may place ourselves in direct confrontation to Russia due to the lack of experience and guile of our current political leaders.

 

'Sphere of Influence' eh?

Have you ever thought, just for a second, that the Ukrainian view may well be that Russia is in THEIR 'sphere of influence"....they are a Nuke power after all.

Why should the Ukraine tow the Moscow line simply because they are nieghbours? Have you not heard of 'self determination', 'freedom from unwarranted and unwanted influence', concepts that these Ukrainians have suffered famines, and invasions, and political bullying for.

and they have had enough of Moscow, and simply want to be free to be Ukrainian, and to build a government of the people by the people and for the people, so that they shall not perish from the Earth. for pitys sake Richard, your from wales. The Welsh know all about the very reasons the ukrainians are fighting now. The Welsh should identify very nicely with the urge to run your own affairs, free of influence you neither sought, nor encouraged.

Mr Putin says 'we will protect you', they don't subscribe to his point of view,
Believe them when they say to you,
They hope the Russians love their Children, too.

God preserve the Republic of the Ukraine.

 

You must change the date on your Iphone or watch or whatever you use, today is the 12th of September 2014 not 1914!