Civil war in Ukraine

[pmaitra]

Zakharchenko and Plotnitsky educating America about American history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGVG-sYKKLc

 

[pmaitra]

"Kiev should not expect military superiority"—Zakharchenko

Translated from Russian by J.Hawk

Donetsk, February 2, RIA Novosti. Kiev should not expect to gain military superiority over the militias of the people's republics, Aleksandr Zakharchenko said on Monday.

"If Poroshenko thinks that his army can compete with ours, let him see how quickly we took Uglegorsk," said Poroshenko, appearing before journalists together with the head of the LPR, Igor Plotnitskiy.

"They are throwing into battle untrained reservists who can't even tell the business end of a rifle. We have high morale, we have lived here, we live here now, and will continue to do so, this is our land," added Zakharchenko.

He reminded that, in view of another wave of Ukrainian mobilization, DPR and LPR made a decision to start the recruitment of volunteers into the militia, and called on the people of Ukraine to turn against the unnecessary war.

Translator's Note: Zakharchenko is not one to make offhanded comments, so the combination of the reminder how swiftly Uglegorsk was taken (the storming of Nikishino in another part of the Debaltsevo salient may have been intended to show Uglegorsk was nota fluke) and the announcement of the voluntary mobilization suggest that the days of standing pat and engaging in positional tit-for-tat may be coming to an end. Zakharchenko may be following the same negotiating strategy as Putin, which is "we can negotiate now, or we can negotiate later, under conditions less favorable to you." One should keep in mind that the first thing Zakharchenko did after the liberation of the Donetsk Airport was to"¦invite Poroshenko to meet him there, with the proviso that should that invitation be declined, another would eventually be tendered, but from a location closer to Kiev. The recent reports of the LPR combat aircraft being used for the first time similarly point to a possible transition to an offensive posture.

Now, the problem here is that Poroshenko is playing a so-called "two-level game", which is the equivalent of a chess player facing two opponents, on two different chessboards, and has to make the same move on each board. Given that chess is a strategy game, winning on one board all but guarantees losing on the other, which implies having to make a choice which board is the more important one. The players Poroshenko faces are Novorossia on one hand and the Right Sector/Kolomoysky/TerrBats on the other. However, there is no sign that Poroshenko had picked which game he is willing to sacrifice. But by shifting from one board to another, by trying to win both against Novorossia and against the Right Sector, he is actually increasing the possibility that he will lose both games. The unwillingness to fully close the Debaltsevo salient and transform it into a pocket may have been motivated by the desire to give Poroshenko the opportunity to put down the Right Sector decisively by using the UAF units in the salient. However, if Poroshenko is unwilling to use that opportunity and is continuing to treat Novorossia as an enemy comparable to the Right Sector, Novorossia may well return the favor.

 

[asianobserve]

I don't think Putin will let his ego come in the way of pragmatism.

His ego is a big hurdle in his pragmatism. Russia stands to benefit more with closeness to the West than antagonism. But Putin must realize that Russia is no longer the USSR and that it cannot demand to be given the same weight as the USSR. Russia is a small country compared to either Eu or the US with an economy that is smaller than California.

 

[sgarg]

His ego is a big hurdle in his pragmatism. Russia stands to benefit more with closeness to the West than antagonism. But Putin must realize that Russia is no longer the USSR and that it cannot demand to be given the same weight as the USSR. Russia is a small country compared to either Eu or the US with an economy that is smaller than California.

I am sure likes of Merkel have given enough lectures to Putin. The problem is not the advice like yours. The problem is the reality on the ground, where West continues to engages in actions hostile to security of Russia on a non-stop basis.

You are asking a man under fire to make peace with his killer.

War is a strange thing and economy does not always win. A sureshot prediction of outcome of war on the basis of economy is impossible.

Nuclear weapons has made war very expensive in current times. This is why the prediction is one-third of world population will die in WWIII.

 

[jouni]

Russians Must Say No to Isolation, Yes to Europe | Opinion | The Moscow Times

Moscow Times, Like New York Times or Indian Times is not afraid to maintain high and ethic journalistic values.


For starters, the West should explicitly deny any Russian claim to a right to interfere in the affairs of the EU and NATO. Ukraine should be embraced — even if Crimea and the Donbass are lost. A "new Marshall plan" should be rolled out, one that can transform Ukraine into a free, prosperous country that can join the EU and NATO, should it so desire.

Even more important, the West should make it clear that it extends its definition of Europe not just to Russia's borders, but across them. Russia should be acknowledged as an integral and natural part of Europe, and a country that might eventually join the EU. The grand strategy for the coming decades should be centered on a simple idea: Though Russia can never be allowed to influence Europe from outside, it will be welcome to gain a place of influence from within, if it accepts Europe's rules and norms

 

[pmaitra]

Russians Must Say No to Isolation, Yes to Europe | Opinion | The Moscow Times

Moscow Times, Like New York Times or Indian Times is not afraid to maintain high and ethic journalistic values.

Moscow Times is a Finnish newspaper masquerading as a Russian newspaper.

Times of India is not a Pakistani newspaper masquerading as an Indian newspaper.

Comparing Times of India with Moscow Times is like comparing an emerald with a green coloured glass.

You got it right in the comparison with NYT. Both Moscow Times and NYT write a load a gibberish.

Coming to ethics and journalistic values, wasn't it NYT that peddled lies about those aluminium tubes (WMDs in Iraq)?

 

[pmaitra]

"Europe's Soft Underbelly"--Ukraine Crisis in Geopolitical Perspective

By Yurasumy

Translated from Russian by J.Hawk

Who are NATO and EU, our partners or adversaries? THIRTY years ago one could instantly reply—adversaries. The most dangerous ones at that. However, hybrid wars introduced many new factors into the art of war. Therefore today the answer to that questions is not as self-evident.

To be sure, there has been no formal change. EU and NATO remain adversaries of USSR/Russia as before. But the hybridization of combat operations allows us to use the power of these organizations against themselves.

"One for all and all for one" is the founding principle of these (essentially) anti-Russian organizations and their decisionmaking processes. As long as the positions of all their members coincided, it created a synergistic effect. But as soon as there appeared a crack in the internal relationships, these seemingly indestructible organizations suddenly became helpless.

One has to keep in mind that the split within EU and split within NATO are tasks of different magnitude. EU unity is far easier to destroy because both the US and Russia are interested in it (I don't even know which one is more interested). An economically unified Europe is a challenge primarily to the US dominance of world markets. It is a challenge to Russia because EU had decided to swallow the traditional Russian sphere of influence. Russia is not thinking about attaining economic superiority over Europe and will not think of it for decades.

The clash of US and EU economic interests have Russia a chance to get off its knees and start its own big economic game (BRICS, Customs Union, Eurasian Union). All of that, combined with the economic growth of China and its transformation into an economic superpower means that the policy of economic and political strangulation of the Russian statehood that was so effectively conducted in the 1990s was derailed.

Russia took full advantage of this derailing. The policy of high price of oil, directed mainly at Europe and China, created the capital needed to reboot the Russian economy, whose energetic component has been decreasing from year to year. Russia even started to become involved in the economic conflicts within the Old World, always supporting the anti-US forces. Ultimately this meant an economic linkage between Europe and Russia which made it possible to think about a BIG EURASIAN UNION (Europe, Russia, China), aimed at the former hegemon—the US.

That's when the time came for "colored revolutions" and coups. All of them are aimed at destroying Europe's economic bridges. The main US blow was aimed at Russia, since it was the main bridge of that project. Not Ukraine. Ukraine is simply one of the "trails" (though an important one). Ambitious energy projects as well as the reestablishment and significant expansion of the Sevmorput [the Arctic sea route linking Atlantic and Pacific] would mean the end of US influence over the global economy. The control over trade routes is the foundation of their power. Having lost them, the US will lose the ability to strangulate their competitors in spite of their all-powerful fleet.

NATO is more complicated (for Russia). From the outset that military bloc was formed against Russia and to destroy Russia. It was not effective in any other role, in spite of US attempts to adapt it into a tool of extending its influence on a global scale in the '90s and '00s. Even though the Russian army is not comparable to the Soviet army in terms of its power, it nevertheless poses a significant threat to Europe. Therefore Europe cannot simply ignore it, especially during the last decade. This means that convincing NATO countries that Russia is militarily "benign" is much more complicated, perhaps even impossible.

But even here there is a way out.

But let's return to Europe for the time being. EU was inconvenient mainly to the US. The '90s and the '00s were a time during which the US was trying to destroy the power of that formation. They did everything to neutralize the economic power of Europe. They even attached the "fifth wheel" (the UK). Creating economic problems for Europe became a national sport. But they ignored one factor. Destroying the attractiveness of the big European home for former Soviet republics (even former members of the Warsaw Pact), they opened the door to the return of Russian influence. Russia did not miss the opportunity. Russia's expansion into former EU "partners" and the EU itself, was the most painful to the US and Europe. Here I am speaking of Turkey and Greece.

Turkey

Moses led the Jews through the desert for 40 years. Europe has been doing that to Turkey for even longer. Patience has its limits, and that limit has been reached. The Syria crisis was an additional reasons for shifting Turkey from the anti-Russian camp into the anti-American one. Having offered Turkey a big plate of "cookies", the US started a war in the region and forced Turkey to deal with the consequences, thus undermining the stable existence of the Turkish state. An independent and powerful Kurdistan began to take shape.

Then, Turkey's leader Erdogan "unexpectedly" embraced Russia. But why unexpectedly? It was a logical move. Russia simply took advantage of the situation and extended a helping hand to Turkey. And this hand was not refused. Countries which were enemies for centuries and fought against one another more often than any others in history suddenly started talking about a unified economic zone. NATO's main offensive fist in the south (600-800 thousand troops, by various estimates) had practically ceased to exist. What is more, Turkey is a gateway into the Black Sea, which means that an alliance with Turkey greatly strengthens Russia's position in the Ukrainian crisis by untying its military and "gas" hands. For Turkey Russia means a reliable strategic rear which means that it can deploy its forces to deal with its main foes, namely Kurdistan and ISIS.

Greece

The next big blow to NATO and EU were the January elections in Greece. The economic "rape" of Greece by Europe (mainly by Germany) has been going on for years. The country was put on its knees and forced to fulfill all manner of requests: destroy the remnants of the Greek industry, sell off its infrastructure and natural resources. Greece had become a European COLONY. It is an odd label to apply to a member of the EU, but a correct one.

The country suffered one political crisis after another, but the European puppet-masters were able to get what they wanted by shuffling the political deck. Nearly all analysis were predicting that something similar would happen in January 2015, when after yet another unscheduled elections the left radical Syriza won. Many (though I was not one of them) expected that the newly formed government will bow down before Brussels. It didn't work out like that (and I'm glad for it). But what happened? And why?

I am far from thinking that the current government is mentally distinct from the previous ones. We should not think in terms of good/bad in this case. The country's policies can only be changed by new INTERESTS and PROSPECTS. Few paid attention to the visits of several Greek politicians (who are now ministers) to Moscow in January 2015 (before the elections). They conducted consultations which were concluded to mutual satisfaction. No, Greece so far has not "fallen in love" with Russia and cannot be considered a reliable ally (we are still far from that), but Russia, having rendered assistance (it is already opening up its agricultural market to Greece) and having outlined the future prospects (which differ from the pro-EU povertymongering), that is to say, the prospect of becoming the main gas transit country into the EU (jointly with Turkey), now has another asset to count on in its European and Balkans policies.

One should not forget that Greece, alongside with Turkey, has one of the most powerful armies in NATO. It means that once Greece is taken out of the game, NATO loses another 150 thousand soldiers and 1700 tanks.

I think that the alliance with Greece was already being implied during the autumn negotiations with Turkey. Both countries are "sworn" allies within NATO. The US was artificially fostering their conflict in order to keep both in their sphere fo influence. If Russia is able to resolve this conflict and make Turkey and Greece reliable partners, this will be a big political victory of the idea of Big Eurasia in general and of Russia in particular, since it is part of that formation.

The "Greece" level has many uses. It is a full member in the EU which means NOT A SINGLE DECISION can be taken without its participation concerning sanctions and other anti-Russian initiatives. US and Brussels will now launch a massive effort to break the Russia-Greece connection. Nothing has been decided yet. But Greece's first steps have shown that it will be difficult, and expensive, for the EU to bring Greece back into the fold. Assuming it is even still possible.

Conclusions. Having started their eastward expansion, EU and NATO received a blow to its southern underbelly (though one has to admit this is not so much Russia's accomplishments as a stumble by the US which the Kremlin simply took advantage of). Therefore, having gotten involved in the US-Russia geopolitical clash, both organizations received a blow that may turn out to be fatal for both of them.

Translator's Note: There is little doubt we are seeing what is liable to be the terminal crisis of the post-Cold War globalization project which, in spite of its seemingly benign "end of history", "new world order" packaging, has more to do not so much with Huntington's "clash of civilizations" as Wallerstein's "world system theory." It comes down to Lenin's final dictum "who whom." Which countries will be the dominant "core" and which will be relegated to the role of the "periphery" whose only task is to provide raw materials and a cheap, docile labor force. One of the ironies is that the countries joining the EU thought they were getting a ticket of admission into the "core." Little did they know that what they were signing up for is a process of their "peripherification," with Greece being one of the first to understand what purpose of the EU actually is. There is a growing understanding of the problem in the Eastern Europe, but they still have some way to go before they catch up with Greece. What is making this process even more vicious is that it's not just a case of "West against the Rest", as it has been for centuries, because just as Germany is trying to economically subjugate the rest of Europe, US is trying to do the same to Germany, which is the reason for the relatively strong anti-US and pro-Russian sentiment in that country. This is a genuine crisis of capitalism and imperialism as predicted, possibly somewhat prematurely, by Karl Marx.

 

[Akim]

Captured T-72B.

 

[pmaitra]

Captured T-72B.

I noticed those white stripes. What does that tell us?

 

[jouni]

Moscow Times is a Finnish newspaper masquerading as a Russian newspaper.

Times of India is not a Pakistani newspaper masquerading as an Indian newspaper.

Comparing Times of India with Moscow Times is like comparing an emerald with a green coloured glass.

You got it right in the comparison with NYT. Both Moscow Times and NYT write a load a gibberish.

Coming to ethics and journalistic values, wasn't it NYT that peddled lies about those aluminium tubes (WMDs in Iraq)?

Who cares about ownership if editorial values are this high. Writer of the article is Russian professor or economics.

 

[pmaitra]

Who cares about ownership if editorial values are this high. Writer of the article is Russian professor or economics.

It is obvious you don't care, but many do.

Editorial values? First let Moscow Times stop acting like a false flagger, discard its fake identity, and reveal its true identity. It should change its name to Finland Times, as a first step in honesty. Then we can talk about "values."

RT clearly discloses that it receives funding from the Kremlin. Moscow Times should learn honesty from RT.

 

[Akim]

I noticed those white stripes. What does that tell us?

Probably have painted them to his not shot down.

P.S. In Ukraine there are no in service T-72B.

P.P.S.

In December, the army gave 10 T-72 (7 T-72AV+ 1 T-72M1+ 2 T-72UA1)

 

[alphacentury]

Russians Must Say No to Isolation, Yes to Europe | Opinion | The Moscow Times

Moscow Times, Like New York Times or Indian Times is not afraid to maintain high and ethic journalistic values.

Ha Ha. Nice one, buddy. Keep 'em coming.

 

[alphacentury]

Motorola and Novorossiyas Sparta battalion recived donations .

LiveLeak.com - Donations for Novorossiya and fighting near Mariupol

 

[pmaitra]

The Ukrainian Army Is Bleeding to Death

Western weapons supplies cannot change a situation caused by poor leadership and political division.

Alexander Mercouris [SOURCE]

One of the things I learnt during the fighting last summer is that in assessing the state of the battle it is important not to lose sight of the whole wood by focusing too much on individual trees.

A great deal of energy was spent last summer discussing whether this or that village or settlement had been captured by the Ukrainian military or by the rebel militia and what this meant in strategic terms and what it showed about who was supposedly winning or losing. In reality, as became obvious if one looked at a map, from the first week of July until the last half of August, the position of the front lines was essentially stable.

In the end what decided the course of the battle was not minor movements backwards and forwards across the battlefield but the sheer scale of the losses the Ukrainian military was suffering. Quite simply, the Ukrainian military bled to death, or at least to the point where when the militia launched its offensive in the second half of August it had no strength left to resist it.

The sheer scale of last summer's losses has never been recognised in the West. However it is undoubtedly known in Ukraine itself. It is surely what lies behind the mass resistance to the latest calls in Ukraine for mobilisation this winter.

In the nature of things rumours about losses when they happen on such a scale spread, especially in the small towns and villages from where most conscripts come and where news spreads quickly. This is so even or rather especially if the authorities try to suppress such rumours. As anyone familiar with life in small towns and villages knows, the invariable consequence of attempts to suppress rumours is to fan rumours and exaggerate them further.

Not surprisingly many of the men who are being called up do not want to be sent to the slaughter in the Donbass meat grinder, which is why there are reports of whole villages fleeing en masse to avoid the mobilisation.

I suggest that what happened in the summer is happening again now.

This report suggests that the Ukrainian army has lost 1,100 men in the last 2 weeks of fighting. Since it appears to be based on hacked official documents it is probably reliable. It is anyway consistent with militia claims of the number bodies that were found in the ruins of Donetsk airport.

Assuming that 700 or so of the 1,100 men who are reported to have been killed in the last 2 weeks died in the battle for Donetsk airport, then that means that the "normal" tempo of deaths in the Ukrainian army in this conflict still runs at a rate of hundreds a week, even when (as has been the case since the end of the fighting at the airport) the intensity of the fighting dies down.

It is an error to think that in war fighting continues at the same level of intensity all the time. If the Debaltsevo "cauldron" collapses the number of deaths will spike as it did during the battle for the airport and as it did following the collapse of similar "cauldrons" (eg. the so-called "southern cauldron" or the one at Ilovaisk) last summer. At that point we could see the level of casualties starting to approach the level of the summer.

Of course the rebel militia also suffers losses. However it seems these are on a much lesser scale than those suffered by the Ukrainian military. A militia spokesman has put the ratio at four to one.

If this is correct then I suggest that events are following a similar course to the one they did last summer.

I am not sure how many troops Ukraine has presently deployed in the Donbass but assuming the numbers are roughly the same that they were in the summer, then the total number is probably in the region of 60-80,000. No military of this size can absorb losses at the level that is being reported for very long.

To get a sense of what I mean, try to imagine how the British or US militaries or populations would react to losses of 1,100 killed in action in a period of just 2 weeks. The total number of British troops killed in Afghanistan in over 10 years of war is 453 whilst for the US it is 2,245. The total number of British troops killed in Iraq over a 7 year period was 179 whilst for the US it was 4,421. These casualties were enough to cause demoralisation in the British and US militaries and to discredit the British and US politicians most identified with these wars. Yet based on levels of casualties, Afghanistan and Iraq are small wars for Britain and the US compared to the one Ukraine is fighting in the Donbass.

What this probably means is that if this rate of loss continues then unless there is direct military intervention to rescue the Ukrainians by the West (something which the US administration has repeatedly ruled out) then at some point we can expect the Ukrainian military to collapse suddenly as it did last summer.

I am not going to try to guess how long this will take. Both the Saker and I made similar predictions in the summer based on information we were getting about the rate of casualties the Ukrainians were suffering. The collapse duly came as we predicted. However it happened much sooner than either of us had expected.

Everything I have heard about the Ukrainian military suggests it is weaker than it was in the summer. In contrast to the summer, this winter the Ukrainian military has proved unable to sustain an offensive for any length of time. Whereas in the summer the mood amongst Maidan supporters was buoyant with expectations of victory, this winter the mood in Kiev seems to be one of deepening pessimism and gloom. If losses are mounting on the scale reported then that would explain why. All this may suggest the collapse this winter may come faster than it did last summer.

As for the militia, it is significant that its armoured forces do not seem to have been involved in the fighting this winter to any great extent. This suggests they are being held in reserve, as they were last summer, to exploit the Ukrainian collapse when it comes by going on the offensive.

We have previously published reports that suggest that the Ukrainian army's losses in the summer were far more than the Ukrainian government was admitting to and were between 8,000 to 12,000 men killed. As I recall these reports provoked something of a storm. However, if the Ukrainian army has indeed suffered losses of 1,100 men killed in just 2 weeks this winter, then given the scale of the collapse last summer an estimate of a total loss of 8,000 to 12,000 killed in the fighting last summer does not look excessive or unreasonable.

Losses on this scale are not just or primarily a military disaster. Much more importantly they are a humanitarian catastrophe, which forms part of the greater humanitarian catastrophe that is the war in the Donbass.

This situation urgently calls for an end to this war. The failure of the Minsk process (something predicted by every objective observer of the Ukrainian conflict) shows this can only happen if the Ukrainian military withdraws entirely from the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. The Ukrainian government should then do what it committed itself to do on 21st February 2014, 17th April 2014 and 5th September 2014, which is enter into serious constitutional negotiations with its opponents without preconditions and without attempts to preordain their outcome.

As I have discussed previously, there is not the faintest chance of the Ukrainian government of its own volition ever agreeing to do these things. The only thing that might cause the Ukrainian government to change its position would be concerted Western pressure on the Ukrainian government to seek peace though a genuine ceasefire and constitutional negotiations.

Of that there is no sign. On the contrary, far from the Ukrainian government being put under pressure by the West to negotiate, we hear growing calls from its supporters in the West for weapons to be sent to Ukraine. Latest reports suggest the US government may be about to heed these calls.

The only effect of these calls - or of the Western weapons if they are supplied - is to embolden the Ukrainian government to continue the war regardless of the numbers killed and regardless of the fact the IMF has warned the war is making Ukraine's economic position unsustainable.

Stepping up supplies of Western weapons to Ukraine cannot change the military situation or the military outcome. As I discussed in a piece I wrote in October, the Ukrainian military's problem is not lack of weapons. It is poor leadership in a situation where the local people support the militia and oppose the new Maidan government of Ukraine.

The Ukrainian military failed to win the war in the period from April to July when its margin of superiority over the militia in weapons was overwhelming. That margin of superiority is lost forever. Supplies of Western weapons will not change that or claim that margin of superiority back.

Western supplies of weapons will not enable Ukraine to "achieve victory" (as Ukraine's Western champions hope) or "deter Russian aggression" (as they pretend). Rather they - and the calls to supply such weapons - merely prolong the war, causing more Ukrainians to be sent uselessly to their deaths. By making such calls Ukraine's Western champions are not helping "to save Ukraine". They are making themselves complicit in the slaughter.

 

[alphacentury]

 

[pmaitra]

@Akim, looks like the "peaceful democratic people of Ukraine" have threatened to enter the Presidential building in Kiev, if the Russian propaganda is to be believed (below).

Will the chocolate seller make it out alive?

"Protesters require access to the conference hall of the APU (Administration of the President of Ukraine) and access to the journalists to broadcast their demands live on TV. Earlier the protesters broke through the first line of national guard. Police was called to the building. Protesters demanded to declare a martial law, and a resignation of all the leaders of the security forces - from the Minister of Defense Poltorak to the Prosecutor General Yarema."

Source: ТАСС: Международная панорама - Нацгвардия отразила попытку штурма администрации президента Украины

 

[pmaitra]

Looks like someone is ardently following DFI, and the coversation between @jouni and me.
[HR][/HR]

Russians Must Say No to Isolation, Yes to Europe | Opinion | The Moscow Times

Moscow Times, Like New York Times or Indian Times is not afraid to maintain high and ethic journalistic values.

Moscow Times is a Finnish newspaper masquerading as a Russian newspaper.

Times of India is not a Pakistani newspaper masquerading as an Indian newspaper.

Comparing Times of India with Moscow Times is like comparing an emerald with a green coloured glass.

You got it right in the comparison with NYT. Both Moscow Times and NYT write a load a gibberish.

Coming to ethics and journalistic values, wasn't it NYT that peddled lies about those aluminium tubes (WMDs in Iraq)?

[HR][/HR]

How the Foreign-Owned Media in Russia Provoked the Current Backlash

Dmitry Babich [SOURCE]

The Moscow Times

The proposed law limiting foreign ownership of media to 20% has provoked criticism both in the West and on the part of the "liberal" media in Russia.

We hear the predictable cry of a "return to state control" and "Soviet practices".

But the sad reality is that the behaviour of some Western-owned Russian media has provoked this legislation.

Involvement of foreign corporations in the media may have been beneficial in the beginning, but it has long since degenerated into Russia-bashing.

Since 2003 the relentless demonization of "Putin's Russia" has become increasingly shrill.

Rather than fostering mutual understanding this sort of "journalism" creates a misleading image of an aggressive and dangerous Russia, a place unpleasant to live in. Far from attracting tourism and investment, it deters it.

When it comes to non-political themes this same media is simply exploitative, seeing Russians merely as cash cows by feeding them "sex tips" and trashy talk about the wonders of the west (Cosmopolitan and CTC Media are prime examples).

The Moscow Times, owned by Finland's Sanoma Media, stands out.

Imagine a foreign owned newspaper in India carrying headlines like "New Delhi is Unlovable or Unlivable"; or in China claiming "the Government is Committing Crimes without Punishment"; In "authoritarian", "neo-Stalinist" Russia (labels it freely uses), The Moscow Times does precisely that.

Or take the Times' regular columnist Masha Gessen. Over 10 years she has written hundreds of pieces, one telling readers things like: they live "in a country where secular and religious authorities openly encourage fascist violence". This is the same "persecuted" Masha Gessen who has published several books in Russia and has sacked hundreds of people whilst heading important Russian media outlets despite her US passport (as an example of her writing read this.)

Or take Alexei Yablokov, a reporter for Vedomosti (a Russian project of The Financial Times and The Wall Street Journal) who wrote last summer whilst standing in line for a patriotic exhibition how he felt "an irresistible desire" to "warm his feet" in the Eternal Flame of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier – the country's most sacred monument to the 27 million Soviet citizens who died fighting fascism in World War II.

Needless to say Vedomosti had nothing good to say for the exhibition itself, which showed art connected with the last Russian Tsar.

For Russia the dominance of this sort of foreign media (Vedomosti, Kommersant, Profil, etc.) has become dangerous.

Balanced, objective media became a minority long ago. On the pro-Russian side there are only Izvestia and The Expert.

So what is to be done? As a warning to foreign "leaders of opinion" the new draft law is just a gentle slap on the wrist. Purveyors of stories about Moscow being "unlovable and unlivable" will have little difficulty finding Russian collaborators to get round it.

Limits on foreign investment are undesirable.

The best thing would be for outlets like The Moscow Times and Vedomosti to rediscover basic rules of professionalism and decency.

As business papers they might remind themselves that the sort of things people like Masha Gessen write are of no use to business people whether in Russia or the west.

[HR][/HR]
Well, Mr. Babich is being gentle. The Moscow Times is a cheap third rate tabloid run by a bunch of retarded lowlives. Those connected with it need to be prosecuted for misleading the public by calling itself Moscow or St. Petersburg Times, when it should be Finland Times.

 

[pmaitra]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EZZJ8TZuO8

 

[pmaitra]

DNR tank firing at ATO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZLN06gRyAo

LNR forces and their mortar position
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFvxP7kWD3w