The fact the photos are from 2013 or someone at Maidan was wearing an old Nazi symbol of Svoboda does not justify the statements "There is no anti-Semitism in Ukraine" and "Svoboda has nothing to do with Nazis". Rather the opposite.
I have no problem recognizing Gubarev is/used to be a Nazi. But this does not mean the "peaceful activists" at Maidan had nothing to do with Nazis.
> What an amazing argument, because there are only two media outlets in the world -- Fox News and Huffington Post. No, I prefer Völkischer Beobachter obviously.
To call a news source "leftist idiots" to contradict what they say was an amazing argument. Very convincing.
> Russian propagandists even had to leak taped Paet conversations
It would be very wrong to hide them. Who hired the snipers to shoot policemen and protesters is a hugely important question.
> Good sources matter (like independent journalists reporting facts), authoritative opinions matter (like opinion about local antisemitism by local Jewish community). Opinions of some leftie guy from the different part of the Earth, who decided to mine some quotes for one side and call that "analysis" -- no, sorry, thing like these don't matter.
You have a very complex system of criteria which news source to trust, which somehow allows you to ignore the obvious. Still, you have to convince me the paramilitary groups in Maidan are peaceful, do not wear Nazi symbols, and do not chant Nazi slogans, and their leaders are not now in the government.
> Nice conspiracy theory.
Yeah, very feasible.
> all the pro-Russian lies ... Haaretz lied.
So Haaretz (Israel's oldest daily newspaper) is a pro-Russian news source? Do you realize you insult any news source that is not pro-Maidan and then call it pro-Russian? I find it ridiculous.
Whatever Azman said and why he said that, it is not possible to take this seriously (text from your link):
There is no anti-Semitism in Ukraine’, was Azman’s comment to the Russian propagandists’ claims
if you saw this [1] or this [2] or this [3] or this[4] or this [5] or this[6].
I actually feel sorry for him - something or someone forced him to say this obvious nonsense.
Andriy Parubiy, the new secretary of Ukraine's security council, was a co-founder of the Neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine (SNPU), otherwise known as Svoboda.
> from garbage sources by useful leftist idiots from Huffington Post and like.
I appreciate your level-headed unbiased approach. You prefer Fox News, I presume?
> That's just so pathetic that is not even funny. You ignore opinion of the most authoritative Jewish organizations in Ukraine.
> Yeah, apparently guys from Tel-Aviv and from Sweden see the situation better than people who actually live in Kiev and closely observe folks from Svoboda for decades.
So, for you, Russian sources are propaganda, and EU and Israel sources are misinformed (apparently by the Russians), and only Ukrainian pro-Maidan sources matter. That is indeed ridiculous. Did you ever wonder why the Ukrainian parliament, where Yanukovich's Regions Party had the majority, adopted anti-Maidan laws on January 16th, but in February was already unequivocally pro-Maidan? Do you think the armed masked "peaceful demonstrators" storming government buildings might have something to do with it?
I think those armed masked people are the reason why the Ukrainian Jews wrote such a letter. I don't see how Jews can possibly tolerate the Nazi symbols and slogans of the Right Sector (see above for images).
Here is what a chief Ukrainian rabbi has to say about "peaceful protesters" [1]:
"I told my congregation to leave the city center or the city all together and if possible the country too," Rabbi Azman told Maariv. "I don't want to tempt fate," he added, "but there are constant warnings concerning intentions to attack Jewish institutions."
I admit I did not know about the letter from the Ukrainian Jews to Putin. I do not know what motivated them to write such a letter. It could be Bandera followers standing over them, or something else. You can't really deny the neo-Nazi character of the leaders of the rioters. Have a look here, it's an non-Russian source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-hughes/the-neo-nazi-qu...
Some quotes:
For starters, Andriy Parubiy, the new secretary of Ukraine's security council, was a co-founder of the Neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine (SNPU), otherwise known as Svoboda. And his deputy, Dmytro Yarosh, is the leader of a party called the Right Sector which, according to historian Timothy Stanley, "flies the old flag of the Ukrainian Nazi collaborators at its rallies."
The Svoboda party has tapped into Nazi symbolism including the "wolf's angel" rune, which resembles a swastika and was worn by members of the Waffen-SS, a panzer division that was declared a criminal organization at Nuremberg. A report from Tel-Aviv University describes the Svoboda party as "an extremist, right-wing, nationalist organization which emphasizes its identification with the ideology of German National Socialism."* Notice how Tel-Aviv Jews do not seem to agree with the Ukrainian ones.
According to this BBC news clip two Svoboda parliamentarians in recent weeks posed for photos while "brandishing well-known far right numerology," including the numbers 88 -- the eighth letter of the alphabet -- signifying "HH," as in "Heil Hitler." This all makes Hillary Clinton's recent comments comparing Putin to Hitler appear patently absurd, as Stanley adeptly points out: "After all, in the eyes of many ethnic Russians, it is the Ukrainian nationalists -- not Putin -- who are the Nazis."
Last week Per Anders Rudling from Lund University in Sweden, an expert on Ukrainian extremists, told Britain's Channel 4 News: "A neo-fascist party like Svoboda getting the deputy prime minister position is news in its own right." Well, except in the U.S.
There are WAY too many unambiguous images and videos on the internet where the rioters sport Nazi or neo-Nazi symbols to ignore or dismiss as Russian propaganda like you do. Just google for "nazi ukraine" for images. You'll see Tyagnibok (one of the 3 leaders of the "peaceful protesters") there among the top results.
> the Russian neo-Nazis, who are encouraged by your security services.
Incidentally, this is anti-Russian propaganda. There are neo-Nazis in Russia, but they have nothing to do with Putin or Russian security services. In fact, Russian neo-Nazis would be offended by this statement.
> Eh, neo-Nazis to call to armed struggle against the state? That's just bullshit.
Why do you think it's bullshit? Have you seen those images from Kiev of people throwing cobbles and Molotov cocktails at police, and some firing guns? That's armed struggle against the state. Do you know that these people (not babushkas and pretty girls waving flags) belong to political parties or paramilitary groups confirmed as neo-Nazi in Europe (not just in Russia)?
Here you are thinking about Russia in your Western categories. Those who did exit did so not because they want to be able to speak up against Putin, but for economic or professional reasons. Also Anti-Putinites are so many on the Internet you can't possibly round them up. Russians have been venting their political views on the Internet ever since the Internet has become available, I don't see how this can ever be stopped. Also Siberia is not such a bad place :) Also, the "West" doesn't need to do anything in Russia, unless it wants a mess just like in Ukraine, only with lots more of unhinged nationalists/patriots/communists/liberals and with nuclear weapons getting involved. It's not going to be nice pro-Western people against a horrible totalitarian regime.
> I really don't see what every media outlet that isn't Russian state-controlled would have to gain from distributing "biased" journalism.
That's in theory. In reality, I see a very clear bias in Russian as well as non-Russian major media outlets. And it's not just my observation, either. Have a look at this Guardian article, for example: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/10/ukraine-and-wes... The author tries to explain why this is so.
A quote: The one thing we know for sure is that we don't know what's going on. The situation is volatile and murky. But that doesn't stop western politicians jumping in feet first. We don't know exactly what forces are at play, but we still desperately want to pin our naive "goodies" and "baddies" labels on to somebody.
My impression from reading Russian blogs on LiveJournal is that there are two kinds of people in Russia right now: those extremely anti-Putin and those extremely pro-Putin, in about 50/50 proportion. No one is "too afraid" or "silenced".
Also this: "publish or perform any benchmark or performance tests or analysis relating to the Service or the use thereof without express authorization from AlchemyAPI;"
Suppose I am evaluating their service, before I decide to buy. I would be breaking these ToS, I guess.
> No matter how core it is to your religion, you may not injure or kill me.
Well, you should respect my religion or at least be sensitive about it (if you want to have some dialog). When I come to your country, I won't make a fuss seeing gays kiss. When you come to my country, do not go protesting the fact there no gays kissing in public.
> Maybe some day we'll be perfectly accepting of sex in public, but I feel you are trying to conflate different arguments.
It's the same thing. Having sex in public is not dangerous to anyone, it's someone's natural function. It is simply in the Western culture, when done in public, it produces a cultural shock. Kissing gays produce a similar shock in Russia.
> this talk of corrupting youth is archaic garbage.
Is the prohibition to have sex in public archaic garbage? How about smoking marijuana? I accept that it may be ok for Dutch people and it may not be ok in US. I also have my own views on that, but I am not imposing them on these countries.
> Sure, your culture loves it, but that's because it has some growing up to do.
You are suggesting my culture is inferior to yours, and you are allowed to teach me about that. How nice is that? My feeling is that it's not just your view, it's a common view in the West, and that's the main problem in the West vs. Russia dialog.
Ok, so you don't mean it's the God suddenly introduced democracy in new countries, but revolutions; the revolutions started because the population was unhappy - not about the lack of democracy, but about poor economy. I agree with that. I can also add that the countries where the democratic principles developed slowly and organically (US and Britain) happen to be rich (strong economy is a condition where people can start to think about democracy and human rights, poor economy is where people think about basic security) and it was these countries that induced the democratic changes in other countries (e.g., post-WW2 Germany), using their wealth to stabilize their economies, and eventually transplanting their own democratic traditions to these new countries.
So this works fine as long as the revolution-inducing country is rich enough to sponsor the economy of the country where the revolution is taking place. In addition to economy, there are other factors, such cultural norms (e.g., family clans), that will need to be overcome, but this worked as long as the cultures are not too different (US and Germany, or Western Europe and Central Europe, for example).
So basically, we seem to agree that Western-style democracy is not something that can now be organically implanted in Ukraine, not without massive amounts of money poured into it by the West (which is problematic given the size of the country), and even then this will be difficult because of huge differences in traditions to run a country.
> genital mutilation. It's all disgraceful behaviour, ... If your culture is a culture of repression then no, I do not have to respect it.
Right there, you violated a human right, freedom of religion. Would Orthodox Jews, for example, agree that circumcision is "repression", "disgraceful behaviour" and "fear of change", "dressed up" like a tradition?
Which is even more worrying, you are trying to enforce these views not only in your own country, but in countries foreign for you.
A while ago there was news about a couple in Germany who had sex on a parking lot near a supermarket, and who were arrested for that. Was that "repression", "fear of change", or "discrimination"?
> I didn't say personal preference, I said preference. It's not a choice you make, but it is an orientation.
Straight sexual orientation is clearly biological. So it's not a question of choice. As far as I can tell, there is no such clear view on homosexuality - i.e. personal choice may be a big factor there. Even if it is largely biological, there are different ways in which a particular culture deals with certain biological functions. E.g., women may have to cover their hair in public in some cultures, while in others not covering their breasts is normal. The same issue is with Russia: open demonstration of your gay orientation is just not acceptable in the Russian culture. The West has to just live with it, in the same manner as it lives with the fact that Muslim women wear headscarves in their home countries.
> So I should moderate my reasonable behaviour because you feel awkward explaining it to your kid? Your communication problems mean I shouldn't hold hands with or kiss someone of the same gender, in case they see it?
Remember, it's reasonable in your culture, not in mine. My culture is not a communication problem.
If it's a personal preference, then this has to do with culture, not biology. If it's a cultural thing, then you should realize there are different cultures out there, and one culture has no right to impose itself on others. As they say, when in Rome do as they Romans do.
I can confirm that there are gay artists, filmmakers, etc in Russia and it is common knowledge that they are gay, and they are not persecuted in any way. They are just not holding gay parades or teaching 6 year olds about gay sex. So as long as the gay athletes are not doing that, they will be perfectly fine.
For many Russians, teaching young children about gay sex is a problematic element, and I think you should respect their view when it comes to THEIR children.
By democracy I mean principles like a multi-partite political system, free speech, commitment to securing human rights. I am not talking about freedom as such - surely the idea of freedom is "deeply ingrained" in every person, regardless of culture.
My point was that these principles cannot be just implanted in a country where traditions are very different (e.g, tradition to give some political power to religious leaders), and where the circumstances are very different from the West (e.g., poor economy).
> democracy has not evolved over a long time. It came with a bang and that was possible because the idea was already widespread.
So it was God-given?
> it's not even clear what "foreign culture" really means any more.
On the internet, probably not. But when it comes to actually running a country, factors such as family clans, nepotism, ethnic or religious factions, are still very strong in many countries, and I don't think the internet is going to change this any time soon.
