There is a growing wave of commentary about the rise of new and competitive players in the global English-language media sphere. Traditional outlets in the US, UK and Canada are scrambling for market share like never before; they are scared, and with good reason.
The Russians, Chinese, French, the Emir of Qatar and even the Iranians are giving the native English speakers in the news industry a run for their money. Great - competition is good and healthy! Yet many in the US and the UK are calling the new kids on the block upstarts for challenging the status quo, being anti-American and being anti-Western in general.
Russia has been singled out more than others and RT television, my employer, has been harshly criticised for reporting that has been less than kind about America's domestic realities and foreign policy. This is unwarranted: RT and other new English-language outlets are merely providing the Anglosphere with new and different voices.
Since the end of World War II and particularly after the Cold War, the US has seen itself as the beacon of good in the world. This is the narrative Americans are taught early on, and it is reinforced incessantly.
Sadly, the vast majority of Americans get their news from US media only, especially domestic television. These outlets limit and control public debate and devote precious little time to foreign news. In fact, it is exceptional when an American media outlet does not mirror an editorial line established from above.
The charge that Russian media is anti-American is quite overblown. Russian English-language media, including RT, do indeed report stories rarely found in the US mainstream - and often from a viewpoint rarely found there as well. No one should be surprised by this. Why should the definition of free speech be determined by a Western capital?
The US badmouths the entire world when it suits its own purposes. In the American mainstream Israel has long been protected, Iraq was once the world's enemy, and now Iran is. Russia refuses to kowtow to western geopolitical and economic interests, so it is covered in the worst possible light. Meanwhile, American-sponsored autocrats and dictators are given a free pass.
For decades Washington and America's media establishment have dumbed down political debate at home - and expected the rest of the world to follow. When this does not happen, it is called anti-Americanism.
This is the standard hypocrisy of a country that habitually lectures others about media freedoms. While this isn't new, the fact that it is now drawing multi-viewpoint commentary in English is.
It is a pity when critique is only understood as criticism. America and the West generally must learn that their sense of humanity-saving exceptionalism is only a myth, and a very dangerous one. No peoples or countries have a monopoly on the truth.
This article was first published at www.mn.ru
In my work presenting RT's CrossTalk discussion program, I am often dismissed as part of a Kremlin propaganda project - sometimes by people who have never even watched the channel. My employer and my work are evidently an affront to the complacent and to those who feel threatened by a different - and I would say more sobering - view of the world.
How many readers of The Moscow News have ever heard of Robert Fisk, Norman Finkelstein, or Seyed Mohammad Marandi? Those who haven't are missing out.
Fisk is probably a known quantity to British readers. But in American media and the mainstream Anglosphere in general he is all but ignored. His extraordinary reporting from the Middle East spanning over 30 years is simply too truthful and distressing for American editors and the powers-that-be. Why is this? Fisk questions and challenges Washington's support of Israel and America's long-misguided approach to Middle East politics, speaking out against taboos that have long been considered off limits.
I am an avid reader of Fisk in The Independent. When he appeared on my show, he challenged and embarrassed another guest for claiming the Afghans were happy to be occupied by the US and its NATO allies. Fisk points out the hypocrisy of language that is a staple of Western media reporting.
He has been proven right more times than wrong when it comes to Middle East politics. Western mainstream media need to have a second look at journalists in the know who have a solid record of defying what we have been told. The fact is that terrorism in the Greater Middle East is the result of longstanding Western-backed injustices.
Norman Finkelstein is a hate figure for many of those who know of him in America and for many in the worldwide Jewish community. He is another person who is blacklisted by Western mainstream media for speaking his mind and revealing the frauds of others.
A child of Holocaust survivors - Finkelstein's father was on a death march in Auschwitz and his mother was a survivor of the Majdanek death camp - he challenges anyone who tries to use his deceased parents' memory for geopolitical advantage when invoking the Nazi genocide against the Jews.
I understand where Finkelstein is coming from. I lived in Poland for 12 years and visited every Nazi death camp. To this day I am left speechless by how the human condition can succumb to evil. Thankfully we have Norman Finkelstein to remind us that honoring the memory of the Holocaust does not automatically mean supporting Israel and Washington. As someone aware of how ideologies literally destroy people, Finkelstein is worth listening to when it comes of the suffering of the Palestinian people.
Seyed Mohammad Marandi is a professor of American Studies at the University of Tehran. Western mainstream media teaches its audiences that Iranians are towel-headed maniacs - a gross exaggeration, of course, and Seyed is a perfect example of an opinion-maker who defies hateful stereotypes.
In public appearances he is calm and confident - he knows Washington's armchair neocons are all agenda and no substance when it comes to what Iran is all about.
Marandi is not an apologist for Iran's current political order, but at the same time reflects upon the double-standards placed on Iran by Western powers. It is obvious to him that the West, particularly the US, is looking for still another pretext to wage war against Iran - the only country in the greater Middle East with a public that is actually largely pro-American.
Robert Fisk, Norman Finkelstein, and Seyed Mohammad Marandi are very different people with different points of view. However, one thing binds them - they speak the truth instead of getting along by going along.
Everyone should explore new and alternative media. If you don't, don't act surprised when your opinion is hijacked, once again, by media that does not seek so much to inform as to make you disagree with the Fisks, Finkelsteins, Marandis - and Lavelles - who are out there if you look for them.
This article was first published in the Moscow News newspaper
19 March, 2010, 11:18
Freethinker, i'll disagree with you concerning ex-soviet borders. That's as much a condition of mind, and a political delineation, as anything else. But a real example is Poland, and their obsession with "former Polish Territory", gained for a brief time when they invaded what is now Belarus, part of Ukraine, and of course what was part of Czechoslovakia.
I don't think Russia is as obsessive about former soviet states as you imply, and i'd be somewhat defensive too, if former participants (and they were willing political participants) turned around and tried to blame me for their own contribution into a political system that was perceived as.....wrong. Stalinist borders have nothing to do with modern day realities for modern people, but have everything to do with populism as a political tool to get elected. (Again, see the reign of the poison dwarfs in Poland for details.)
The recognition of South Ossetia, and Abkhazia, might be politically driven for the moment, but it's also important for ordinary people who wish for the same things. Freedom, their own little chunk of the planet, and the quest to determine their own destiny. There are forces at work who don't want the people to have this choice, precisely because it's their choice, and not a political directive, driven by those who lust for ever greater control over others. Then there is the political fear of these actions spreading. Consider what the US might do, for example, if California, or Alabama, decided to become independent, and no longer worshipped the stars and stripes. What would the government, and their backers do? Probably a variant of the same thing the Butcher of Tblisi did, with the same result. "You can't do this, because we know what's best for you."
Stalin's decision to lump tribes together in the caucasus was a mistake, and showed a resounding ignorance in the nature of multiple tribes and traditions in a small space. Where agreements and often blood spilled pacts had been worked out over a long period of time, enabling several different groups of people to each occupy their own space, with the occasional flareup, Stalin shoved them all in the same pot, then used brutalism to keep a lid on everything. This was never going to last, but for a brief period of time, the region had some semblance of peace. This "soviet" border, and region was always temporary, and only succeeded in delaying the inevitable, as evidenced in the current georgian government's attempted genocide in SO.
Larisa is correct in her evaluation of the Caucasus region. Far from being acceptable as a system (Soviet delineation), it's still a fact that for a brief period of time, during the reign of the USSR, this region was stable, and although the method of control was brutal, still stands as a relatively peaceful era in the history of the region.
As it turns out, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia are now legally owned by their people. From a cultural perspective, it's a return to a more natural order of things, where tribal groups are more "region bound" than during the soviet era. It's wrong to suggest that these countries belong to Georgia, for the same reason you cite as "sovietly acceptable." You cannot use this as a hammer to make your point in disagreeing with Larisa, then conveniently ignore the very same evidence when it doesn't suit you. That smacks more of Russia bashing than the province of sound, reasoned, argument. The people of SO and AB need no approval from anyone else for legitimacy, as they've simply returned to historical precedent, emerging from the artificial, and culturally unnatural construct of the soviet system.
Those who wish for a different result, like the Butcher of Tbilisi, and his backers abroad, have little to no concern for the wishes of the people, and every concern for political strategic interest, regardless of the cost in human lives. Whatever wrongs might have been perceived to have been commited by the USSR are being repeated, for the same reasons, by other nations today, hiding under a deceitfully presented flag of democracy, but in reality as brutal, and careless with human existence, as any closed political system. The Butcher of Tblisi is a throwback to the same dictatorial perception people have of Stalin, and his grand soviet vision. The difference is, he's artifically presented as being on the "right" side, by the same people who are arming him, giving him free rein in their media, and phoning him up and telling him when to slaughter human beings.
Truth, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder, particularly when it comes to politically driven media, but it's an undeniable fact, that on the eve of the Olympic Games, while the world's attention was turned elsewhere, the Butcher of Tblisi started a brief war with the intent of making South Ossetians extinct.
Nothing, no matter how well presented, or how enthuasiastically warped into a distorted "new truth', can hide this.
It's also highly amusing that you seek to imply some duplicity on the part of the Russian government, as if this behaviour is somehow exclusive to Russia. I could be mildly sarcastic, but i think you're worthy of pity more than scorn, given your enthusiasm for such a narrow and hopelessly inaccurate perspective.
10 March, 2010, 15:16
Any chance of getting ADAM CURTIS on your show. His BBCTV doc: The Power of Nightmares
10 March, 2010, 15:06
Larisa
'Euroman" in all probability is from one of those Euro countries that idolizes my USA and imitates it's brainwashed and uninformed countrymen's way of communicating, that is by incoherent "soundbites".
Fred....Oregon USA
05 March, 2010, 08:00
@ Free Thinker: I never said that Stalinist borders were acceptable. Stalin re-designed, re-divided or re-joined together parts that didn't belong together at will, based on his own whims and imperial vision. He, for example divided one republic, called Ossetia and left North Ossetia as part of Russian Federation (where it origianlly belonged) and gave South Ossetia to Georgia, just because he could. So did Khruchev, who gifted Crimea to his native Ukraine, also on a whim.
So did European powers and the US throughout history. They colonized Asia, Latin America and Africa. Territories, tribal lands were divided, joined and generally "reinvented" based on their own greed and expediency.
One shameful epizode from a relatively recent past was a sellout of Chechoslovakia to Hitler. Paricipants: UK, France and the honorary mention goes to Poland, which was happy to gets its own chunk of the neighboring country.
Another interesting epizode is very recent indeed, when Kosovo was created out of thin air on the land that belonged to Serbia, and its independence was promptly recognized by the very consistent and very democratic EU and US.
In history, my friend, these things happened routinely, the point today is to recognize what happened and make peace with the past in order to be able to move into the future.
And by the way, I know very well how far the issues between Abhasians, Georgians and Ossetians go. Caucasus, where lands are fertile and where many small nations and tribes live very close together ahs always been a hotbed of rivalries and armed conflcits, exacerbated by the hot blood of its inhabitants. These are very old conflicts, and so far only USSR had been successful in keeping them under control.
Speaking of which, if you do know about these old conflicts and are pretending that you care about those nations, how hypocritical it is of you to say that S. Ossetian and Abhasian lands belong to Georgia. What about people living there, people who have been mistreated by those Georgians under the slogan "Georgia for Georgians"? What about S. Ossetians' and Abhasians' long term aspiration to be free of Georgian dominance? In your opinion all these people don't count and they should have no say on how they live on their own land, land that belonged to them for thousands of years?
With all due respect, it is you who is inconsistent here.
05 March, 2010, 07:22
@euroman: Generally speaking, your statement makes no sense to me, since I have no idea what Sky News is, what relation it has to the EU, and how you arrive at a conlcusion that I heve no idea what EU is? And who is "we" that is not buying the "lies", not to mention what lies exactly are we talking about?
By the way, I am not paid by anyone, although it appears you might be.
05 March, 2010, 03:56
I began watching RT with interest, thought it would be a true news source from Russia especially( not just places to eat in Moscow and museums to visit- I can read guide books for that) but find it is propagandistic. What about crimes against correspondents, corruption, the oligarchs? All news about Russia is positive and news about the U.S. especially, negative and bordering on glee when anything upsetting to the American economy occurs. It is evident and clear. Please!
05 March, 2010, 00:11
RE: Larisa
It's rather funny how Stalin's "borders" are unacceptable to Russia in the case of Georgia and then in other situations, in the case of Eastern Europe for example, Stalinist borders that today define much of Poland, Romania and Estonia, are deemed to be Ok. I think that some consistency in in order here, but then again Russia has never had a problem with pursuing two different contradictory and hypocritical policies in order to further it's aims.
As for the history bit, I suggest you do some impartial research on the matter. You might just find that the Georgian/Ossetian/ Abkhazian issue goes back a long way, even before the time of uncle Joe.
Notwithstanding Georgia's historical claim on these territories, with all due respect, pre-1991 history is irrelevant. Legally speaking, south Ossetia and Akhazia belong to Georgia and Russia lacked capacity to act in this instance. Firstly, by giving citizenship to those people it compromised its UN mandate, secondly through its behavior in the pre- and post war period it ceased to be regarded and accepted by the global community as an impartial actor and thirdly its response was totally out of proportion. Russia does not care about the Georgians, Abkhazians or the South Ossetians, it only cares about advancing its own imperialist aims.
04 March, 2010, 15:43
Larisa is paid by Sky News and has never heard of the EU.We are not buying the lies though.
04 March, 2010, 07:06
I just read a statement by Free Thinker and I am amazed at its ignorance and misplaced riteousness. I would have thought that by now even a five year old knows that georgia started the S. Ossetian war and that some Russian peacekeepers were killed by them in the process. That Russia was obligated to respond to Georgian aggression based on the UN mandate. That S. Ossetia and Abhazia never belonged with georgia but were forced into it by Stalin (born Jugashvili, a bonified georgian, who was freely doling out lands that didn't belong to him to his fellow georgians).
And that it were Georgians (who could never have been a majority in Ossetia and Abhasia, since they were not a native popluation there) who started ethnic cleansing of the native Ossetian and Abhasian populations in these republics in 1990s, which was the reason for the Russian peacekeepers' UN mandate in the region in the first place.
I wonder what is the source of the "Free Thinker's" info? CNN? BBC? Or perhaps Washington Post? Same "free thinking" press - same difference.
04 March, 2010, 04:09
Good article.
04 March, 2010, 01:09
On a happier note:
Today, already yesterday :), is the 3rd of March, Bulgaria's National Liberation Day, and as a Bulgarian I would like to say:
"Thank You Russia and Thank You Russians for giving us this day!"
In all fairness, also "Thank You" to the people of Romania and also Finland, for You too sacrificed a lot for our freedom.
BR
Aleks
04 March, 2010, 00:50
@Newfoundlander,
Evidence!?
I can't stop smiling :). Have you been living on a space station for the last twenty years.. . We live in the age of cheap media stunts, where any statement, even if 100% lie, can be shoved down our throats with absolute minimum effort.
Anything from the so called "wars" in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afganistan, where agressor is represented as the saviour of the world and the victim as pure evil, to data manipulation on history, economy, climate change, health.. you name it.
We've been worked upon to be passive observers of how everything human in our lives is taken away from us, and that with out consent; to work a few jobs, have 0 free time, not to think (God forbid), to bye staff 90% of which we absolutely don't need (otherwise we're backward and not keeping up with "progress"/''our time''), to watch as if in a trance how freedoms and rights that took centuries to achieve are taken away from us in a decade, to watch how people die on TV as form of entertainment.
To be asked to present Evidence today, is a sign that you're weak. The strong can make any statement, charge anybody with any crime, no Evidence neccessary, and we must take it, or otherwise we're "extremists" or "mentally unbalanced."
BR
Aleks
03 March, 2010, 05:55
I looked at the Sochi article Mr Hockney pointed out. Quote "The entire region of southern Russia and the eastern Black Sea region "is also plagued by poverty, corruption and organized crime," she wrote in her essay. "It is both a source and a route for trafficking people, drugs, and weapons -- including documented instances of radioactive materials -- into Europe.". I would call it drivel too. Where is the evidence for this statement?
02 March, 2010, 22:12
M. Hockney wrote: "I do not see Russian news services abusing the hospitality of their UK hosts when they visit by reporting relentlessly on alcohol abuse, poverty, homelessness, drug abuse, political corruption etc…."
We-ell, when RT journalists come to London do you expect them to have tea at Buckingham Palace and write silly articles about the nice clothes the Queen is wearing or how lovely Green Park looks in the spring? I don't think so. Only last week, bless me, there was an item on .. alcohol abuse in the UK. And quite right too. If you think it was wrong for RT to do that then you have a strange idea of journalism; if you think it was OK, and yet wrong for foreign news media to highlight problems in Russia, then you run the risk of being branded a bit hypocritical.
As for the Canadian item on Sochi, I agree it was questionable, but only insofar as it called into question Sochi's suitablility to host the next Winter Olympics on the basis of its proximity to a war zone. That is a matter of opinion and the opinions presented were of tabloid simplicity. The facts leading to this questionable opinionating, however, are not "drivel".
I'd also respectfully remind you of the huge negative publicity attached to Vancouver by the - shock horror - Western media before and during the recent games. That's the nature of the beast of journalism I'm afraid though. Artistic photography it ain't.
02 March, 2010, 08:51
Hopefully RT obliterates Western media hegemony over the next 5 years. The state of media in New Zealand is horrible. I was watching 3news tonight, which is owned by Mediaworks, and the nonsense they spout is unbelievable; tonight they had a story about a nude cyclist as the second news item, then they drifted onto some nonsense about Lady Gaga. Everything is entertainment now. It started with sourcing stories from the states, and now its gone to pure garbage.
Our media never questions the global war on terror, nor do they show you the reality of what's going on. Words like "Blackwater" and "military-industrial-complex" baffle most kiwis. No surprises there.
I don't care about the so-called "reporters" who are losing their jobs in the US; if their quality is sub-par and they do a horrible job then that's their fault.
02 March, 2010, 05:44
I am delighted to watch the Peter's shows. It is always entertaining and humane. Some of his guests acting like wicked brainless barbarians despite the files and rankes in the society. From evolutionary perspective the visual processing, not language carries more weight in human perception. Subconscious face recognition takes only 150 milliseconds and occurs way before semantic analysis!
02 March, 2010, 04:26
All Free Thinker was doing was listening to Western media and believing it.Hence "Russia invaded Georgia". It dos not matter what the facts are, what matters is that Russia is made to look dangerous and aggressive. As recent history has taught us truth is a dispensable commodity when it comes to the interests of resource politics.
02 March, 2010, 03:59
I know Russia is going to totally blow this opportunity like it did every other one the last one being the Georgian conflict and connections to NATO and how it was pre-planned and the leads you could have followed but I hope RT does extensive reporting and live broadcast reports of the Karadzic’s trail in The Hague when it is revealed that US and western intelligence worked with Islamic terrorists and Osama Bin Lain in the Balkans and disprove the now debunked genocide lies.
@Free Thinker
You are wrong about your history Georgia started the conflict in the regions under the first nationalist government and president abolished the autonomous status of the region, language and voting rights under the slogan “Georgia for the Georgians” and sent in troops in the regions to perform ethnic cleansing of native Abkhazians and Ossetia’s along with CIA UNO-UNSCO Ukrainian mercenaries which in retaliation was done to the native Georgian populations.
Since then using Georgian forces and Chechen and foreign mercenaries have repeatedly launched attacks on the border regions.
And the regions were never part of Georgia proper they were part of the Russian empire and later under Stalin incorporated in Georgia as autonomous regions.
Where is the evidence of Georgians being the majority if they were not the native inhabitants?
And Russian was authorised there under a UN mandate and have a right to respond which under the UN agreement they did to respond to an assault.
And the purpose of the assault was not simply to take back the regions but to ethically cleanse them just like they did to the Serbs in the Krajina in fact it is the same MPRI forces that trained the Georgians with refugees fleeing into Russia proper so they had a right to intervene.
Russian only intervened about 12 hours later when US and Britain reject a Russian UN emergency council proposal calling for an immediate ceasefire if they had not done so Russia would have had to intervene.
01 March, 2010, 18:21
Peter,
I watch your show quite regularly and the fact is that your views are indeed slanted towards a pro-Kremlin perspective. In most of your shows on RT the discourse is profoundly disturbing, in that you make inflammatory and controversial statements and hand them out to the audience as accepted fact. For example, during the Georgia conflict you kept on harping on about how Georgia attacked Russia and Russian civilians and how they provoked and how it was Russia's moral responsibility to act, whilst you conveniently forgot to mention the fact that massive ethnic cleansing took place in the disputed republics only a few years back. You also conveniently overlooked the fact that prior to the post soviet ethnic cleansing of these republics Georgians constituted the majority and that during the war many more Georgians were driven from their homes by nationalist South Ossetian and Abkhazian mobs or that, from an international legal point of view, Russia had no business getting involved in another country's domestic affairs. The fact that people living there happen to be Russian citizens does not give Russia the right to annex those territories or act as if they fall within its domain. Its rather ridiculous really, you have argued that Russia has the right to invade another country because that country dared to think it could exercise its authority over its own territory! Whilst you, yourself, may not be Russian, you seem to have happily latched onto the old tried and tested Russian tactic of forcing through your view whilst trying to smear and discredit those who do not agree with you. Being an independent voice does not mean being pro or anti anything, Peter. No one is arguing that the Western media is not biased, you however seem to think that simply by being anti-western you are presenting the correct point of view.
01 March, 2010, 04:11
I was hoping RT would cover and dismiss stories or at least put them into context stories about Russia in the western mass media that Peter did so well in his old Untimely Thoughts website and what NATO/US is real objective is in Afghanistan or other geo-political manoeuvres against Russia and Eurasia (coloured revolutions, support of Islamic terrorism, drug trafficking, etc).
@sevodnya_net
Well the US has been training Islamic terrorists especially during the 90's in he US including the 9/11 hijackers for proxy wars in Afghanistan, Xinjing, Central Asia, Chechnya and the Balkans and how since the Bosnian war MI5/6 with Pakistani ISI helped recruit British Pakistani Muslims to fight in proxy foreign wars including the London bombing mastermind who used explosives from Kosovo and how they created a international multi-billion dollar drug, terrorist and organised crime network during the 90’s in the Balkans.
In the major foreign policy issues like the Iraq and especially the Balkans where they flat out lied and caused the wars in the Balkans they go along with the official government narrative. Or how the non-Russian Oligarchs like Berezovsky are described as “dissidents” and no mention of the connection to organised crime and terrorism and murder and there connection to the British establishment and the Rothschild family.
Do you think the media will cover the Karadicz trail in The Hague when it is revealed that western intelligence supported Islamic terrorism in Bosnia with the US supplying weapons who worked with Osama Bin Ladin and groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Iranian VAVAK?
I don’t think RT is the right channel or news website for you. RT’s objective is to counter 100% negative western portrayal of Russia and an alternative perspective on from the phoney left/right with people like Webster Tarpley and Wayne Madsen.
It’s not trying to be BBC (RT only has a budget of 30 million) or compete with the major news networks.
It has become a ritual - every time President Dmitry Medvedev and
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin face the public - that the issue of the 2012
presidential campaign arises. This happened again when Medvedev was on
a state visit to Italy and when Putin held his now famed annual Q&A
session with the nation. The commentariat is obsessed with who among
the ruling tandem will lead Russia after Medvedev’s term comes to an
end. It would seem a new quasi-science has been invented and it should
be call “tandemology.”
Kremlinology was a failed quasi-science and so is tandemology. Both
are based on what the vast majority of so-called Russia watchers want
to happen and ignore evidence that contradicts their teleological
assumptions. There is no better example of this than Putin’s real or
imagined political ambitions. Will Putin return to the presidency? I have no
idea and I don’t think that Putin and Medvedev have come to any
consensus on this subject yet. But let’s consider what we do
know and apply some simple political logic, along with some basics
about Russian political culture.
During his trademark Q&A session, Putin was asked if he was
considering retirement from political life. His reply was, “Don't hold
your breath.” These words were instantly interpreted as a clear signal
that Putin is determined to reclaim his former office. This, of course,
makes headlines, sells newspapers and garners hits on the internet,
but what about circumstances on the ground here in Russia?
Putin’s Q&A marathons are now part of legend (and stand as brilliant
examples of domestic soft power). No other leader in the world of
his status comes close to Putin’s ability to engage his public (and
constituency). Does he continue this tradition as prime minister to
stay in the public eye (the commentariat thinks so) or does he do it
now because, as prime minister, he is responsible for the economy? Both
are in play, but I strongly believe the latter is far more important
to Putin. The Russia of today is the house that Putin built and he
wants, and even needs, to keep that house in order and under constant
renewal. Putin may be thinking about his political future, but most
assuredly he wants to protect his legacy, first and foremost.
Let’s return to the words “Don't hold your breath.” What does the
commentariat expect? What would happen in Russia if Putin said “Yes, I
will run again in 2012?” Or the reverse - what would happen if Putin
said “No, I will not run again in 2012?” Simple political logic and
current Russian political and social conditions dictate that Putin and
Medvedev must be circumspect when it comes to the 2012 presidential
election. Not doing so would render one member of the “tandem” an
instant lame duck. This is something Russia’s political elite cannot
allow to happen at the moment. By doing so, the entire Putin-Medvedev
project would undermine the political stability. The prospect of this is
completely unacceptable to the Russian body politic.
Putin and Medvedev have a political understanding, and at the core of
that understanding is Russia’s future – not the political ambitions of
either individual. This is what tandemology refuses to accept and
recognize.
Kremlinology suffocated itself to death and so will tandemology – so
don’t hold your breath.
05 February, 2010, 16:22
Fred,
Maybe Peter thought, why should I write a piece, when the topic will go somewhere else anyway. Peter is a good guy, and maybe thought; give some people what they want, somewhere to sound off on anything, a sort of free format area. He could be thinking, I don't need look for work, or lead the discussion, just people enjoy, if this is the product you want! and why not!
05 February, 2010, 14:41
I must register my respect and admiration for Peter Lavelle. I do admit that in the first few episodes of Crosstalk, I did not like the new format. But Peter Lavelle has turned the program around. His interventions are brilliant and, some are simply priceless such his comment on this morning episode on Cross when an American female academic asserted that “it was the national interests of the United States to defend democracy around the world” !Peter was quick to ask her was it also American national interest to torture people, conduct extraordinary renditions and run torture/prison camps! The American academic in question was momentarily at loss for words; she was also visibly angry that her words were contradicted by these ugly inconvenient facts of American war on human rights. Peter Lavelle deserves every last rouble/euros RT pays him!
02 February, 2010, 10:53
Where's Peter? It appears that this blog has become a sounding board for some anti-Russian, raving , lunatic Estonian ...this guy won't give up!!!! Hey buddy you made your point, give up! Estonians are not the only ones that suffered in history, Chinese under Japanese, Philippines under the Americans and Japanese, Vietnam under the US occupation, Armenians under the Turks, countless under the French and British. under the Germans etc.,etc.,
You my Estonian friend, as some one suggested on this blog must be paid by some conservative "think tank" in the US to irritate Russians.....Give up!!!
Remember after Russia spanked Georgia how the US claimed "we're all Georgians" etc., just a lot of hot air,,,,we only fight little weak countries !!!Vietnam, Granada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan. Keeps our miltary industrial complex well funded ,trying out our new weapons...You're out of luck, Estonia has no oil!!!!no US aid!!!!
fred.....oregon, usa
31 January, 2010, 02:38
Is this guy still pumping out his ill-considered untimely thoughts.
31 January, 2010, 00:59
To xxxx: I neither promote hate for Russia, nor feel any hate for Russia myself. I do promote a knowledge of facts, because living in a fantasy land is as harmful for Russia as it is for its neighbours.
The facts I present may be verified in any relevant reference source the world over. May I assure you that the measure for determining whether or not a view is “crazy” is not whether or not it agrees with Russia’s preferred position, but whether or not it accurately represents verifiable facts. I note that although you clearly expressed your dislike of what I present, you did not even try to offer one bit of verifiable evidence that that discredits presented facts.
30 January, 2010, 13:04
Marzipan, I do not read them for a long time because it makes me sick and tired reading the crazy nationalist ideas of yours. You promote only hate in your messages! I think you are paid. This is not freedom of speech! This is propaganda!
I have an excellent solution for you too: to stop blaming Russia and the Soviet Union and to focus on something else. Just imagine what you could do for the world if you used your energy to promote love and peace!
29 January, 2010, 21:07
Peter,
Pls give us some direction of what to expect - like for example:
"I'm really busy guys, expect my next article not earlier than mid-february." or
"I'm closing this. Sorry guys."
As is I think we're a bit lost as to what happened.. .
All others, and especially 007,
I think you'll find it very interesting to follow Max Keiser's reports on programmes here on RT. I find them really.. illuminating.
BR
Aleks
28 January, 2010, 11:02
To xxxx, who is tired of reading my comments: I have both an excellent solution for you, and also a request. My suggested solution is, don’t read them. My request is, that you also let Bianca know how displeased you are with her for bringing up the subject of Harry Männil in the first place, and completely out of the blue, in her post of 16 January 06:24. If she hadn’t have brought up the subject and kept it alive so long you would not have read my responses, and become tired.
26 January, 2010, 13:01
marzipan, I got tired of reading your comments, I hope not all Estonians are like you, Bianka, good job! Thank you for your comments
21 January, 2010, 09:45
What was my first point? Simply that Männil may have arrested the 7 people in question, or he may not have. There is no written or witness evidence to confirm it either way. It is entirely possible that he did, and entirely possible that, 7 days after the imposition of the German occupation on Tallinn, someone else did. I don’t know, you don’t know, no one knows. That’s my point.
My point further is, that Männil is not Mikson.
What was my second point? That there is no evidence to show that Männil’s interrogation of the seven arrested people was itself criminal, and that there is no evidence to show that Männil knew, six days into the German occupation of Tallinn, that the arrest of the 7 would lead to execution. Neither you, I, nor present-day Estonian authorities know of a certainty that Männil had no guilt. I have merely pointed out time and again, and so has every judicial investigation that has considered the matter, including the KGB, that there is no evident that proves that he was guilty. The contrary (and non-judicial) opinion is that of Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Efraim Zuroff, who is committed to serve the SWC’s goals. Those goals, as I detailed in my post of 17 January 07:00, do not explicitly specify the bringing of justice to bear on individual Nazi War Criminals, but of keeping the memory of the Holocaust alive.
What was my third point? That neither I nor Estonians at large are some kind of bloodthirsty ghouls that thrive on Russian blood, and love to see it shed. But that anyone who attacks any country, whether Germans attacking Russia or Russians attacking Estonia, can expect to be vigorously resisted, and quite rightly so.
What was my fourth point? That the numbers of Russian killed that you attributed to Estonia are simply false, for the reasons I previously detailed. And that the Russians driving into Estonia in 1944 utterly lost all right and expectation to be called “liberators” on account of the brutal mass atrocities that the same Russians worked against innocent Estonian civilians in 1941. Their immediate resumption of those atrocities in 1946, which continued in a severe form for ten years, and reduced to “mere” oppression and attempted cultural extinction of Estonia for more than the next 30 years, amply demonstrates that this expectation was entirely justified. Estonia was not responsible for what Hitler did in Russia or elsewhere, and had no responsibility (or ability) to defend Europe. Russia was responsible for its atrocities in Estonia, which far exceeded Germany’s there, and Estonia was responsible for trying to protect its people from a resumption of it, because no one else would. Nowhere have I ever “blamed the Soviet Union for all the world’s problems of the time,” and it is a nonsense for you to imply that I did. But I do blame the Soviet Union for its barbarities in Estonia, so does the world, and so should you.
You asked , “Was every country that Allied Forces fought over with Hitler called ‘occupied’? According to you, Red Army could not have, or should not have pursued Hitler until his defeat, because it had to go over Estonia?” Every Nazi-occupied country was given freedom, except those which the Red Army “liberated”. This includes Estonia and its Baltic neighbors. Russia “liberated” countries into a new totalitarian Soviet empire of oppression, some with a pretense of nominal sovereignty such as the Warsaw Pact countries, and some that weren’t even accorded a pretense of sovereignty, such as the Baltic countries. As far as Estonia was concerned, the Red Army could pursue Hitler to its heart’s content, but Estonia knew, from Russia’s own previous behavior in Soviet occupied Estonia, that the Red Army would bring only more death, misery and oppression to it, and no liberty at all. This assessment proved to be 101% accurate, as you well know.
The number of Red Army losses in Estonia is certainly known. The number that should legitimately be attributed to Estonians themselves is absolutely unknown.
What is my fifth point? The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact may have been an attempt by Stalin to buy time. Or it may have been an attempt by Stalin to buy half of Europe. Or it may have been both. For the Baltics, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was destruction, slavery, death, and fifty years of foreign occupation.
What is my sixth point? The civilians killed in Dresden, as in every other bombed city, were overwhelmingly innocent of any crimes. Their countries were at war. The civilians murdered and enslaved by Russians in Estonia were also innocent. Their country was not at war with anyone in 1940, nor was Russia at war with them. What they experienced was a callous, calculated, cold-blooded crime against humanity, committed not in the heat of battle against an enemy combatant nation and with no military objective involved at all, but cold-blooded, paranoia-driven murder and enslavement. My further point is, that Dresden was a city of a nation of somewhere around 60 million or more people. The murdered and enslaved of Estonia were from a nation of 1 million people. Numerically, Dresden’s victims were greater; proportionally, Estonia’s were. None of this makes the death of any of the dead any better. But it makes the crimes of one set of killers vastly worse.
What was my seventh point? Estonia did not break the terms of its 1939 Bases Treaty with Russia, and that individual Estonians leaving for Finland to join the Finland’s repulsion of Russian aggression was neither under the control of, nor promoted by, the Estonian government. But Russia’s bringing in of troops way beyond the numbers specified in the Treaty until they amounted to more than 10% of the country’s entire population, its establishment of additional bases outside of the ones permitted by the Treaty, its use of some of these as bases from which to mount bombing raids against Finland, and finally its use of those troops to attack Estonia itself all were gross Russian violations of the Treaty. If Estonia broke the Treaty (it didn’t), Russia clearly broke it many times over beforehand.
What was my eighth point? Estonia, as a sovereign and responsible nation, never had a policy of killing Russian civilians, nor ever pursued such a policy. Under German occupation, a few (very few) rogue Estonian war criminals did participate in such German war crimes. Representing this as an “Estonian action” is false and dishonest. That was no more an “Estonian action” as the participation of Belgian volunteers in the defense of Estonia against Soviet re-invasion in 1944 was a “Belgian action.”
Finally, you claim that “Estonian history is all about technicality.” No. Since the arrival of Russian people at its borders about a thousand years ago, Estonian history has been all about survival. A citizen of a larger country finds such a concept very hard to understand.
21 January, 2010, 06:29
Marzipan6,
So, I am making wild accusations, and you despair of specifying errors of fact...
I despair of your doublespeak.
Bianca wrote:
“Now you are being even more creative. He (Männil) was ‘not an arresting officer’ you say.”
Marzipan6 wrote:
No, I did not say this, and you know I did not. In my post of 19 January 12:02 I wrote, “As for Männil, it appears that he may indeed have not … even known he arrested the seven Jewish people to whom you refer. HE MAY HAVE DONE – but documentary evidence specifying that he was the arresting officer does not exist.”
AND YOUR POINT IS?
... he may indeed have not even known he arrested
... he may have done it
... no DOCUMENTARY evidence SPECIFYING that he was arresting officer exists.
Exactly, what is your point?
MY POINT IS:
....According to Simon Wiesenthal Center, Mikson was his superior, quote from their report:
....In the conclusions of the International Commission, there was an unequivocally negative evaluation of the activities of Evald Mikson, who was "particularly singled out," along with six other Estonian Nazi collaborators, as being "actively involved in the arrest and killing of Estonian Jews." He and three others -- Ain-Ervin Mere, Julius Ennok, and Ervin Viks -- were named as the ones who "signed numerous death warrants."
Estonian investigation confirmed not only that Mannil had worked for the dreaded Estonian political police, but that at least seven persons (all named) whom he had arrested and interrogated had been executed by Estonian Nazi collaborators.
This is the report. I did not invent it.
Marzipan6 wrote:
Six days after the establishment of the German occupation in Tallinn, Männil was hired by the German political police (by the way, there never was any Estonian political police) as an ASSISTANT.
Nor have I ever said that the seven detained people in question were executed without his knowledge. I don’t know when they were executed, but it would have been some time after their interrogation, and by then Männil would have presumably known it. What I wrote was that this early in the German occupation people would be unlikely to know that an arrest and interrogation would lead to execution.
AND YOUR POINT IS:
.... he was hired by the German political police, as there was NEVER Estonian political police
.....he was hired to be Mikson's assistant
.....you never said that the seven detained people in question were executed without his knowledge
.... it was too early in occupation to know what is going on, he may not have known what is happening
So, exactly, what is your point?
MY POINT IS:
.... Evald Mikson was his superior, proven murderer
.....A lot of data available on the crimes by Evals Mikson and others I have already named in the above quote from the report
.....KGB files, the same data available to the US Justice Department OSI, contained extremely incriminating testimony against Mikson
....Estonian Foreign Ministry issued an official statement that asserted that Mikson was not guilty of any crimes, and least of all against the Jewish people, a total distortion of the historical facts
....The testimony recorded by the Sandler Commission (which investigated the Baltic refugees who escaped to Sweden) that Mannil had killed as many as 100 Jews, was thrown out because it was not possible to link victims to individuals to establish that they personally killed them
....According to the documentation, the name was Estonian Political Police, even though it was set up under Nazi rule
....This Estonian Political Police employed Estonians, from Mikson to all others who signed death warrants
.... The executioners were also Estonians
....Harry Mannil's name was associated with seven Jews, according to the report
....You can go on denying the SWC report for as long as you wish....
..... or are you REALLY saying that you HAVE NEVER DENIED IT, and that you are not DENYING it, while stating that Harry Mannil is not the arresting officer, that he may not have known about the arrests, interrogations and executions.... or that you MAY have done it, and MAY have known it.
Considering that his superior and other named executioners were Estonians, there is very little doubt in my mind that during his tenure as an ASSISTANT to Mikson --- he could not have helped knowing what his employer, Estonian Political Police did for living. Or managed not to be part of it.
Marzipan6 said:
Your next untruth is this: you wrote, “For you, hundreds of thousands of Russians killed by the Estonians, mean absolutely nothing.” Yet you know very well that in my post of 15 December 10:27 I had written, “I will not get into a debate as to who amongst Estonians and Russians killed more of the other, as all killing is a tragedy and the extinguishing of something unique and priceless. It all is to be utterly, utterly regretted. I will say, though, because it is true, that those who invade and occupy another country can expect to be vehemently resisted. If they didn’t want to take the casualties, they shouldn’t have invaded and occupied.” Why are you dishonest in regard to what I write?
YOUR POINT:
.... All the killing is tragedy
......If they didn’t want to take the casualties, they shouldn’t have invaded and occupied
And what is your point? It is regrettable, but they deserved it
MY POINT IS:
.....All deaths in this war were senseless
.....Russia did not start the war, Hitler did
.....Russia did what it had to do to defend itself and conquer Hitler
.....Do not defend vigorous Estonian help to Hitler's efforts in the name of "unprovoked occupation by Soviet Union of the Baltics"
.....There was nothing innocent about Estonian anti-Soviet actions in the war with Finland, and Soviet Union had learned all it needed to know about the Estonian "neutrality"
....The numbers of killed DO MATTER; Estonia's land was the slaughterhouse of Soviet Army, and the Red Army had to break through to pursue Hitler's forces
....By avoiding to look at the horrendous number of Red Army casualties in Estonia, Estonians can easily forget that these are real people and real deaths ---- and that their casualties of the war are not the strange exception, but unfortunately the rule.
....Do look at the numbers, they may help you see the real cost of bringing Hitler down, and who sacrificed how much to make it happen.
Estonian actions, contributed to prolonging Hitler's rule over Europe. You may find it strange, but many of us would for that reason alone, call Estonia a collaborationist nation.
Marzipan6 wrote:
“Do you know that Estonians killed more Russians and other nationals of the former Soviet Union then the total number of US losses in WWII?”
No, I don’t know that, and neither do you nor anyone else. You are recklessly assigning to Estonia the death of every Soviet soldier involved in the 1944 invasion of Estonia. Yet Estonian units, drawn from a tiny national population of only 1 million, always comprised the minority in any action where they fought alongside the much larger German units. The majority of Russians killed in the re-occupation of Estonia were killed by Germans. Although Estonians, whose memory of mass Soviet atrocities of 1941 from the first Soviet occupation was very fresh, were entitled to prevent the return of Soviet mass murderers to their country in any way they could. When Soviets imposed their first occupation in 1940, Estonians killed no one at all, and we all know the way that Russians thanked them for that. I already detailed the foregoing in my post of 17 December 10:41, as you also know.
My comment:
DO I NEED TO MAKE A POINT, OR ARE YOU SAYING ALL ANYONE NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR ELEVATING ESTONIAN VICTIMS ABOVE ALL OTHERS? Returning Soviet Army was the return of mass murderers, while the biggest mass murder known to mankind just occurred in Russia, where Hitler's forces killed millions? And you did expect then that Red Army was going to say ---- now we have to stop going after Hitler! We cannot enter Estonian territory!
So they were the mass murderers for killing tens of thousands of Estonians, while Estonians and Hitler killed about 400,000 thousand Russians, and the departing German army left on Russian soil millions of dead civilians?
Can you by any chance even comprehend your lack of grasp of what was going on at the time?
All the numbers of war dead in WWII are recorded. Are they totally accurate? No. Are they good representation of the order of magnitude? Yes.
Try to reflect on the magnitude of the tragedy, before you blame the Soviet Union for all the world's problems of that time.
YOU INSIST THAT RED ARMY, HAVING PUSHED HITLER OUT OF ITS COUNTRY, AND BATTLING HIS FORCES IN ESTONIA, ALONG WITH ESTONIANS WAS " REOCCUPATION OF ESTONIA". Was every country that Allied Forces fought over with Hitler called "occupied"? According to you, Red Army could not have, or should not have pursued Hitler until his defeat, because it had to go over Estonia?
.....The number of Red Army losses in Estonia is known.
.....The number of Estonians that perished during that time, is known.
Marzipan6 wrote:
As your next lapse of logic you wrote, “The invasion of Hitler on Russia speaks all I need to know as to the supposed ‘partnership’ they may have had.” It speaks all you need to know about Germany’s attitude towards Russia. But it says nothing at all about Russia’s attitude towards Germany. For that, you would need to consult not only symbolic events like joint Red Army-Wehrmacht military parades prior to Germany’s attack, but also the practical strategic and supplies support that Russia gave to Germany which helped facilitate Germany’s attack against Europe, and Stalin’s initial disbelief that Hitler had turned against him. Though Stalin was heartless in crushing ordinary human life underfoot, he did at least presume a certain honor amongst thieves which Hitler did not replicate, and Hitler’s perfidy caught him unawares.
My comment:
Do I have to point out the lapse in your logic?
Other then some marginal writers, all serious historians that went over the documents understood Soviet Union's buying of time. Nobody had any illusions about Hitler's intentions. What Stalin did not anticipate, was the speedy collapse of Europe.
He was surprised that Hitler was wasting no time to move to the East. Stalin was genuinely surprised by Hitler's decision to invade so quickly, but not by the intentions to move to the eastern front. In fact, anybody who had anybody in WWII, knew that Hitler was going to turn to the East. Stalin was not the only one to be ignorant of the fact.
You are trying to make this sound like the two of them had a real partnership going! What nonsense!
Marzipan6 wrote:
But perhaps your post’s towering dishonesty was you writing, “Just one bombing of Dresden saw more civilians being killed than Estonians during the entire war, and the post-war Soviet rule.” Er – Dresden was a city not only of an enemy combatant, but of the primary aggressor nation of WW2.
MY POINT:
Really, this is the TOWERING DISHONESTY? Dear Marzipan6, it is worth repeating your words: "Er – Dresden was a city not only of an enemy combatant, but of the primary aggressor nation of WW2." Really? Dresden was a city of an enemy combatant? How can a CITY be an ENEMY COMBATANT? And Dresden's crime was that is was a city in a country whose insane leadership became primary aggressor nation of WWII!!!!!!!!!!
I do not know how can you ever think this way, and then having the nerve to actually say it in public. And then, accuse others of TOWERING DISHONESTY?
You are, here, for all to see, claiming that the only innocents in WWII were Estonians. All other civilians that were killed, somehow deserved it, and just cannot possibly be compared with Estonian innocents! This is twisted.
And do you think that it was OK to drop atomic bombs on two towns, at the time when Japan had no capability to attack any more? And all in the name of "ending the war"? These were civilians that were killed, not military assets of Japan.
I, UNLIKE YOU, DO NOT CLASSIFY INNOCENT POPULATION INTO "ENEMY COMBATANTS".
For me, innocents are innocents. Be they innocents of Estonia, Russia, Japan or Germany.
You believe that THE ONLY MURDEROUS ARMY WAS RED ARMY. The "return of mass murderers" is how you describe the Red Army push of the Eastern Front away from its borders. But to you, it was not EQUALLY MURDEROUS killing of ANY civilians in the war.
Marzipan6 wrote:
Estonia had committed no aggression against anyone, was not even at war, was determinedly neutral and had treaties of mutual assistance with Russia whose faithful observance Pravda had praised as late as 28 May 1940.
MY POINT:
What a propaganda trick. Pravda was just being politically correct, as this was the official position. What did you expect them to write? Something like this: "Daily we are being spied on by our presumed partners, so every time we send planes out to the Gulf of Finland, our positions are in jeopardy. Daily, hundreds of Estonians are going over to Finland to fight against us. With Finland up until its knees already in Hitler's camp, Estonia is following the trend". That would have sounded reassuring to the public! Naturally that they lied --- everything is just roses, and we are doing so well.
What was your point to bring the article up? To say that Russia really liked what was going on in Estonia, and then changed their mind overnight, and turned into a strange, outer space-like killing machine that descended on Estonia?
Marzipan6 wrote:
Yet less than three weeks later Russia initiated its 50-year ravaging of Estonia. This, along with its concomitant mass atrocities was an inexcusable and barbaric evil.
My point:
You are forgetting the period of Nazi Germany residing in Estonia, building concentration camps, busily killing millions of Russians, so close to you, that you could smell the stench? So, the "fifty year ravaging, was interrupted by Estonian participation in the largest mass murder in WWII, the killing of Russian civilians? And then proceeded with a vigorous "defense" to stop Red Army pursue the one an only true evil, the monstrous Third Reich.
But you see only Soviet Union committing barbaric evil.
The "mass atrocities" you are blaming Red Army for, is under 50.000 dead Estonians, including civilian and military, over the entire WWII period. If I am not accurate in the numbers, let me know.
The city of Dresden had many, many more civilian victims. Only civilians. And they were not killed by Russians.
Marzipan6 wrote:
The bombing of German cities was tragic, and in some cases as with Dresden, probably unnecessary. But it was a tragedy which Germany brought on itself. Your comparison of allied bombing of German cities with Soviet Russia’s half-century assault and oppression of a peaceful neutral neighbor simply takes one’s breath away.
MY COMMENT: My shock over your morals cannot be greater. This is the kind of reasoning that brings about wars and destruction. Now I can see, as I really feel the chill, how can some people justify the death of innocents.
For you, some things are just "regrettable". Well, they were the enemy population! What? Those civilians brought it ON THEMSELVES! What?
Your thoughts, feelings and attitudes towards the value of human life are as far away from mine, as one can get. No, Marzipan6, you are not right! Civilian population is not responsible for whatever their leaders decided! Nobody had the right to kill civilians indiscriminately from the air!
Taking your logic to its conclusion, Soviet Union was justified in occupying Estonia and treating the population as enemy combatants! Why not? You are saying that Estonia was peaceful, but that is not what the Russians felt on their skin? So, why not just call it "regrettable"?
Because it would be insane, as it is insane to defend the murder of civilians anywhere.
Marzipan6 wrote:
The historical assessment of the War has been accurate since the day it ended everywhere in the world, except in Russia.
But then, Russia’s description of its own deeds has never been confused with “history”, not even in Russia itself, which is why revisions of it keep being turned out every couple of decades.
My comment:
Frankly, Marzipan6, after your definition of Dresden as the city of the "enemy combatant", I can hardly have anything much to tell you. You have your own version of history, while Russian history of WWII, does not really look any different from what is being thought in schools here in US.
Estonia suffered and still suffers from bad political judgment. As an independent country, seems to be making decisions that are disastrous to its population.
You see, Marzipan6, Estonian history is all about TECHNICALITY. Technically, Estonia was neutral. In reality, it played high risk politics. For a small country --- that is a big problem.
Today, same problem. Baltics, Estonia the primary cheerleader, are insisting on NATO developing a defense plan for Baltics. Clearly, the "insistence" is viewed with benevolence in some Western circles. But not all. A non-existent threat is elevated to the highest rank of militarization. Estonia is interested in high politics --- again. It will be more then happy to house any military gear on Russia's border. That is a judgment that only Estonia can make, but let's not claim innocence all over again.
Estonia is exposing itself to adventurism in high-stake politics, forgetting that it should strive to build good relations with all of its neighbors, especially Germany and Russia. Playing off one against the other is a loosing proposition.
20 January, 2010, 23:56
Thank you Bianca!
As usual it’s been very educational reading you.
Funny how current Ukrainian leadership wants to join the EU, but asks instead Georgia to send its “monitors.” If they share so much with Georgia in terms of values, I suggest they form a union with this country and leave the EU alone; I’m sure a few other would like to join such a union too... .
“According to Saakashvili, "their stay there was on my order agreed with all political forces, we received confirmation and agreement from all.””
Not what I heard on RT. Party of Regions was pretty surprised for somebody who has been asked and has agreed.
“Surely, before the second tour we'll ask them again whether they want to involve our monitors. It's up to them to decide."
Surely I want to see a confirmation from the Party of Regions that they have been asked on this before the second tour!
“Yesterday Levan Tarkhnishvili, the ex-head of Central Electoral Commission of Georgia, said most Georgian monitors departed for Georgia.”
Yes, as you said, I want to know how many were send in total in the first place? I want to know what “most” means?..
Also, what their background is, how come there isn’t a single woman among them, how come they’re all between 25 and 40 years of age, and (most importantly) what was/is the purpose of their.. “monitoring”, and the means they were/are entitled to use?
This should be investigated I believe by institutions concerned and facts brought in the light ASAP. If any wrongdoing, people and institutions should be charged. As it is it definitely stinks and lack of digging into the matter more deeply will definitely invite more of the same.
BR,
Aleks
Ps. If I had to define age we live in, “lawlessness” comes to mind. If criminal behaviour on all levels is only rewarded, guess what conclusion will people worldwide come to?.. It’s an intelligent monkey you’re dealing with after all.. .
20 January, 2010, 04:43
I better correct an inadvertent error of fact in my long reply to Bianca, to save her the trouble of correcting it for me. I had said that Männil was hired by the German political police 6 days after the German occupation of Tallinn. This is not correct – I don’t know when he was hired. The interrogations which are the subject of Bianca’s accusations regarding Männil occurred 6 days after the German occupation of Tallinn.
20 January, 2010, 04:31
Bianca, you are making some very wild false accusations. I despair of specifying your errors of fact, as past experience shows that this is likely to have as much effect for you as water on a duck’s back. But perhaps not so for other readers, so here goes:
You write, “Now you are being even more creative. He (Männil) was ‘not an arresting officer’ you say.” No, I did not say this, and you know I did not. In my post of 19 January 12:02 I wrote, “As for Männil, it appears that he may indeed have not … even known he arrested the seven Jewish people to whom you refer. HE MAY HAVE DONE – but documentary evidence specifying that he was the arresting officer does not exist.”
You continued, “And are you also saying that, while he was in charge, and under his watch, these seven people were executed --- without his knowledge?” No, and you know that I’m not. First, there is no evidence designating Männil in charge of anything, yet you magically promote him to being “the man in charge of the institution.” It is hard for me to credit that this is not a deliberate and knowing untruth on your part.
Six days after the establishment of the German occupation in Tallinn, Männil was hired by the German political police (by the way, there never was any Estonian political police) as an ASSISTANT. Nor have I ever said that the seven detained people in question were executed without his knowledge. I don’t know when they were executed, but it would have been some time after their interrogation, and by then Männil would have presumably known it. What I wrote was that this early in the German occupation people would be unlikely to know that an arrest and interrogation would lead to execution. Just as six days into the Soviet occupation of Estonia, people would not have dreamt that before the month was out, some 10,000 of them would have been transported to Siberian slavery, and most to their death, by the Soviets. There are some levels of barbarity that are very hard to apprehend before the event.
Your next untruth is this: you wrote, “For you, hundreds of thousands of Russians killed by the Estonians, mean absolutely nothing.” Yet you know very well that in my post of 15 December 10:27 I had written, “I will not get into a debate as to who amongst Estonians and Russians killed more of the other, as all killing is a tragedy and the extinguishing of something unique and priceless. It all is to be utterly, utterly regretted. I will say, though, because it is true, that those who invade and occupy another country can expect to be vehemently resisted. If they didn’t want to take the casualties, they shouldn’t have invaded and occupied.” Why are you dishonest in regard to what I write?
You go on to say, “Do you know that Estonians killed more Russians and other nationals of the former Soviet Union then the total number of US losses in WWII?” No, I don’t know that, and neither do you nor anyone else. You are recklessly assigning to Estonia the death of every Soviet soldier involved in the 1944 invasion of Estonia. Yet Estonian units, drawn from a tiny national population of only 1 million, always comprised the minority in any action where they fought alongside the much larger German units. The majority of Russians killed in the re-occupation of Estonia were killed by Germans. Although Estonians, whose memory of mass Soviet atrocities of 1941 from the first Soviet occupation was very fresh, were entitled to prevent the return of Soviet mass murderers to their country in any way they could. When Soviets imposed their first occupation in 1940, Estonians killed no one at all, and we all know the way that Russians thanked them for that. I already detailed the foregoing in my post of 17 December 10:41, as you also know.
As your next lapse of logic you wrote, “The invasion of Hitler on Russia speaks all I need to know as to the supposed ‘partnership’ they may have had.” It speaks all you need to know about Germany’s attitude towards Russia. But it says nothing at all about Russia’s attitude towards Germany. For that, you would need to consult not only symbolic events like joint Red Army-Wehrmacht military parades prior to Germany’s attack, but also the practical strategic and supplies support that Russia gave to Germany which helped facilitate Germany’s attack against Europe, and Stalin’s initial disbelief that Hitler had turned against him. Though Stalin was heartless in crushing ordinary human life underfoot, he did at least presume a certain honour amongst thieves which Hitler did not replicate, and Hitler’s perfidy caught him unawares.
But perhaps your post’s towering dishonesty was you writing, “Just one bombing of Dresden saw more civilians being killed than Estonians during the entire war, and the post-war Soviet rule.” Er – Dresden was a city not only of an enemy combatant, but of the primary aggressor nation of WW2. Estonia had committed no aggression against anyone, was not even at war, was determinedly neutral and had treaties of mutual assistance with Russia whose faithful observance Pravda had praised as late as 28 May 1940. Yet less than three weeks later Russia initiated its 50-year ravaging of Estonia. This, along with its concomitant mass atrocities was an inexcusable and barbaric evil. The bombing of German cities was tragic, and in some cases as with Dresden, probably unnecessary. But it was a tragedy which Germany brought on itself. Your comparison of allied bombing of German cities with Soviet Russia’s half-century assault and oppression of a peaceful neutral neighbour simply takes one’s breath away.
You declared, “Again and again, you want WWII to be refought and redefined.” Please don’t tell me what I want – it is for me to tell you what I want. And I assuredly don’t want WWII refought (where do you get such ideas from?) much less re-defined, as the historical assessment of the War has been accurate since the day it ended everywhere in the world, except in Russia. But then, Russia’s description of its own deeds has never been confused with “history”, not even in Russia itself, which is why revisions of it keep being turned out every couple of decades.
Finally you wrote, “And if you wish to insist that there was no Nazism in Estonia, you would be the only one, to my knowledge, making that claim.” It all depends on what you mean by “Nazism.” There was certainly a Nazi occupation, though no particular sympathies amongst the people for it or for Nazi ideology either before, during or after the event. There were Estonians fighting within the German military against the return of Soviet occupation because Estonians had no military of their own after Russia, by deceit, occupied their country and destroyed their own military. And there were a few individuals who, sadly enough, did participate in German war crimes. Does this equate to there “being Nazism in Estonia?” One might just as sensibly ask, “Was there Communism in Estonia”? Well, there were several Communist occupations of the country. Before the first one, the membership of the Estonian Communist Party totalled less than 100, but as the second occupation extended into the decades, many took out party membership because that was the only way to secure half-way decent housing, jobs and education. Estonians even ended up serving in the Red Army – they had no option but to. And yes, there were also a few “true believers” who were committed Communist and betrayers of their people. But throughout all that time, Estonians as a whole resisted Soviet rule in any way they could, and got out from under it the very first opportunity that came along. There was “Communism in Estonia” in pretty much the same way as “Nazism in Estonia.”
20 January, 2010, 01:49
Aleksander,
This I found in Georgian paper.
"In the view of party leader, ex-Speaker Burjanadze, these actions of the government show what, in this government's view, are "democratic elections."
"We are sure that the freedom-loving Ukrainian people in fraternal Ukraine will ensure the victory of democracy without Saakashvili's interference!" statement says.
The first tour of presidential elections in Ukraine took place on January 17th. Before the elections 400 Georgian "monitors" arrived in Donetsk.
The President of Georgia commented the incident and said that monitors were sent on the request of Ukrainian people, and "their arrival was hailed with heart and soul". According to Saakashvili, "their stay there was on my order agreed with all political forces, we received confirmation and agreement from all. Surely, before the second tour we'll ask them again whether they want to involve our monitors. It's up to them to decide."
Georgian Central Electoral Commision intended to accredit over 2000 monitors. On January 17th the Ukrainian CEC re-considered registration of Georgian monitors and again rejected. CEC members decided to turn to Prosecutor General's Office.
Yesterday Levan Tarkhnishvili, the ex-head of Central Electoral Commission of Georgia, said most Georgian monitors departed for Georgia.
He said this decision must ease "tension", accompanying Georgian monitors in Ukraine; moreover most of them were not allowed to work.
Well, at least it is news in Georgia, but looking at this carefully, somebody invited them. There is only one "somebody", and that is the current reckless President of Ukraine.
The purpose is still not clear, nor is it clear that they left Ukraine. Even less is clear, just how much of these "monitors" are there?
19 January, 2010, 22:42
Marzipan6,
I will let others look at my sense of ethics and morals.
You have quite clearly expressed yours. Your defense of Estonian Authorities, and your continued defence (that is apparently not needed) of late Harry Mannil, is stunning.
Now you are being even more creative. He was "not an arresting officer", you say. Is it ever the practice that high-ranking people in any police go out to actually arrest people themselves?
Are you also saying that he had nothing to do with their interrogation? And are you also saying that, while he was in charge, and under his watch, these seven people were executed --- without his knowledge? So, the man in charge of the institution that has arrested, interrogated and then executed these seven people is not responsible for these murders, because there is no paper documentation showing him to be the arresting officer? \
Do you realize how far have you gone? And what are you really saying? In your world, nobody would have ever answered for the war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, unless they have themselves been the arresting officers, or killers, and the written documents to that effect exist?
So, for the first nine months of the Nazi administratoin in Estonia, as many Jews were liquidated, you are claiming that the most notorious of all outfits, the one Harry Mannil managed --- had nothing to do with their death and disappearance?
First you claimed that may be he did not know what was going on. Now, you are backing off that line of thinking --- to point out that his name was not the name of the arresting officer. But he was the man in charge!
I have commented on the Estonian Authorities, not on your personal sense of justice. But since you chose to be personal, let me remind you that your anguish for the victims is very selective. For you, hundreds of thousands of Russians killed by the Estonians, mean absolutely nothing. Oh well, you say, they should not have been there in the first place. That is like saying that Estonia should have been in different place, as it stood right on the eastern front.
Do you know that Estonians killed more Russians and other nationals of the former Soviet Union then the total number of US losses in WWII? That is, if you add all the fronts, Pacific and European together?
Nobody ever said that the losses that Estonia suffered in the slaughterhouse that was WWII are not tragic. I have often pointed out to you the tragedies and bitter fate that had befallen Estonia.
Do you remember how many times I said that I would never ask for an appology from anyone who was on the loosing side of WWII? And you know why? Because people are NOT GUILTY COLLECTIVELY. And the armies in the field do not make decisions --- they go and confront those that are their enemies.
You make such an extraordinary case for German-Soviet closeness, that nothing in history can confirm. You like photo-ops, as if they mean anything. The invasion of Hitler on Russia speaks all I need to know as to the supposed "partnership" they may have had. The annihilation of civilian population in areas of Nazi incursion into Soviet Union speaks all I need to know about your imagined partnership. In the light of millions of civilian victims in Russia --- your suggestion is not only without logic, it is immoral.
You have never regretted, as far as I remember, the senseless death and disappeance of millions of Russians in the cursed war. It is almost as if you think it was allright to slaughter them.
Estonia did loose close to 50,000 people to the war and deportations. That is a calamity for a small nation. But the death and destruction of civilians in other parts of the Europe and elsewhere cannot be overlooked, if you are to have some all encompassing judgement on the Soviet Union.
Just one bombing of Dresden saw more civilians being killed then Estonians during the entire war, and the post-war Soviet rule. What about other German cities, like Hamburg and others? Dresden at that time did not have any military, or military supportive infrastructure to warrrant that vengeance. And at the time when Japan did not even have enough fuel to raise it military planes in the air, how does one justify dropping atomic weapon on two cities?
Your penchant for evidentiary support --- written one --- tells me that your feelings for victims seem to be "situational". You will be outraged over the death of some, while stone cold about others.
I do not question your morals and ethics. That is never possible without actually knowing the person, and their contribution to the lives of others.
But I question your judgement. It is heavily coloured by a driving force to portray history of Estonia in a simple, almost fairy tale manner. Yours is a story of an innocent nation, brutalized by a barbaric, large neighbor. Your context is the stage on which only the pieces of your selected props are visible.
Again, and again, you want WWII to be refought and redefined. While the end of the Soviet Union brought to the larger audiences more historic depth, the net result did not change the overall knowledge.
As somebody at this forum mentioned before, the knowledge of the hardship under Stalinism in Estonia and other Baltic states, has been also supplemented by the knowledge of the Nazi era in those countries.
And if you wish to insist that there was no Nazism in Estonia, you would be the only one, to my knowledge, making that claim.
19 January, 2010, 12:02
It’s not “my” history of Estonia, Bianca, but universally available anywhere Estonian history is recorded.
Claiming that in 1939-40 “Finland was engaging the Soviet Union on behalf of Hitler” is about as ridiculous as one can get. Finland was engaging, on its own soil, a completely unprovoked attack against it by Soviet Russia, which Russia mounted in pursuance of claiming for itself territory which the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that it signed with its virtual ally, Nazi Germany, assigned to it. I can even refer you to photos on the web of the Red Army and the Wehrmacht joining in parades together celebrating their combined destruction of Poland at the same time as Soviet Russia was attacking Finland. Strangely, RT has not actually published these.
Occupying Estonia in 1940 and wantonly murdering and deporting its civilians into Siberian slavery by the thousands at a time when Russia was not at war with Germany, and when Estonia was at war with nobody at all, was as “necessary” as continuing the occupation, murder, deportations and oppression for almost 50 years after Nazi Germany was a memory.
Some Estonians fought under the Nazi banner, and some under the Soviet banner. Each was fighting one enemy of their country.
As for Männil, it appears that he may indeed have not have even known he arrested the seven Jewish people to whom you refer. He may have done – but documentary evidence specifying that he was the arresting officer does not exist. But of course, who needs evidence when a surfeit of ideology and bias will do just as well? You don’t, but courts do. Which is why no formal accusation has ever been lodged against Männil, including by the KGB. And which is why no defense is necessary.
Yes, the Soviet Union and allies were the winners of WW2. The Soviet Union was also the oppressor of half of Europe for half a century, seamlessly exchanging one totalitarian occupation for another. Some more of “my” history, I suppose.
The more I learn about the ethics and values upon which you promote your views, the more I shudder.
19 January, 2010, 06:16
Aleksandar,
This bizarre event is stuck in the twilight of Ukrainian administration. It is really strange that these flights did arrive, and the authorities were ascertaining the purpose of the passengers' mission.
The whole thing is made more awkward, since Ukrainian authorities made it clear that these were not certified election observers. The authorities actually made things worse by not being clear about the passengers, and their "en masse" arrival. All that the authorities did, was add to the confusion.
It is really hard to speculate here. It is very possible that someone invited election monitors, but did not notify others, and did not issue appropriate certifications. I wonder about election monitors that did not happen to have one female team member?
Things are not adding up, but it would be hard to speculate on the purpose.
However, just imagine that these were two plane loads of Russians, looking all clean-cut, military tight-lipped. I can just imagine the outcry. Soon, you would see articles accusing Putin of personally tucking them in with blankets on that plane.
However, the current President has proven that he is game for any kind of gamble. Nobody would have ever imagined that he was going to pull the stunt with the gas cut-off. Nobody would have imagined such reckless behavior, in the middle of the winter. Yet, he did it. The propaganda did a fantastic job in painting Russia for the problem, even though even a little rudimentary investigation would have shown that only Ukraine could have cut off various branches at various times, since Russia controls only two entry points into Ukraine, while Ukraine controls four exits into Europe.
It was just as reckless to get himself involved in the Russian-Georgian war.
But what would be the purpose of undermining elections? There is a great probability that Timoshenko will win, as she can pick up voters of the smaller candidates, and Yuschenko vote will very likely go to her, unless they stay home.
Unless, the position of various groups around Julia is weaker then I think. If this is the case, and the reckless nature of Yuschenko proves to be at play, one can be prepared for the most nasty surprises. The gas crisis was a big, big time gamble. It created a serious situation for Russia, and forced European nations to start singing Nabucco tune. But just as it appeared that the strategy bore fruit, it backfired.
Several events have occurred that are contributing to the Nabucco project falling apart. One, the rather deceptive nature of Russia-Turkmenistan conflict over the gas contracted for by Gazprom. While the drama froze in place and mesmerized the normally vocal NGOs in both Turkmenistan and Russia, the ahead of schedule gas pipeline Turkmenistan-Uzbekistan-Kazakhstan-China, came on-line. Following that, just like magic, Turkmenistan-Russian gas started flowing again. Additional pipe to Iran indicates that the networking of pipes is multi-directional. Additionally, Russia and Turkmenistan are starting the project to network various gas fields inside Turkmenistan, allowing for utilization of any of the sources to meet the demands in any direction. Second, surprising move happened on South Stream. While a lot of political capital has been spent on Bulgaria, and the new government's review of South Stream plans --- an Italian-Turkish-Russian agreement on the move of underwater section to parallel Blue Stream into Turkish territorial waters, was a surprise. As it may turn out, the hotly contested trunk of South Stream entering Balkans at Bulgaria, may not be the first focus. The less talked about, the southern trunk of South Stream, that was to branch off from Bulgaria into Greece and then to Italy, may become the first to implement --- straight from Turkey, without Bulgaria. This may make Balkan strategy obsolete, or at least not the pipeline buster, as some have hoped. More difficult for Georgia is the move to open Turkish-Armenian border. With the Azerbaijan keeping low profile over Nagorno-Karabakh, it seems to me that some tacit agreements have been reached. The significance is in the possibility that Georgia may be bypassed in the future. Azerbaijan-Armenia-Turkey will be the new energy direction from the Caspian. Since Azerbaijan has just recently increased the amount of gas delivered to Russia, even less is left for any other competing pipeline.
The only realistic option at this point is to try to secure Iranian gas. This however, due to the political impasse, may not be possible in the medium term.
As Russia and Turkey plan for expanding gas pipe to Lebanon and Syria, the capacity of Blue Stream will increase.
All of these developments are now pointing to the higher, and higher degree of inter-networking of Eurasian territory. They also point to the fact that Turkey and Italy are seeking major roles in energy map of the future. And in the future, any new Turkmenistan's fields that come on line, require that Azerbaijan is part of the transfer towards Europe. Azerbaijan, Russia and Turkey see more value in utilizing Armenia for transit, and avoid volatile Georgia.
The reason I am reviewing the recent events in the complex energy futures, is the feeling that I get that Nabucco has sustained a bad damage. It all may have started with the ill-advised snub of Angela Merkel, as she was departing US. On her last day, she was informed that GM decided not to sell Opel according to Germany's plan; as Germany was adamant about refusing any other deal, GM just pulled Opel from the market. This was a hostile act, as far as I see this. It did not take long for the response. The following day, Sweden and Finland, on the same day gave a green light to Nord Stream's environmental plan. It looked to me that Germany needed to send a swift message across Atlantic. It pulled in few favors by its neighbors, and the Nord Stream became an unstoppable reality.
All of this adds up to the unpleasant fact that the oil majors that stood behind Nabucco, now have very little leverage.
I may be way off the base, but I happen to believe that Yuschenko and Saakashvilli were all about securing Nabucco. Now, both places look rather irrelevant. Unless, some provocation makes Ukraine world news again.
Again and again, I am not convinced that the risks are worth it, and that Ukrainian political scene is not so deeply poisoned. But what if I am wrong, and the provocation may aim at creating a practical and political mess.
19 January, 2010, 04:18
Marzipan6,
just by repeating the "history" of Estonia, you are not convincing anybody. Your history is just as accurate as is your characterization of my comments. For example:
" Bianca congratulates Russia for committing no atrocities against Estonia between the signing of the Bases Treaty in September 1939 and the Soviet occupation of the country in June 1940 as if this was a point of high honor, and ignores the fact that throughout all this period Russia consistently broke the terms of the Bases Treaty increasing its troop numbers way beyond permissible levels, and then used them to overthrow the country."
Bianca never CONGRATULATED ANYONE FOR ANYTHING. This is not my quote, and you attributing this to me, shows just how much respect you have for others.
What I did, I pointed out to the readers that Russia first came to Estonia on the basis of the agreement for the use of naval base. And that during that period, Soviet Union did not interfere into the Estonian affairs. Nobody was prosecuted, arrested or deported. But Estonia ACTED IN A HOSTILE MANNER TO SOVIET UNION. Just the opposite from what you claim. It was Estonia that sent many volunteers to fight in Finland. It was Estonians that sent intelligence to Finland detailing Soviet military assets, as well as any departure of planes from the naval base. All documented.
As Finland was already engaging Soviet Union on behalf of Hitler, and shortly afterwords became a de jure ally of Hitler's Germany, these actions by Estonians were hostile to the Soviet Army.
You may not agree with Soviet strategy for winning WWII. Part of the strategy was to occupy the Baltics ahead of Hitler's push to the East. By doing so, Soviet Union eliminated military assets that were to be used by Hitler's army. You may not think that the occupation was necessary, but I am afraid, not many people who understand military affairs would agree with you.
Your argumentation is pointless. Estonia and Baltic states were assets to Hitler's military. The countries were occupied to create a forward position for Soviet military. On the surface, that did not do Soviet Union much good, but I can imagine that the position of St. Petersburg would have been much worse, if not terminal, if Soviet Union left preserved all the military assets for Hitler to use.
You are still trying to portray Estonia as a total innocent, in spite of a mountain of data to the contrary. Most historians feel sorry for Estonia and Baltics, but almost without exception state: "Estonia did fight under the Nazi banner". That is something that cannot be erased from history.
Marzipan6, you can keep on trying, and everyone will tell you how foolish you look. You keep on looking for the technicalities, so that you can explain away Estonia's past.
Just as in the case of Harry Mannil. Having defended him with the most ridiculous argument, you than claim that you have not defended him! And to prove your very technical point, you did not defend him, because --- there was no need for defense! Mind you all, Harry Mannil did not need to be defended by Marzipan6, because --- he was never charged! Yes, Marzipan6, we got that! Estonian authorities would not charge him, no matter the evidence, and you, Marzipan6, have technically no need to defend him. However, just in case somebody is wondering, you slip in the defense. Poor man, he did not really know what he was doing, it was so early in the Nazi administration!
He did not know that he arrested seven people, had them interrogated, and then executed --- not by some far away Nazis --- but by Harry Mannil's own Estonian Nazis.
What is clear to the whole world, but not to you, is that the command responsibility in Nazi institutions carried accountability. What I have said to you, and will say again, your whitewashing of Estonian Nazi past is your passion. You go very far in defending it, and then --- without explanation --- claim that you do no such thing.
If you insist, I will keep quoting your "defense" of Harry Mannil, to refresh your memory.
Your entire approach to the case of Harry Mannil is the mirror image of your difficulty with Nazism in Estonia. You will not defend it, because you do not believe the defense is needed --- it is always somebody else's fault.
As for your obsession with Stalinism, go for it. For as long as you let go of the WWII. Soviet Union and allies were winners in WWII. Accept this. Estonia was not the only country in Europe that has paid dearly for the conflict between the two. Estonia was on the wrong side of the war.
For as long as it is clear to you, Marzipan6, that allies did win WWII, and that Soviet Union was part of that effort. Do not get yourself confused by the technicalities, as you are in the case of Harry Mannil.
Harry Mannil is responsible for the lives of seven Jews, whom he arrested, interrogated and executed. In his command capacity, he is certainly responsible for many more lives.
Since you insist that there is not a shred of evidence against him, I can equally insist that you are silencing those seven people once again. These are people who did not get the justice, and you brazenly insist that they do not matter.
I am not so sure anymore that you care about the lives of those he killed. Because, as you say, he has not been charged by the Estonian authorities, so those people never existed.
The more I learn about Estonian authorities, the more I shudder.
19 January, 2010, 01:00
To Starlight:
Nothing you wrote even begins to overthrow the fact that Estonia’s government of the 1930s was strongly anti-fascist. Please read again more carefully Section 3 of my response to you of 16 January. It may also be helpful to read the following excerpts from Wikipedia’s article on Konstantin Päts:
“In order to head off the seizure of power by the proto-fascist Vaps Movement, Konstantin Päts declared state of emergency in the whole country…on 12 March 1934, disbanding the Vaps movement and arresting its leading figures. Konstantin Päts established a moderate regime that the historian Georg von Rauch has called Authoritarian Democracy. Regarding the constitution of 1934 too dictatorial, he organised the passing of a new constitution through a plebiscite and a National Constituent Assembly. During the transition to his constitution he became Riigihoidja (President-Regent) of Estonia on 3 September 1937 and President of the Republic, under the new constitution, on 24 April 1938. His constitution was based on the contemporary Polish and Belgian constitutions. He also admired the British two-chamber parliament.”
Between 1934 and 1938 the Estonia had a government that was authoritarian, but emphatically not fascist. For a more detailed account of that period of history, visit Estonica.org, and then click on “History” and on to “The Story of the Estonian Republic – 1918-1940 ”, and from there click box 9 at the foot of the page to take you to “Authoritarian Estonia.”
20 March, 2010, 18:32
Peter,
My question is, is Russia falling into the trap of US , EU and UN? Because these three are count as one. Are they sallowing Russia alive?
Does Russia really believe in 'Justice', stand up for Justice?
Regards,
Zizawar.
20 March, 2010, 11:09
Excellent end to crosstalk today, by letting the speakers represent themselves clearly, the moral question is highlighted.
20 March, 2010, 09:22
@Alexandar Hranov re: Free Thinker
May I add , 2% of my country owns 90% of the wealth; they own the politicians and the media, also, their pet toys are the Military Industrial Complex and the Jewish lobby, AIPAC. Since the devastations of the second world war, the world is fast catching up, now the "wannabe empire is in a decline and the "puppetmasters " are getting desperate---...all those myths about how great and powerful we are are fading from the American psyche..Yes, the government here is not for the people and by the people, but for the corporations and by the corporations.
fred oregon, usa
20 March, 2010, 09:11
The range of opinions found in the US media is narrow and the amount of actual content has always been low.
It is now a matter of making the new English media known to audiences with which they have an ethnic affinity.
19 March, 2010, 23:50
@ Free Thinker
"Peter works for a news channel that is owned by the Russian government. This news channel owes its very existence to funding that comes straight from Kremlin."
Yes, and the news channels in the US and UK are owned by the Corporations that owe also these governments.
You see, at least the Russian government is an elected entitiy by the people, so the people in fact owe the news there; whereas the Anglo-American Corporations are not elected by the people in the US and UK - whose interests do you think then these news channels are looking after in your so called "West?"
BR
Aleks
19 March, 2010, 17:21
Peter RT is being criticized because your channel together with the ones you mention is breaking the anglo-saxon monopoly on information and news, good job keep up the work,
RT has to cover the news about this countries the way there media covers news about Russia ,...
RT is still a new channel, it took others decades to be were they are today.
keep up the good work!
19 March, 2010, 13:26
Thank you Bianca. Thank you Victor Ananyev for your wonderful comments.
My advise to Peter.
You could do better by stop being biased.
19 March, 2010, 13:05
Free Thinker:
Your criticism of Peter should have been directed toward the US and puppet British media, as well as their respective governments, which are controlled by "the paymasters:" the Rothschilds, Rockerfellers et al. It's been a very long time since I have read or heard an "independent and logical justifiable viewpoint" from either country about Russia . It's always bashing time. So when Peter tells it as it is, he's controlled by the Kremlin? Give me a break!!!
Fred...oregon , usa
19 March, 2010, 02:35
Yes, Bianca, I watched the debate on "burqa."
When the hunter becomes the hunted, it's a sight to see.
BR
Aleks
19 March, 2010, 02:02
Re: Bianca
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that there is a divergence between the words and phrases you are expressing and the essence of your argument. This sort of divergence entails re-framing the original argument in a different style, with a different tone so as to make unreasonable and ridiculous claims apper more plausible.
Indeed, I agree with your initial statement that, “Free thinking assumes ability to see, understand and deconstruct the paradigm, carefully constructed for our consumption”. Furthermore, I would like to add that “free thinking” involves the ability to strip down any sort of paradigm and come up with an independent and logically justifiable viewpoint that is not influenced by existing predispositions. Now, is this what Peter is doing? Lets take a look at some some circumstantial facts before we get into the nitty gritty.
Peter works for a news channel that is owned by the Russian government. This news channel owes its very existence to funding that comes straight from Kremlin. Peter also owes his publicity to this channel and Peter has consistently espoused pro-Kremlin opinions in all matters. I have yet to see a piece of commentary developed by Peter which directs the slightest bit of criticism towards his paymasters. So, just looking at the big picture we can get a pretty good "prima facie" perspective on how things stand. You and I both know that if the tables were turned, if we were dealing with a pro-western scenario under a similar set of circumstances you would, rightly so, be crying foul.
Now let us consider a specific issue, and for the sake of your earlier post, I will refer to the infamous Burqa episode. Personally, I found the entire standoff to be very amusing and entertaining, but it was also very revealing. For those unfamiliar with this, please be kind enough to proceed to the following link:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglasmurray/100026122/russia-today-putin-and-the-911-nutters/
The whole argument was actually pretty straightforward and simple. The two guests on the show were opposed to Muslim women wearing Burqas because, they said, that by doing so they are conveying a misogynistic message that is incompatible with western egalitarian values. Secondly, it was pointed out that there are security issues to consider because if you cannot see someone’s face this makes combating terrorism and other crimes difficult.
Throughout the show, in a surprisingly aggressive and loud manner, Peter showed is displeasure with what his guests were saying. He initially suggested that such measures are “Islamophobic” and then he suggested that it’s a matter of free choice etc. He then cut away to another presenter who presented the situation in Russia, where statistics clearly showed that the Russian public also does not approve of women wearing headscarves.
Then the conversation took a very random turn, in that one of the commentators stated that this Sharia dress code encourages fundamentalism and radicalism, after which Peter more or less went on an ideological crusade against the West. Mr Lavelle even went as far as to suggest that the “terrorists” were not fundamentalists at all and that they were actually moderates! “You don’t even know the history of the terrorists!”, he loudly exclaimed. Apparently, killing innocent people and flying planes into buildings is does not constitute enough evidence of fundamentalism for Mr Lavalle.
It was then that the funniest moment of the show occurred, when the British guest asked Peter, “How can you know so little and keep on talking?” Is was seriously amusing :)
The point is that Peter’s arguments are so one sided and so biased at times that one can see straight through them by simply taking a step back and realizing how ridiculous it all is. Have you heard of Zeno’s Achilles paradox? Listening to Peter is a little bit like this. In the end Peter is trying to convince us all that Achilles will never catch the tortoise!
The truth, Bianca, is not something that can or should be “crafted” and “untangled” and ‘re-paradigmed”. The truth can often be found by common sense and observation. Peter believes that the truth is something viscous that can be manipulated to the point of absurdity, and with this he aims to cover up the intrinsic common sense that we all have in us. This, I can however tell you, is a trick that Peter certainly did not learn by himself. This trick comes straight out of Uncle Joe's magic box!
Just remember, common sense never wears out. Repeating something that is true, and obvious, makes it no less credible and no less relevant. In the end your comportment is most troubling of all, you recognize the manipulative effect of spin and you couch yourself in it.
18 March, 2010, 17:35
I look to RT as an occasional antidote not to biased Western reporting but to reason and competency in general. I normally get a good laugh for 5-10 minutes as I watch RT's incompetent reporters and "analysts" (for the most part failed Westerners looking to make an easy buck and live it up in Moscow for a few years in exchange for their selling out to the Russian state) giving a poorly-researched or crackpot account of contemporary events. But after about 10 minutes my head starts to ache and I grow agitated from the stupidity, and I turn the channel. RT basically has the same "car accident" attraction (it's ugly but you cant help but looking at it) as some of Fox's programming, such as the O'Reilly Factor, but this station should be all the more offensive to intelligent Russian citizens since it is state-financed.
12 March, 2010, 20:08
Peter,
I enjoy your writings and have found RT a refreshing source of alternative news. I wish I could find your TV channel on my local cable. While I do not take great issue with your overall proposition, I think there is some generaization when you say "the US says" or "Americans feels..." We, like your great country, is made up of many different people with many different viewpoints and approaches to other countries. Having visited Russia in 2006 and now communicating with some of my Russian friends via the internet has helped cure my typical American stereotype of Russia. As we continue to communicate and embrace other outlets of information like RT, I am confident we can appreciate more the hues and colors of who we are.
Thank you for your service in challenging all of us!
Ron
Richmond, Va
USA
11 March, 2010, 08:49
Peter has marvelous shows. However, it is still entertaiment in English. Despite deception, hypocrisy and highly heated propaganda from the English speaking media posts, they are in high demand around the world. Everything on world TV is circling around America. Nobody wants to listen news in Chinese, Japanese, Russian or Urdu except few linguists or natives of course. That's the beauty of English language. Al Jazeera became popular because of English channel in America. Clever flattering from UK is English-based. Being a Russian I see all shortcomings and flaws in the efforts of the neurolinguistic programmers from RT. When I switch to this channel I hope to see good or bad news from beloved Russia, not the homeless people living in tents from New York or Washington DC. It is a futile attempt to bash American lifestyle and culture. American penetration is worldwide. How is it possible to be in $ 13 trillion dollars debt to all countries and continue control the whole world when countries with 5-10 billions in debt are destroyed?
10 March, 2010, 23:07
Mr Lavelle, I watch your slot on RT from the UK and enjoy it. I am glad to find this blog is in a similar 'contrarian' vein. I started to doubt the objectivity of the western media, the UK's included I'm sorry to say, during coverage of the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election. From these outlets you would have thought there were only 'good Ukrainians' (young, English-speaking and, to generalise, broadly Russophobic) and 'bad Ukrainians (old Babushkas living in Donetsk, duped by gangsters etc), whereas the truth was- as events have shown- much more complex. You strike a blow for heterogeneity of opinion, and that's a precious commodity these days.
10 March, 2010, 20:56
I could not have put it better. An excellent commentary on the hypocrisy of "free" western media.
Michael Hockney
Director
Colours of Russia
www.coloursofrussia.com