listen, it's not hard to see where ostrovsky's sympathies lie, but who else is sending back images from the ground? what i've seen from vice is neither in line with the russian media nor the western media. it's just reporting what is happening. the russians aren't talking, and that's what they get for not co-operating with media. what's shocking is that there isn't a single "normal" news outlet doing anything remotely resembling this kind of coverage.
what he's showing here is that the russians are storming a ukrainian base. because that's what they're doing. now, if you want to talk about what that means, how justified it is, how brutal it is in actuality (casualties seem to be virtually nil) etc, then these are more subtle questions - and the analysis is needed, certainly. but, first we have to establish the facts on the ground, and the conventional media on both sides has been utterly useless in doing this.
he should win an award. not due to any kind of above the standard journalism, but in contrast to the horrible journalism seen everywhere else.
Vlad K
"the russians aren't talking, and that's what they get for not co-operating with media." It is a laughable statement. Hundreds of journalists work in Crimea, and none of them was injured, as opposite to Kiev. Russian media have tons of interview with locals, Ukrainian officers, including those few of them who chose to serve junta. This propaganda is only for people who don't speak Russian.
deathtokoalas
i obviously meant that they're not speaking to the western media. i apologize, but my russian is currently a bit rusty.
regardless, i've been watching rt and they've been highly coy about the whole thing. the initial line from the russians was that crimea was part of ukraine and they would uphold the international boundaries. now, i happen to actually think that the russians handled this extremely well. i'm not interested in a discussion about saving russian speakers from nazis. people speak of the russians interchangeably with the soviets, while forgetting that the americans are the lineal descendant of the british empire (perhaps future historians will understand the american revolution as a civil war within the british empire that transferred control from london to washington. the roman empire spent more than half it's history centered in modern day istanbul. the real center of islam was baghdad. there are other parallels.). forget about the cold war. remember the crimean war? the english have been trying to cut off russian access to the mediterranean for centuries. the larger context of events over the last fifteen years has seen russia lose deep sea ports in yugoslavia, libya and possibly syria. to lose the black sea fleet would be inconceivable. THEN we would see a fullscale invasion of ukraine.
so, to take the base without any discernible casualties is actually quite impressive. i would not expect the americans to be as restrained, should a "revolution" in canada threaten their control of norad, or something.
but the communications - at least in english - have been incredibly controlled. not that i would expect otherwise. it's just as bad from cnn.
but there are lots of other media sources with budgets and audiences that could be out there reporting - in english, for an english audience.
Vlad K
The military role of Black Sea is not as important as it was before. Moreover, many Russians question the necessity of Black Sea fleet itself. After all, Black Sea is a puddle, and it can be covered by air forces in defense actions. it will be useless in any serious confrontations with NATO because it can be blocked easily at Bosporus. So, It is really hard to believe for the West that two millions Russians and their wellbeing is a serious issue for Russians in Russian Federation? Why it is so difficult for western mass media to show social surveys related to Crimean crisis and give Russian point of view among others on this crisis. I always hear "Putin" "Pro-Putin" and never "Russians" in western media. The answer is you don't give a shit what people really think until they resist your politics.
deathtokoalas
i don't agree that the crimean fleet is less important than it was. it's not really about direct conflict, it's more about the ability to project power - what was once called "shipping interests" and is now more about controlling resources and networking bases together. ships remain much larger than planes; they can even carry planes. and it's not a coincidence that nato (and aligned forces) has targeted countries with russian naval bases. this is all explained in the project for the new american century document. a better question is why it took russia 15 years and the near loss of it's prized possession to actually react.
the whole bosporus thing is an aspect of it. the london straits convention did succeed in cutting off the russians for a long time, but this led to quite a bit of fighting (including both russian and western interference in the greek civil war) that carried on even after the montreux convention. trying to modify the terms of that convention would indeed be an act of war and would no doubt result in further russian aggression. nato wouldn't dare do this. well, not so long as the russians have access to the black sea, anyways.
i don't think that any government in the world cares about self-determination. i'm not interested in the propaganda from any source. but, the russians don't have a good track record in being trustworthy when it comes to polling or surveying. they probably didn't have to bullshit it in the first place, but 97%? c'mon. you couldn't get 97% of people in a given area to agree with docile statements about kittens. you'd might as well be telling me to trust colin powell...
ian setzer
Don't listen to him, he is a propagandist sent by the russian federation, here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_brigades
deathtokoalas
it's not hard to believe. but i feel compelled to point out that it has been recently disclosed by the snowden leaks that the americans do exactly the same thing.
i remember first reading about this in relation to chinese attempts to control dissidents, although they take it to much further extremes. that model seems to have been adopted by other intelligence agencies.
sergei the bad
Not 97%. 83 percent came to a referendum. Those who were against just stayed home.
Антон Березин
83% choose theire future in Crimea. In Kiev only 1% choose future fore everyone in Ukraine...
Efrim Begotten
Based on the guys videos and what he likes, it's hard to say. For me the saddest part about the Crimean affair is that the western world basically won't risk intervening. After all, we've let Syria burn for years now.
deathtokoalas
the western world is intervening in syria, it's just doing so in a way that most westerners would not approve of. the question a few months ago was not about intervention, it was about escalation. did the west want to escalate it's support for saudi fighters from weapons smuggling to air bombardment and possible invasion? if it weren't for western intervention, there would not be a conflict in the region.
thousands and thousands and thousands of people in syria have died in a fight between russia and america over a naval base. foreign-backed religious extremists roam the countryside, bombing towns to pillage the population while carrying out a genocide against shia and other non-sunnis they consider "polytheists". crimea switched from one authoritarian state to another, with no casualties, and with the majority support of it's citizenry (97% or not). this is the difference between a very controlled russian invasion designed to create order and an off-the-wall american one designed to preserve disorder. it's not a comparable situation, and suggestions that it is should make people angry.
