I think that this article is much much more balanced than articles from US corporate media.
Actually, that's not accurate. The article you posted, by any measure, was completely, overwhelming biased and pushed pure propganda. At least the MSM in the US, though they themselves are very, very biased too, they try to give a pretext of the various sides. Not that article. Not in the least.
The problem is that US corporate media are not just unbalanced, they often spread lies (before US invasion on Iraq US corporate media had been lying hundreds of times about "weapons of mass descruction in Iraq" to justify US invasion).
No, Piotr. That part about the WMDs is just pure propganda, and actually doing the very thing you claim them to be doing.
The US media, was influenced by all the western intelligence agencies at the time (as were almost all of the US politicians at the time on both sides of the aisle) who thought that Saddam had an ongoing and advanced atomic/nuclear weapons program. Those agencies had lost or removed their HUMINT resources on the ground, which severely constrained them, and based most of their deductions on actions by Saddam, and what they thought they could see from surveillance alone.
The western politicians then telegraphed (foolishly) to Saddam and the world what they intended. In the end, either the Intellegence Agencies got it flat wrong, which is widely accepted today, and/or Saddam successfuly moved whatever existed of his program out of the country.
Either way, there is no question that Saddam had WMDs in the form of chemcial and some biological weapons. He had used them in the Iran War and he used them on his own people. Quite a lot of those type of older weapons were found...but no atomic weapons, or even major research facilities.
So the propoganda that the Western media lied about Saddam having WMDs is simply not true. He had WMDs, just not atomic weapons at any stage of weaponization. The intelligence agencies of most western countries got that part wrong, regarding his atomic weapons. That is far different than a lie...and wholly differnt than the US media knowingly pushing a lie. The US media was by and large against Geroge W. Bush and would not have pushed his agenda at all. So they got it wrong, and whatever they may have not gotten wrong was long since gone by the time the war started.[/quote]
Putin has just accepted free choice of people in Crimea.
Utter balderdash, Piotr. A seperate country has no moral or legal right to simply annex another nation's provinces because he can amass a majority vote in that province when his troops are present on the ground there. What the US did in Iraq and Afghanistan bears no resemblance to this at all. Iraq never became a part of the US, nor would the US people ever allow it to be. Same with Afghanistan. We do not want it. We simply do not want to be attacked from those places. Crimea on the other hand, has been made a part of Russia...and I expect any other provinces that may get occupied will go the same route.
It's an apple and oranges comparison, a non-sequiter, a straw-man arguement...but there is absolutely no sense in trying to paint a duck and call it a horse.
As it is, Piotr, this thread is not about the US. It is about the Ukraine and what is happening there.
Clearly, Russia and the US are arguing over the situation there and we all know why. Neither side has to come up with fantastic claims to try and rationalize it. That article was completely full of exactly that. As I said, there are also western articles full of the same type of Bravo Sierra.
Such attempts, by either side, do not advance any reasonable effort to find a peaceful or balanced solution.
Time is going to tell us how things actually work out. Right now, Putin is emboldened. The west, particularly with Obama in the US Presidency is weak, and Putin will take advantage of it.
Putin did not cause all of Ukarine's problems any more than the US did. But Putin is in a position to take abject advantage of it, and he is doing so. That's just life.
I hope some of Ukraine remains independent and believe it will. I have said all along that Russia would take Crimea (and make no mistake about it, that's what Putin did, and we all know it), and the Urkaine and the west would not get it back at at any time in the forseeable future. The same is probably going to occur with at least one or two more of the southeastern Ukrainian provinces. It's not going to happen because it is the right thing to annex portions of a weaker, soveriegn country. That path leads ultimately, if it happens too much and is pushed too far, to major war. We all know this. History tells us all this.
But Putin knows this too and will push it as far as he thinks he can short of that. And it will happen because Putin can do it, and not suffer any real adverse consequences for it, and because the west does not have the will, or the desire, or the current real capability to stop it.
I just hope it ends there, before things get pushed too far. Time will tell.
So, Piotr, please listen to and follow the following moderation:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< MODERATOR'S INSTRUCTIONS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Let the one sided, propoganda oriented articles and explanations, that seek to try and make this all the US's fault, cease. Same goes for anyone trying to make the internal problems in the Ukraine purely Russia's fault. Putin may be taking advantage of it, but the root issues are much more complex than that.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<< END MODERATOR'S INSTRUCTIONS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Do not respond to the moderation.
