Chyby z webu - Projekt Antipropaganda.sk

Autor: Peter Ondrovič | 9.7.2016 o 18:13 | (upravené 9.7.2016 o 20:05) Karma článku: 0,00 | Prečítané:  117x

Tento projekt si zaumieňuje dekomponovať ruskú propagandu a nástroje jej mediálnej sépie, ktorá prekrýva chápadlá úspešnej západnej propagandy, ktorá sa o propagandu nemusí snažiť, nakoľko celá spleť jej zahraničnej...  

a explicitnej politiky by obstála ako skvelý scenár i pre toho najpokročilejšieho scenáristu s drobnohľadom na detail a komplexnosť jednotlivých krokov a súhier, ktoré sa naraz dejú. Poďme spolu nazrieť na slovenský portál a jeho článok dostupný tu. 

Anatómia informačnej vojny: Ako funguje ruská propaganda a ako jej čeliť​

Výsledkom tejto kampane je deformácia západného vnímania ukrajinského konfliktu. Tvrdenia, že NATO sľúbilo, že sa po zjednotení Nemecka nebude rozširovať do strednej a východnej Európy, a že Ruská obava z takéhoto rozširovania je oprávnená, sa dostali do mainstreamových médií, vytvárajúc dojem, že za priamy útok Ruska voči ukrajine možno viniť Západ.

Jedná sa o miernu nepravdu. Tento sľub nastal už počas druhej svetovej vojny a jej dohry, rôznych stretnutí a rokovaní. Jej priamym vyústením je doterajšia neutrálnosť Rakúska a vôbec historicky, v zmysle posledných dekád, nezaujatosť a nečinnosť v armádnych, diplomaticko-expanzívnych aktoch. Zjednotenie Nemecka prišlo ,,v poriadku", no ďalej sa malo ísť podľa staro hodených kociek, kocky sa hodili znovu, USSR zbúral a nastal národný chaos, aký v žiadnej krajine, pokiaľ nešlo o dôsledky vojny alebo moru, takmer ešte nenastal. Inflácia, nezamestnanosť, rozpady komunít, strata zázemí, migrácie a pohyby ľudí naprieč krajinou, často na vzdialenosti stoviek kilometrov, bez prísľubu dovtedy samozrejmého. Navyše, Čečensko, narkotizmus, propaganda západu, menová nestabilita. Že však existovala snaha vychádzať značí príkladom pomoc IMF pre vládu Ruska, čo presne nezapadá do politických ostrí, aké sú nám často predostierané. Na jednu stranu si národy Ruska a Ameriky idú po krku, na druhú takmer pomáhajú v najkritickejších momentoch a príkladom Americký program je takmer totálne závislý na Ruskej expertíze, vzájomné kontrakty amerického a ruského výskumu sú rozsiahle, pričom Američania si ohromne želajú vyhrať trh ruských potravín, kde by schopne konkurovali. Je to len znakom jedného, že mediálna pozornosť sa vyvíja podozrivými smermi, akoby nás pútajú na ,,hry". Prepáčte za špekuláciu, poďme na fakty.


Avšak kým ruská propagandistická sieť je sofistikovaná, jej obsah nie je. Ruský naratív je založený na téze, že Spojené štáty sa pokúšajú ovládnuť svet a jedine Rusko je dosť odvážne a silné na to, aby tomu zabránilo.

Tomu neverí ani sám škôlkar (že Spojené štáty sa pokúšajú ovládnuť svet)  a Putinové príhovory často smerujú na priateľstvo dvoch uskupení, nie opozíciu jedného k druhému, jeho obvinenia sú na druhú stranu prezentované ako opatrné a do horlivých vyjadrení sa púšťa zriedka. Snaží sa smerovať na priateľstvo a kooperáciu, vyzdvihuje chyby a omyly, aké sú proti nemu konané.


Západ by mal odpovedať zdôraznením svojho vlastného naratívu o slobodnej voľbe a demokracii, hodnotách, ktoré sú ruským režimom ohrozované a považované za hrozbu. Toto je oblasť, v ktorej môžu štáty strednej a východnej Európy zohrať kľúčovú úlohu. Západ by mal zároveň verejne označiť hlavné taktiky používané Ruskom vždy, keď budú použité, a odhaľovať sieť platených komentátorov a pseudonovinárov Kremľa.

Slobodná voľba v Rusku často znamenala voľbu o prežitie po chaose devädesiatych rokov, kedy každé zažité paradigma o stabilnej spoločnosti bolo rozpadnuté na vrub ekonomicko-politickej-diplomatickej-ideologickej studenej vojny namierenej proti hospodárstvu vetchého Ruska ako samostatného hráča. Teraz zniem ako propagandista Ruska, tam nesmerujem rozhodne, avšak priatelia, tu nešlo o priateľské posedenie národov, kde najväčším rozporom bolo napísanie pomlčky, alebo nie. Jednalo sa o stlačenie tlačítka, alebo nie. Rusko prehralo. Prečo a ako, stále neprečítame a nedočítame. Zbierame puzzles a ostávame puzzled ešte desiatky rokov po udalosti. Dohra je tu stále, je zvláštne, že následne, ak takto dlho trvajú dohry jednotlivých elementov, je Rusku upierané historické právo, podobne ako inde, podobne ako sa to deje i príkladom zo strany Slovenska v istých prípadoch, tu nejdem ale do hĺbavejšieho komentára, to je na samostatnú kapitolu vzťahov, ktoré myslím, sú mierne odlišného rázu. Poďme ďalej.  No predtým, trochu útočne. Kto je pseudonovinárom ak článok, ktorý analyzujeme, je nahratý na portál protipropagande.sk ako nie autorský, teda nie jedinečný, ale prebratý od iného autora, pre účely a názory zriaďovateľov portálu protipropagande.sk ???
 


Spojené štáty vždy využívali NATO a európske štáty ako nástroj na dosahovanie svojich vlastných zahraničnopolitických cieľov. Keď sa Sovietsky zväz rozpadol, USA sa zachovali ako víťaziaci agresor, pokúšajúc sa vyformovať si svet v ktorom by plnili úlohu jediného mocenského rozhodcu. Ako súčasť tohto plánu podporovali separatistov na Kaukaze s cieľom rozložiť Rusko, a včlenili štáty strednej a východnej Európy do NATO v snahe Rusko obkľúčiť, porušujúc tak sľub daný prezidentovi Gorbačevovi.


Hovoríme akoby v Ruskej politike existovalo nič, len zahraničná politika, zahraničné záujmy, zahraničná vojna a vôbec, domestické záležitosti, ktoré Putina priniesli k moci sa neodohrávali, prípadne boli absolútne irelevantné. Neexistuje Ruská Federácia, neexistuje variácia etník, neexistuje majestátna príroda, neexistujú jej prímorské oblasti, neexistuje jej veda, neexistuje jej agrárna spoločnosť, neexistuje jej intelektuálne centrum v Petrohrade, neexistujú jej unvierzity, ktoré i podľa britského rankingu dominujú regiónu východne od Berlína v kvalite (Praha vytŕča na treťom mieste, inak Moskva prvá), neexistuje občianska spoločnosť, neexistujú ľudia s názorom, neexistuje parlament, neexistuje zdravý rozum a armáda je úplnou loutkou, ktorá je neschopné akokoľvek racionálne uvažovať, pretože v Rusku je každý blázon a žíznivý po vojne. To je obrázok, ktorý je schopný takto vyložiť Rusko. Krajina bez normálneho rodiného života, víkendu. Každý ráno vstáva a oblieka sa do uniformy proti západu. Skutočne tomu veríme, priatelia?
 


Keď sa k moci dostal Putin, postavil sa proti snahám USA o svetovú dominanciu a  stal sa tak ich hlavnou prekážkou.

Zjavne žijeme stále vo vojnovom období. Afganistan, Sýria, Ukrajina, Gruzínsko, Abcházia, Južné Osetsko, Fínsko a ... vôbec. Možno na tom niečo bude. Ak hodnotíme množstvo rozpútaných vojen, Rusko je úžasným partnerom USA


V rámci EÚ na túto politiku tlačili nové členské štáty zo strednej a východnej Európy, ktoré sú hystericky rusofóbne

V Prahe a Warszave určite, no zájdite na čaj s Čarnogurským, Orbánom, Lukašenkom, Tsiprasom, elitou Srbska a tak dále. Prípadne sa spýtajte v Karlovarskom hotely alebo zavolajte Merkel, spýtajte sa jej priamo Rusky a skúste sa i spýtať takmer milióna ex.rusov v Nemecku.


Naratív je to úžasne účinný, ukazuje kto je zloduch (USA) a kto ten dobrý (Putin). Rozpráva jednoduchý lineárny príbeh: zloduchov pokus o ovládnutie sveta a objavenie sa dobrého hrdinu, ktorý mu v tom má zabrániť. Ponecháva čitateľa v očakávaní, čo sa stane ďalej, a ako bude zloduch porazený. Hrá na city: hnev voči sebeckosti Západu, obdiv hrdinského vodcu Putina, zhnusenie zo zverstiev kyjevskej junty.

Vy sa snažíte povedať, že domáci rusi sú úplne blbý.


Tam, kde je ruský naratív jednoduchý a emocionálny, tam je ten západný komplexný a intelektuálny. A ako taký nie je ani zďaleka taký príťažlivý.

Sám viete, že je to inak.


Najzaujímavejšie partie textu sú o ruských vojakoch na Kryme, ruskej nafingovanej herečke a rôznych ďalej neoveriteľných machináciách = pozrite sami na text, do analýzy niečoho, čo rozobrať intelektuálne spolu nedokážeme, sa nepustím, spravte si vlastný názor. Nechcem polemizovať o niečom ,,možnom" alebo ,,prípadnom". Nie je čas, preberať nejasné.

Poďme nahliadnuť na zaujímavé pasáže rozhovoru s Larvovom.
 

Question: Can you mention some really tough guys you’ve chanced to have in front of you across the negotiating table?

 

S.V.Lavrov: Come on, how do you think I must go about this business? I may name some, but all the others will get insulted… All were real professionals!

 

Question: Not all, I reckon…

 

S.V.Lavrov: Why not all? Of course, all. But each of them has certain professional strengths. Some are quite professional when it comes to grandstand play, to blocking everything, to shirking the search for a compromise and to avoiding direct answers. People of this sort address some very different tasks. And nearly all of them lack an independent foreign policy. There are only strict instructions from this or that high office that have to be followed. And they scrupulously toe the line.

Naturally, you always expect your partners to be consistent in their actions, to observe common standards. After all, the United States and the European Union have been demanding all the way that all countries should stick to the principles of democracy and the rule of law in their home affairs. But as soon as we get to the international level, none of them ever mentions these basic values any more. That’s natural, of course. A democratic world order does not fit in with the policies the Western world is pursuing these days in its bid to retain its centuries-old foothold. But this is an ever trickier task. In other words, the international system is in commotion, its basics are being shaken loose and rather strongly…


S.V.Lavrov: The other way round. Russia has been consistently pressing for the consolidation of international law. We have urged compliance with the achieved agreements and creation of new instruments facilitating proper response to the modern challenges. Take, for instance, our proposal for codifying the principle of indivisibility of security in Europe and making this principle legally binding for all. This political declaration of ours was aimed at preventing crises like the one in Ukraine. Our proposals fell on deaf ears. We were told that an extra treaty was utterly unnecessary. In other words, everybody was saying that security in Europe was inseparable, of course, and that in terms of international law NATO would provide proper protection for all of its members. But it does not guarantee the security of all those unaffiliated with it! Possibly, the original plan was to use this pretext for pulling all post-Soviet countries into the alliance and thus bringing the division lines closer to our borders. But the idea proved an abortive one.

 

Then there would have been nothing like today's tug-of-war situation, in which Brussels told Ukraine to choose between the West and Russia.


Everybody knows the root causes of the crisis: we were not being listened to, Kiev was forced into signing arrangements with the European Union, which had been drafted behind the scene and, as it eventually turned out, were undermining Ukraine's obligations on the CIS free trade area.

 

Question: One of our satiric writers, Mikhail Zadornov, at a certain point dropped this sad remark: America is prepared to fight a war with Russia to the last Ukrainian.

LAVROV: Some partners in the West – not all of them – have been trying to use the deep crisis of Ukrainian statehood for the purpose of "containing" Russia, for isolating us, and thereby tightening their looser grip on the international system.


S.V.Lavrov: Our country prevented bloodshed there. It prevented a rerun of the Maidan type of protests and war, which later erupted in the South-East. As you may remember, when the confrontation in Kiev reached the boiling point, the conflicting parties concluded the February 21 agreement. On the list of its priorities was the prompt creation of a government of national unity, to be followed by a constitutional reform and general elections by the end of 2014. The document carried the signatures of Yanukovich, and also Yatsenyuk, Klitschko, and Tyagnibok, who then represented the then opposition and now making up the ruling coalition. The foreign ministers of Germany, France and Poland acted as witnesses of that agreement.

 

S.V.Lavrov: We addressed the issue at a Security Council meeting only to make a decision that our signature would be unnecessary, because the moment the then Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovich, agreed to that document, he in fact made colossal concessions tantamount to the authorities' capitulation. But the opposition thought the gained advantage was not enough and after the attacks on the presidential residence and other government offices in Kiev it was declared on February 22 that there would be no government of national unity and the "government of winners" would be created instead, allegedly saying Yanukovich had fled and claiming the power. We were asking our Western colleagues how is that? Haven't you signed the document that was expected to restore calm? In reply we heard that Yanukovich is out of Kiev, thus the agreement is no longer valid. What a remarkable piece of logic! Firstly, at that moment he was in the east of Ukraine, in his country. Secondly, it has turned out that the task of national reconciliation was linked entirely with the personality of Yanukovich and his ousting, hasn't it? Is this what the European values are all about? There has been no answer to this day. Today the West is acting in concert – with the United States and Britain demonstrating particular zeal – to unilaterally support the current regime in Kiev. They are claiming that peace in Ukraine will be possible only when those whom they call separatists and terrorists in the southeast have been suppressed.

Crimea would have flared up, too. I am convinced about that. There were registered attempts at riot damage, just the way it happened during Maidan unrest. Right Sector militants tried to get into the peninsula. There were some instigators inside the Republic.

 

Question: At that point the “polite people” appeared in the limelight.

S.V.Lavrov: They have always been there. The Russian Navy has its facilities not in Sevastopol alone. Our troops had the right to move among them. It all happened in strict compliance with the effective agreement with Ukraine. True, at some point Russia increased its military presence in Crimea, but let me say once again - we did not exceed the quota the Russian-Ukrainian treaty on the naval base allowed for.

 

Question: But many in Ukraine have long claimed it is not just struggle with separatists, but a war with Russia. What is to be done about that?

 

S.V.Lavrov: Kiev is interpreting the events in this way because the United States wants it. The voters are offered very simple election slogans and nobody takes the trouble of analyzing the situation. They keep sticking political labels –"stupid blokes," "separatists". They keep saying that everything in Donbass would have been calm and bright but for Russia, which should pull out its regular troops and armaments… What troops? Where from?

 

Question: But people carrying Russian passports and firearms are certainly present there.

 

S.V.Lavrov: And also people with Swedish, Polish and Lithuanian passports… There are even some black fellas. With their unmistakable US accent. I would not claim they are instructors or mercenaries. Trouble spots always attract volunteers, risk-takers and all sorts of adventure seekers. But we are not discussing them at the moment. A full-scale war is underway in Donbass. I have read quite an interesting interview with General Ruban in the Ukrainian press, he said outright: in Donetsk and Lugansk the Kiev authorities are fighting a war with their own people.

S.V.Lavrov: That is sad. The national identity is heavily distorted. I recall how the European Union and NATO expanded about ten years ago: not only the East European countries that had once been members of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON) and the Warsaw Treaty Organization, but also the three Baltic republics were hastily made their members. I would leave the European Union aside – that is about economy. If there is no prejudice to the fulfillment of obligations to other states and organizations, who may be against it? As for NATO, we are deeply convinced that the alliance has lost the meaning of its existence and is feverishly looking for a new one. After Afghanistan it became clear that this theme no longer consolidates the alliance, so Brussels happily jumped at the opportunity to play the Russian card and to portray us as a threat. Now this idea is being fuelled, including at the latest NATO summit in Newport.

We have repeatedly asked our Western colleagues: is it necessary to expand NATO, probably it would be better to bear in mind the OSCE, the equal and indivisible security for all? We were told: you see, the Baltic countries have some phobias after being part of the USSR, they longed for independence, finally they got it, but they are still afraid of you. When we have them in NATO, they will calm down and your relations will become cloudless at once. So what do we have? Ten years have passed, the umbrella of the alliance has been opened over the Baltics, but have they rid themselves of those phantom fears? On the contrary! For instance, with regard to many fundamental issues of pan-European cooperation, Lithuania is even getting ahead of the US. And now the Baltic countries together with Poland are asking NATO to target its missile defense system at Russia! Who in his right mind can today seriously talk about our invasion of Europe? That is ruled out!

S.V.Lavrov: Not because of us. Rather, there are attempts to make us look like that. You know, when the broadcasts, the Internet and the printed media are filled with anti-Russian propaganda, a mostly rude, false and shameless one, it is hard to expect a different outcome. Our television channels in Ukraine are blocked, all information is presented in a partial, biased fashion. But this does not mean that everybody has been brainwashed. I talk to Ukrainians, I have met with refugees from Lugansk and Donetsk and I have first-hand knowledge that there are honest politicians in Kiev who are interested in bringing an end to this hysteria.

 

I believe that attempts to drive a wedge between our peoples will fail, although by and large this is the chief aim. Somebody is very reluctant to see the restoration of historical brotherhood of Russians and Ukrainians. Mistakes have probably been committed by both sides, but we, at least, are trying to be honest, we do not resort to outright lies and we do not use double standards.



I would also like to talk about the Middle East. When the Arab Spring began, we proposed to our colleagues in the United States and Europe to get together and analyze in the most serious way what was going on, to contact the League of Arab States and to establish a multilateral process that would allow us to exchange assessments and develop a common course. That did not work well enough. Let us recall Egypt, where President Mubarak, who had been safeguarding the interests of the United States in the Middle East for 30 years, after he abdicated, was put in a cage and, barely alive, was being brought to the courtroom again and again. Nobody even took the trouble to explain to those who came to power in Cairo that they should act differently, in a civilized way, if they wish to preserve and strengthen their country. Then there was Libya – one of the most socially prosperous states of the region. True, it had an authoritarian regime, some called it dictatorial, but what do we have today? The country does not exist anymore. It is split into semi-feudal principalities run by terrorists. And the West does not know what to do.

 

My French colleague publicly acknowledged that during Gaddafi’s rule Paris had been supplying weapons to the opposition in defiance of the UN Security Council’s resolution prohibiting it. Then these people moved to Mali, and the French had to send an armed contingent there to fight them. I asked my colleague whether he found such behaviour strange. He laughed and replied: "C’est la vie". If this is some kind of politics, I do not like it.



 

In Syria, the drama is not over yet. In this case, we also persistently called upon the Americans and the Europeans to address this issue before the problem spilled over to the neighbouring countries. It should have been stated clearly: the world community supports the legitimate Syrian government in its struggle with the militants, there is no place for them in the existing system. In reply we heard: do not exaggerate. Soon the group calling itself the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant appeared. Russia’s attempts to declare it a terrorist one and to include it in the respective lists of the UN were met with US objections. Only when this organization captured a third of Iraq and a US citizen was publicly executed, B.Obama recognized: yes, they are terrorists. Today the Americans are bombing them on the Iraqi territory, but they do nothing with them in Syria, because there, they are fighting against B.Assad, whom the United States wants to overthrow. That is the logic of double standards: terrorists can be good if they bring grist to the proper geopolitical mill.



 

S.V.Lavrov: The Ukrainian issue for us is certainly the most important one. For everybody else the issue looks somewhat exaggerated simply because the United States is regarding Ukraine as a scene for a geopolitical clash where the future of the world is at stake. Will the US-led Western world be able to retain its dominating position, or will it have to negotiate with other centers of power? I asked John Kerry and European foreign ministers why the West advocated for an early ceasefire and national accord practically in all conflicts – those in Sudan, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Palestine – but not in Ukraine. Only the Poroshenko peace plan and no other option. It turns out that it is possible to negotiate with Taliban and the Islamic Jihad, and utterly impossible to have contacts with those who have been dubbed as DPR and LPR separatists. Why were the people of South-Eastern Ukraine denied the right to be heard? That is beyond good and evil! Just as the fact that the first humanitarian convoy from Russia was unable to reach Lugansk for two weeks, although the city had long experienced problems with water and electricity supply and a shortage of many essentials. Kiev was procrastinating in all possible ways without giving any chance to extend a helping hand to those in dire need for it. Apparently, it was aware that otherwise it would be rather hard to present our country as an aggressor. Back last May we proposed the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry to provide humanitarian assistance to the South-East. Our proposal was denied. The issue was discussed again last July, and we received consent in principle. It was then followed by a long and boring discussion of the details. First Kiev proposed one route, then changed it for another. Those were not negotiations but an endless ping-pong game.

 

Question: And as a result we are now engaged in a war of sanctions.

S.V.Lavrov: Russia retaliates. It is the very case when others were the first to begin it. Much is being written now about whether we should have done it or not. You know, when you are punished like a guilty school student… Russia cannot remain indifferent in this situation. But whatever the attitude to the ban on food imports from the European Union, Norway, North America and Australia could be, and I have heard different assessments, I don’t think this is a tragedy. Everything is solvable. It is important at this point to be prompt: when supplies from one country end, an adequate replacement will be needed from another importer or a Russian producer. I believe nobody will argue that fruit and vegetables from Azerbaijan, Armenia and Central Asian republics are tastier and have a quality better than those arriving from Europe. At least I like them more.

S.V.Lavrov: Right, but one does not want to look an idiot either. Rosselkhozbank, extending credits to our agricultural producers, is among those targeted by the sanctions. This means that domestic farmers will face difficulties with financing, and their products will be less competitive as compared with imports from the European Union, which gets you know how many billions in subsidies. We can only dream about such subsidies. And there is one more moment. The countries that imposed sanctions, and these are mostly NATO member countries, are increasingly often maintaining that Russia is not their partner any longer, but an adversary. And we must realize how to treat these statements. How much sense does it make that food security of a state, supply of food to the population, even if at the level of 20-30 percent, depend on those who consider us an enemy? But Russia cannot become a hostage to others’ plans to build up a sanction pressure. What if the European Union and the US decide to put more pressure on us, and even agree to allocate many more billions of dollars or euros as subsidies to their farmers? We don’t know their secret plans.

S.V.Lavrov:

But I am saying once again: there are a lot of countries dreaming to replace Europeans and Americans on our market. Argentina and Brazil, for example, boast excellent meat.

 

Question: The oats are cheap, but the boats are expensive. Proverbial wisdom.



 

S.V.Lavrov: No, the prices will be absolutely reasonable. South Americans want to get a quota in our market. This is done within the framework of possibilities offered by the WTO.



 

Question: In other words, you don’t feel any discomfort in your work, Sergey Viktorovich?

S.V.Lavrov: So it is. I answer absolutely sincerely. Firstly, this is professional challenge, if you will. Secondly, it is rather my colleagues who feel inconveniences when they have to obscurely explain over the telephone or through our ambassadors why they are postponing a visit to Moscow that was coordinated. For God’s sake! Love can’t be forced. At different international forums, ministers from the countries that have imposed sanctions on Russia, come up to me one by one, taking me aside and asking me confusedly to take it easy and understand; saying that they don’t want to but are compelled to. Consensus, solidarity… This are the arguments in the overwhelming majority of the states, which understand who is orchestrating these processes without any damage for itself, soothing its geopolitical ambitions.

 

Maybe tense periods in international relations are inevitable. But they end sooner or later. And this one will be left behind. But at first everybody must get used to the idea that the world will not be one-polar any longer. Meanwhile, we have to see relapses and muscle flexing.



S.V.Lavrov: You see, classic alliances of the Cold War era have run their course. I have already mentioned NATO’s wavering in search of reason for existence. We have the Collective Security Treaty Organization, our own military-political alliance. But there is no discipline of the rod in it. Sometimes we hear – look how united are the members of the North Atlantic Alliance in their voting at the United Nations: the US has given orders, and all have raised their hands (but everybody knows that many of them were strongarmed before that). As for representatives from the CSTO member countries, they may support Russia’s initiative or abstain, or simply miss a session, like it was when the UN General Assembly discussed a resolution after the Crimean events. My answer is always simple: yes, we expect that our allies will follow the agreements of the CSTO member countries about a common foreign policy course, but we also understand that today’s world is multi-faceted and multi-vector, and that is why we don’t seek to ban anyone from having nuances in approaches to the settlement of this or that problem, and we surely don’t strongarm or blackmail anyone.


Čo je krajšou alternatívou v Palmýre?

http://antipropaganda.sk/medialny-koncert-ruska-v-palmyre-pokryvala-aj-cnn/

alebo

http://archive.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/e78a48070f128a7b43256999005bcbb3/a668e5e3f899fa0143257e51003b367d!OpenDocument


Prosím, čo je to za okuliare vidieť tieto udalosti, na miesta masakru, cez filter propagandy? Odkiaľ berieme bezočivosť, súdiť aktivity štátu, jednotlivcov a rôznych iniciatív v geopolitickom súboji, keď tu sa jedná o boj za kľudné domestické záležitosti, nie vražde, nie masakru, nie rasovej, etnickej a náboženskej segregácií, prenasledovaniu a persekúcii. Ste úplne zaslepený

Situácia Krymských Tatárov

http://antipropaganda.sk/867/​

​Je hlúposťou, pokiaľ záujmy menšiny sú ukotvené viac ako kedykoľvek predtým.

Ak máte úprimnejší záujem o túto problematiku, teda nejasných interpretácií, preintelektualizácie udalostí, zlých posudkov a vytrhnutých kontextov, prosím zdvíhajte mi karmu, je to motiváciou pre pokračovanie v mojom, už dlhšom úsilí. Nie o hľadanie pravdy, ale racionalizácie udalostí, krokov a rozhodnutí na poli strategickej diplomacie a politiky.

Osobne sa exaktnejšie od presného vyhranenie situácie snažím dištancovať, mám sám veľa čo ešte naštudovať, no neprijde mi, že existuje niečo ako propaganda v presnom slova zmysle. Prítomnosť ruskej línie a interpretácií je však vysoko zjavná a to kontrastuje s pohľadmi mnohých a mnohých analytikov a ich najvyšších predstaviteľov rôznych krajín, čo mierne naznačuje prvky subordinácie, už len i pri  formovaní nezávislých, samostatných názorov, postavených na pospas korporátno politickému režimi kapitalistických uskupení, povedzme korporátnikov, lobbystov, rodín a iných decision and opinion makers. Žijeme dobu, kde sa za nezávislosť trestá. Kam dospela sloboda. To si skutočne na západe myslia, že im nikdo nedovidí do dvora? I keď honosného a vábivého, to nás majú skutočne za hlúpych bláznov, Východoeurópanov a nevzdelancov, kedy po príchode musia vždy prehodnotiť svoje pohľady a hodnoty?


PS: rozhodne nepíšem bezchybne a môžem mať chyby, dokonca gramatické, často domáci jazyk nepoužívam (zatiaľ, no aspoň píšem nezávisle a nie len, že preberám názor z portálu - ospravedlňujem sa, ak som zapôsobil útočne)

PS2: neskôr doplním komentár k anglickým častiam textu, ktoré pochádzajú z oficiálnych zdrojov

Páčil sa Vám tento článok? Pridajte si blogera medzi obľúbených a my Vám pošleme email keď napíše ďalší článok
Pridaj k obľúbeným

Hlavné správy

KOMENTÁRE

Rakúska úľava pre demokratov, varovanie pre populistov

Väčšinu politikov a ich tímov musel nad výsledkami obliať studený pot.

SVET

Van der Bellen bude prezidentom, Hofer priznal porážku

Po zrátaní 70 percent hlasov z volebných urien je nereálne, aby Hofer nepriaznivý stav zvrátil.


Už ste čítali?