Skip to main content

View Diary: Ukraine 101 (206 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  the true side and the false side? (none)
    The other side of the story has been presented at length in the Western media; the article is a reaction to that.  If you think there's something wrong with it, then you should offer a rebuttal.
    •  Laughlin (none)
      has an axe to grind. Are there no people out there who are more objective than he is to present a counterargument?

      Talking about the bad side of Ukrainian history and applying it to the current situation isn't necessarily relevant. We don't usually talk about the history of Nazi Germany when talking about issues in modern Germany. The Germans get a break---why not the Ukrainians, most of whom were not even alive during WWII?

      •  you've changed the subject (none)
        You wrote "My point is that the article is making no effort at all to present both sides of the story."  My point was that he presented the part of the story that is missing -- naturally, since the whole point of his article is that that the western media's view is biased.

        And on objectivity, you wrote "When I said "pro-Russian", what I meant was supporting the point of view that Yanukovich won (which is the same position that the Russian government holds.)" which indicates a lack of objectivity on your part, like saying arguing thay Kerry really won the election is "pro-Europe" because that's what Europeans would have liked.  Either Bush won or he didn't, amd either Yanukovich won or he didn't.  And this talk about "Sovietophile" and "Stalinist" is a particular form of ad hominem, known as "red baiting".  None of the comments address what Laughland actually wrote.  Since you can't spell his name right, I wonder if you actually read it -- it has nothing to do with whether Yanukovich won, and doesn't argue that he did.

        The "pro-Russian" claim brings to my mind a 1954 Meet the Press featuring Linus Pauling that I heard on KPFK years ago.  Pauling had circulated a petition banning atomic weapons that had received the signatures of thousands of scientists.  The press panel was extremely hostile to Pauling.  One fellow asked Pauling why he was "taking the Soviet line", since the Soviets had also called for a ban.  Pauling laughed, and said that it was more like they were taking his line, since he had raised the issue before they did.  The guy shot back "You take their line, they take your line, what's the difference?"  It's interesting to see how such red-baiting logic is still alive 50 years later.

      •  chin up, Mimi! (none)
        There's plenty of counterargument, much of it coming from the left, which heartens me. The Guardian has published a lot more material from reporters actually in Ukraine than it has from Putin's PR people back in the UK.

        Applebaum has a piece today in the WaPo (with an infelicitous title -- an ironic use of a Bushism) that treats some of the more tin-hat points of view that are being tossed about on this thread.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23721-2004Nov30.html

        And overall our discussion has been pretty useful: we outed Laughland and the "British Helsinki Human Rights Group," our loudest Ukrainophobe outed himself as a racist, and we exchanged a lot of information. Too bad DHinMI didn't post his follow-up!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site