deathtokoalas
so, let me get this straight. this "protestor" (who looks a little too old to be a grad student) is reporting from university college in london in order to repeat what is essentially exactly the state department's precise thinking on the matter. convenient. can he prove he was even in ukraine at all? 'cause i have to say i'm skeptical.

interesting that this is a "roundtable". how far is that from all souls, anyways?

c'mon, guys. you're usually better than this.

Daniel Jones 
He pricesly said "I wouldnt exactly read too much in the call". Which is the CNN position and of course Obama's and Cameron's  - by default of not even acknowledging the existence of the call.

Sobakus
Even if we suppose you're right, this guy still represents a particular point of view, which is what this programme is about.

deathtokoalas
but, does he represent anybody on the ground, like he claims to?

the media has been presenting the debate as between opposition and government forces (as they were a few weeks ago), as though the then opposition assembled the protestors and consequently represents their interests. however, the then opposition really represents a faction of the ukrainian ruling elite that took advantage of the protest movement to seize power and is now pushing through unpopular reform packages from nato, the eu and the imf. it's looking more and more like a classic "shock doctrine" approach to taking advantage of a manufactured crisis. the people did not assemble to have imf austerity packages rammed through a rump parliament! they were concerned about the kind of corruption endemic to both mainstream parties.

could you imagine the media presenting occupy protestors as representing the interests of the democratic party?

there's been almost total media silence as to who the protestors actually are and what they actually want. this guy reporting from london and stating state department demands isn't helping clarify that distinction between the protestors and the elite, but muddying it.

uploading footage of an occupy fundraiser from last year to youtube

shredding a little at an occupy ottawa fundraiser, in the summer of 2012. this is the most stripped down version possible of the second and third movements of symphony #9. which is an "industrial grunge opera".

recorded first movement of the piece:
http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/proverbs

full version of fundraiser:
https://vimeo.com/45641874

the most important things i learned from occupy are:

1) people that share a dissatisfaction with the world as it is do not necessarily form a shared vision of how they'd like to see the world.
2) capitalist indoctrination is far deeper than many anti-capitalists consciously realize.
3) a tendency to throw temper tantrums is not necessarily something people grow out of.
4) at the end of the day, the revolution can only ever be in the mode of production.
5) hippies don't like challenging music

but, despite the substantial challenges ahead of all of us, it's important that we continue to take the time to speak out against fucking bullshit.

i know the russian mindset towards strong leaders is different. but this article is both the reason i read fp and a good example of flat out propaganda.

putin is a least evil in russia. i keep trying to explain this to people. if a better option appeared in russia, there's little doubt that the masses would swing to it. but, that's not the reality in the country.

the scariest thing about russia in a geopolitical context is it's political spectrum. with all the talk of extremists in ukraine, it's important to realize that russia is under perpetual threat of being taken over by lunatics. still, in 2014, the largest opposition party remains the communist party. leap frogging the third place social democrats (which are the only really moderate party in the country), the fourth place party is a collection of hard-right nationalists that call themselves various type of liberals. what that means is that russia is torn between extreme opposition movements on the far left and the far right, both of which are large enough to form a serious threat should the ruling coalition of liberals and conservatives fracture.

that makes putin a centrist in russia, and that is the basis of his continuing political support. in western terms, he's an old timey conservative in the mold of somebody like churchill, which means he supports a kind of state capitalism in conjunction with a welfare state and a type of social conservatism that is globally fairly normal, if somewhat fringe in europe and north america. that's not a formula for what most westerners would consider enlightened governance in 2014. and , yeah, corruption is endemic. but it's a far cry from the soviets and quasi-fascists that form the only other viable political parties in the country.

and he's not in a vacuum, either. he does have political concerns to be worried about.

something struck me when watching the news conference the other day. in speaking of the divide in wealth in ukraine, he skipped the communists. he talked about the leaders of modern ukraine, then jumped right to the czar. i haven't seen a western analysis of this yet, but it's telling. he needs to be careful not to provoke a conflict with the communist opposition, because he knows that's an argument that could cause some problems.

the ngos that the americans fund in russia aren't helping to remove putin, either, but solidifying his base of support. they're funding the same kind of hard-right opposition movements, which just plays into putin's narrative of not letting the country fall into the hands of extremists on the left or right. it's scary to think that something similar could happen in moscow, but if it could it would have the same effect of a broad rejection by the russian populace. it is obvious that, if elections are fair, the existing government in ukraine is going to be drastically redrawn in upcoming elections. at this point, removing putin by force would probably get the communists elected.

so, is there unease in russia about the kleptocracy? as far as i can see, there is, and it's substantial. but the article doesn't answer the question of who putin is afraid of replacing him - because there isn't anybody that currently could. so long as the americans back the far right, and the soviets remain a strong opposition, the masses of russian people have no option but to continue to vote for putin's centrist coalition.

so, rumours of his demise are greatly exaggerated.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/03/06/the_frontlines_on_russia_homefront_putin_ukraine

that being said, i agree his hands were tied. but it's about strategic positioning, not local politics.

i mean....

if the ghost of churchill were to run for prime minister tomorrow, he'd probably be written off as a fascist.

he might even join the bnp.

well, they said they weren't going to annex it. weird, though.

al jazeera's often not the best source for getting the whole picture. there's no doubt something missing. let's see what the russians say.

nothing as of yet, it seems. just a lot of talk of russia possibly accepting a crimean vote to join the russian federation.

technically, allowing crimea into the russian federation is not invading it. but the force in which the kremlin's spokespeople were rejecting any attempt to sway crimea into russia is not consistent with that kind of policy.

they were very clear on upholding ukrainian sovereignty over the region, while supporting more autonomy.

so, this is either a shift in policy or the collapse of a story that was constructed for western consumption.

it's probably a bit of both.

either way, they lost some credibility with me.

i mean, it's not entirely surprising, but there's a difference between creating propaganda about *why* they're doing something and lying about what they're doing. i've been operating under the perception that while their justifications are usually fabricated, they've been mostly up front about what they're actually doing.

meaning that "we're protecting russians" is obvious bullshit, but "we're not annexing the region" isn't. that may seem subtle, but it's a big difference. it's what v why.

i think it's mostly an extrapolation of how i deal with american propaganda. when the americans indicate they're going after a region - be it iraq or syria or iran - they almost never bluff. you can figure out *what* they're doing pretty easily, by taking their statements at face value. it's the *why* that's usually nonsense and requires a lot of deconstruction.

i don't know how the russians expect anybody to take them seriously when they stand up and say they're doing a thing, and then do the exact opposite. even the americans know not to kill their own credibility like that.

i'm not very forgiving when it comes to this kind of thing. there's still time for a more subtle russian explanation. but, as of right now, they just lost credibility in my mind.

stuck in the middle of an alley closing in on all sides (vst mix) (original upload)

written in early 2001. initially rendered mar 6, 2014. corrected on mar 7, 2014.

http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/vst-mix