i've been following rt with the ukrainian issue due to their proximity, but i've previously preferred ria novosti when i've followed russian media at all. the difference is actually substantial. i mean, if i want to know russia's response to nato expansion or developments about the missile shield, i read russian media. that makes sense. it follows that russian media is important in getting a full picture.
so, i do suggest reading russian media. but i don't read - and don't suggest reading - rt uncritically. as i don't suggest reading cnn or al jazeera uncritically. there's huge biases in all these sources. reading them should come with that caveat.
obviously.
with the issue in ukraine? i find their narrative more plausible. it's not perfect. there's a lot of propaganda to break through. i don't think any existing or future russian action is going to be to "protect russian citizens". that's the propaganda. they have strategic aims they will follow. but reading it helps understand what those aims are. and they're relevant in getting what's happening.
but the situation there is outlandish, and the russians are right to freak out about it. it's hard to talk about russia obeying agreements when they're dealing with the armed gunmen storming parliaments. they have a strategic base to protect, and if they're just going to show up with goons and hang out then i have a hard time criticizing them for it. they start killing people, that's a different story.
further, the russians have claimed they have no intent of annexing crimea. i don't see any reason not to believe them. we'll have to see how credible they are in the long run. for now, it seems like a reasonable policy - regardless of the international law that no country in the world pays more than lip service to.
i'm an anarchist...
independent media is useful for analysis, but in the end it's a secondary source. state media - whatever it's flaws - is a primary source. that's a very key difference to observe. so, it's an important tool in the arsenal.
that's all quite secondary to what he's saying here, which is that shit is complex and i again agree is largely correct.
something that's forgotten is that ukrainian media is also state-owned. so, there's not really any good sources here.
if you think the people that just took over in kiev are into free and fair media, you've had some wool pulled over your eyes...
you have to understand that if russia were to lose it's crimean port that would be a shattering shift in global power. that has been the prime russian objective for centuries. it's a huge naval facility. like, if you had the russian military sit down and list the five most strategic areas in the world for them, the crimea would be near the top of the list.
and it's not like the americans don't know that.
so, i'm willing to bend a little. that's something they can't lose. i feel that suggesting otherwise would be very much cheerleading for a pro-nato position.
despite the mostly empty rhetoric about rights and laws.
i'm going to rant a little in a new post...