The fiction ends here

[Blue_Tires]

Last edited Wed Feb 4, 2015, 06:14 PM - Edit history (1)

There’s war between Russia and Ukraine. If you are new to this conflict, or have relied on nothing but radio and TV news, you might however think it’s a war between a horrible nazi state and peace-loving rebels.

So-called “established media” – championed by BBC, CNN, Al-Jazeera, New York Times, The Guardian, The Independent and what have you – as represented by their indifferent, disinterested and ill-researched journalists, have dished out a Russian propaganda narrative ever since the Russian military invasion of Crimea. The narrative, or “story”, wants you to believe that fighting in Ukraine is a clash between Ukrainian regular troops (or even “troops loyal to Kiev”) and so-called “rebels”, “separatists” and “pro-russia forces”. The latter category is usually writ without citation marks, a not so minor omission that lends a measure of validity to a shaky concept.

This is a fiction.

It is high time to puncture the myth and the fiction surrounding these “rebels” and “separatists”, and to STOP using Russian semantics in reports and commentary about Ukraine.

The fiction has gained traction through a wide distribution of these concepts, not merely in media but also through politicians, security experts and other pundits who are widely cited among peers, thus making the wrongful use of misleading words permanent and exceedingly difficult to dislodge.

It’s a question of semantics: of the meaning and use of words, of association, of reference, substitution, concept and interpretation – classic topics that journalism schools worldwide should have on the curriculum. However, a quick glance shows that a very large proportion of commentators must have slept through that particular class.

The standard interpretation of “rebel” turns your mind to romantic guerilla warriors rising against an oppressive central power: Che Guevara, Pancho Villa, Guiseppe Garibaldi, Spartacus et al – or popular culture rebel icons such as James Dean, Robin Hood and Marlon Brando. It’s easy to like the rebel: he’s an underdog fighting for the people, for justice, for freedom. The Russian “rebels” have NOTHING in common with that concept or such role models.

The dictionary says that a rebel is someone rising in opposition against an established regime, brandishing pitchforks and Kalashnikovs doled out of cupboards and illicit crates. This is a decent description that could also apply to the “rebels” in Ukraine – were it not for the fact that 80-90% (opinions vary) of the “rebels” in Donbas comprise uniformed citizens of Russia, some hailing from Chechnya, Uzbekistan, Belarus and the farthest reaches of Wherever. The homegrown component of the”rebel army” is melting away daily and is used primarily as a fig leaf for regular Russian troops in their own or borrowed uniforms.

If these “rebels” were truly rebels, they would, as Russians, turn around and train their guns on Moscow, not Kyiv.

It is therefore gravely misleading to use the “rebel” title as description of Russian and/or Russian-backed militants fighting in Ukraine.

https://goupillon.wordpress.com/2015/02/02/the-fiction-ends-here/

Much, much more at the link...Sadly, 99% of the DUers who most need to read this won't...But they'll still be calling anyone opposing the Russian invasion a "neofascist" or whatever...

[cprise]

1. And the violent mob on the Maidan were "protesters"

Before anyone was shot at, they setup molotov cocktail catapults and had tried to run over police with a bulldozer...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4608550\

Just try that in the US and see if they call your gathering a "protest". These are treated as terrorist tactics here. The Ukrainian police endured them for weeks.

In the middle of all this the US State Dept. vocalizes their approval of the "protest" which aimed to oust Ukraine's President.

It was all down hill from there.

[uhnope]

2. K&R