Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Originally posted by pause4thought
Correct on paper, but in reality the media are pretty tightly controlled. National TV news shamelessly spews pro-Putin propaganda, often in the guise
of national interest / patriotism.
And that's different how?
Ok, I'll grant you there's one difference. Our media manipulation is a little more refined. We have one side that stirs up sentiment against the
country's leader while the other side stirs up support.
And therein lies the answer. During a Russian election the TV broadcasts are almost entirely one-sided, especially when it comes to news broadcasts.
And I mean one-sided not just in terms of being pro-Putin / Putin poodle, but also in terms of deriding the opposition.
It's not very different once an election is over, either.
(And just to clarify, I agree with you that the most powerful western media are often controlled/manipulated by media barons/news editors, etc. to
spoon-fed the masses as to how they should interpret events/evidence/statements, etc., so it is necessary to engage in your own research to get to the
bottom of current events in general.
I also have enough of a sense of humour to enjoy your avatar!)
reply to post by Regenmacher
Many thanks for providing additional information.
I agree that the quote from Rice that you provided was notable. It's pretty clumsy if you ask me. Surely the issue is that Georgia's territory has
been breached
in contradiction of international law, over and above concerns about the need to counter any Russian "strategic objective". The
latter sounds like she's playing 'Risk' (-a board game in which players seek to dominate countries, then continents by squeezing out rival
powers).
A faux pas / freudian slip, perhaps?
I also noted the following (from the same source) with interest:
These would likely include agreement to send a team of civil emergency planning experts to help Georgia assess the damage done to its
infrastructure during the Russian military action which began over a week ago, including energy supplies and the public health system.
The ministers could also agree to help assess the damage to Georgia's military facilities, in particular reports that its radar system was badly
damaged.
This could reveal the other side of the coin: 'shrewd' US strategy (in inverted commas because I find any strategy that leads to deaths/suffering
despicable). In allowing the Russian to carry on doing their worst for a few days, the US just happens to gain the opportunity to engage in
reconstruction. The determination of the Georgian people to ally themselves with the West will thereby be cemented (via the civilian programmes) and
the degree to which the Georgian military is ready for integration into NATO will be materially increased (via the installation of NATO radar
systems).
It all fits like a glove: Russia gets its cake (South Ossetia / Abkhazia) and the U.S. gets its cake: Georgia.
My reading is that both parties will be satisfied, thus averting the possibility of any ongoing or wider conflict.
(It's all a bit late for dead and maimed, though. As usual.)
