In your opinion, were the Germans within their rights to launch a peacekeeping mission into the Sudentenland to protect the German minority living there?

I have seen reports on RT of attacks between pro Kiev and anti Kiev protestors in the east. Also people in the east fear that they may end up with protestors from Kiev coming there. This was on RT.
There is also talking of Russian being banned as the official second language and also talking of banning both the party of regions and the communist party.


Its nothing like Germany back then melmothtw, back then Germany was an expansionist empire! Russia these days is not an expansionist empire and simply trying to control what it already has and to protect Russian people. If anything its the west who are expansionist! The EU constantly trying to add new members even though they cannot manage what they have now! Plus the USA attempting to remove governments and regimes who refuse to obey them and replace them with something that will!

Not surprised you should think that Ronald, if you're getting your news from RT. About as impartial and apolitical as Fox.

Yep, if there's one thing that the 2008 'intervention' in Georgia (the country, not the state) taught me it's that Russia (read; Putin) is not expansionist.

As the saying goes, 'Russia without Ukraine is a country. Russia with Ukraine is an empire.'

To be fair on RT, this morning there was barely a mention about Ukraine in their main news report. I think Putin must have gone into a massive sulk - "bl**dy Ukrainians, spoiling my $50bn Olympics extravaganza"

The only Russian news source that has any credibility in my view is RIA Novosti, as demonstrated by the fact that Putin is having them shutdown.

RT isn't so bad. Its certainly the best media channel letting us know what is really going on. Western media though seems to just follow the party line.
I want to know what is really going on out there. Chinese and Indian news media can also be good for that.

Come on Ronnie, its laughably & lamentably bad when towing your party's line, even to a dispassionate observer. I bet even you must cringe at some of the guff they come out with.

That's just too funny. I'm not naive enough to suppose that Western media is totally unbiased and neutral, but RT is on another level. The best way to know what's going on in a particular story that RT is reporting is to start from the standpoint that the facts are the opposite of what RT is saying they are. It's not an anti-Russian thing - I think the same is true of Fox News.

Well my vision came true...

CCTV purports to show Yanukovich escaping in helicopter on MSN Video

now all i need is to see the lottery numbers :ok:

But never fear Smeagol is warning the Russsian off about taking advantage and moving in

Hague talks to Russians on Ukraine

One wonders if they are quaking in their boots or laughing their socks off?

A portrait of Ukraine's 'saviour' Yulia Tymoshenko by EDWARD LUCAS | Mail Online

Their saviour, then again the Ukrainian people didn't wish the Billionaire to be their president.

LR:
They'd be better of getting to lead a UN op, if any op is even needed, but I don't think Vlad would be that patient. The deal not too long ago in re Georgia is instructive.
Mel:
Were the Turks within their rights in Cyprus?

Your Godwin move is both noted, and not respected.

Under international law? No.

RT gives an interesting insight into alternative views of worldwide current affairs. The BBC can hardly be held as a credible alternative. If the BBC had had their way we would be currently planning an exit strategy from an Al-Qaida-led Syria around now.
The BBC, and indeed Western governments appear to hold very selective views on what constitutes democracy and when it can be sidelined.

Very well said ex_matelot, agree with you totally.

And yet around the world it is the BBC that people turn to when they want to find out what is actually going on, not what their governments (or their mouthpieces, such as RT) are telling them is going on.

I reject that assertion. I submit to you the BBC's silence and avoidance on Harriet Harman & Co supporting the rights of paedophiles to sleep with children that has just come to light. Even the Guardian is demanding answers.

The BBC is a self-licking lollipop and the 'higher ups' appear to be all of a certain political bent. This has even been previously acknowledged by their own director general regarding reports of their bias.

Google is your friend.

I certainly used the BBC for a trustworthy viewpoint when I was in Zimbabwe. I think they do have some rather soppy left wing biases which I could adjust for but they also had an actual respect for the truth which was a lot more than was available locally. I'm surprised by human nature - that so many people seem to respect the people who hang on to power uncompromisingly rather than the ones who make their play and then give it up. My personal impression is that there are plenty of people who like the idea of being henchmen and regret that they don't have anyone bad enough to hench for.

mel

only the information that the BBC want you to know.

the BBC is a censor as they choose what gets broadcast - as shown by the 3 labor people where they are very quiet - see the Jimmy Saville thread. it was even noted that the bbd was mute.

Google is my friend:

Mark Thompson: BBC news vital to UK's overseas image | Media | theguardian.com

The BBC continues to enjoy a level of trust from audiences across the world which is unique among international news-providers

Anyhow, think we're getting a bit off topic here. My original point was that if folks rely on RT to shape their opinions of the events in Ukraine, then it comes as no surprise that they should be backing Russian intervention.

500N, as I said earlier..

I'm not naive enough to suppose that Western media is totally unbiased and neutral, but RT is on another level.