Ukraine: Kids in school punished for reciting Russian poetry

[Flamming_Python]

The latest outrage:

http://www.russiatoday.com/features/news/37103



Teachers punish kids for reciting Russian poetry

The ‘language policy of the independent Ukraine’ may have gone too far, as two kids have been banned from a school contest for reciting poems in Russian. In Ukraine’s capital city of Kiev, the senior pupils organisation in school №22 were holding a contest, in time for St.Valentine’s Day, for which the participants were to prepare a song, a dance and a short performance.

A girl and a boy – Lilya Mikhailova and Sasha Pushka – prepared to perform an extract from ‘Yevgeny Onegin’ by famous Russian poet Aleksandr Pushkin, but their presentation was stopped as the jury asked first the boy to translate the extract into the Ukrainian language – right on the spot. Sasha tried to do so, but was soon stopped, and the jury asked the girl to perform her part, which, of course, was also in Russian.

After the contest was over, the two that were reciting in ‘the wrong language’ were told they were disqualified because they performed in Russian, the Russian Foreign Ministry said, and two more groups of contestants were banned from the competition for the same reason.

The Russian Foreign Ministry has already reacted to an incident that has recently taken place in one of the schools in Ukraine’s capital Kiev, calling it ‘tragic and comic’. It also puts to question what would happen if those same contestants dared to perform an extract from Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’ in English – would they be also banned for reciting it in ‘the wrong language’?

The Ministry wonders why the contest organisers were so much concerned about preserving the national identity that they went as far as banning children from reciting Russian poetry, instead of drawing attention to the fact that the whole contest was part of a celebration of St. Valentine’s Day – a holiday that has nothing to do with the country’s culture or history altogether?

Language policy – or language police?

Nikolay Zakrevsky, Editor-In-Chief of the “Kievskiye Vedomosti” newspaper has called the latest incident ‘a bitter fruit of the independent Ukraine’s language policy’. According to him, the desire of the authorities to ‘ukrainify’ all the spheres in the country and to force out the Russian language from social, political and cultural life in Ukraine has brought rather sad results. The number of schools in Ukraine where teaching is performed in Russian was dramatically reduced. In Kiev, there are only 2 schools of this kind left out of 452.

More than 80 % of schools in the country on the whole switched to Ukrainian after the break-up of the Soviet Union. As a result, the Russian-speaking people have almost no chance to educate their children in Russian. Indeed, those who grew up in Soviet times find it difficult to fill in forms in government offices or compete for jobs.

With Viktor Yushchenko coming to power the Ukrainian authorities started ‘a fight’ on the Russian language in the country. The cinemas are allowed to show movies only translated into Ukrainian, and there are plans to ban teaching university students in Russian.

Around half of the country of 48 million speaks Russian. The share of Russian population in the country is estimated as no less than 22 per cent.

I wonder just what poems will be classified as 'Russian'? Most of Ukraine's greatest poets, writers, musicians wrote their material in the Russian language. Will those works be deemed too Russian as well? Or will they force it to undergo a half-assed translation into Ukrainian first?

[Snoshi]

Any other source then Russia Today.. I dont reject that it happened, but when RT have an agenda.

[Mr.Flint]

Any other source then Russia Today.. I dont reject that it happened, but when RT have an agenda.
As someone who spent some time in the post soviet Ukraine, and familiar with Ukrainization in person, i cant attest to the fact that this story is not something unusual, whether RT has an agenda or not.

But there is a significant mistake in the article - it has begun long before Yuschenko,and he simply continued the policy of his predecessors (That includes the pro russian Yanukovich) thus proving your point of RT's agenda :)

[GazB]

Isn't this sort of thing the reason the west claimed Kosovo Albanians deserved their own state?
Government sponsored oppression of language and culture.
Where are all the Euro liberals now?

It seems only the Russians can be the bad guys as per damn usual.

[TheMooMoo]

As we all know Stalin (who killed nearly 1 billion of people with his bare hands) was speaking in Russian and thus Russian language should be banned worldwide ;)

[Trouble]

As we all know Stalin (who killed nearly 1 billion of people with his bare hands) was speaking in Russian and thus Russian language should be banned worldwide ;)

Agreed! Besides we all know that the Official World Language will soon be Broken English with an Indian accent.

[davey]

Any other source then Russia Today.. I dont reject that it happened, but when RT have an agenda.

Snoshi,

Apologies for breaking this news to you, but your favourite Western news sources will not report about this, as they have not reported any draconian measures implemented, or anti-democratic steps taken by Yuschenko. Or his interference in the legal system.

You can choose to ignore all evidence that the current Ukrainian president shows enough signs of being a corrupt, authoritarian despot and be blissfully uninformed forever. It's your choice.

[Mr.Flint]

Snoshi,

Apologies for breaking this news to you, but your favourite Western news sources will not report about this, as they have not reported any draconian measures implemented, or anti-democratic steps taken by Yuschenko. Or his interference in the legal system.
For the record RT does have an agenda, and they managed to insert it where,even though there was no need in it. The story speaks for itself, inserting an untrue fact into it is pointless, and harmful to it credibiltiy.



You can choose to ignore all evidence that the current Ukrainian president shows enough signs of being a corrupt, authoritarian despot and be blissfully uninformed forever. It's your choice.
You mean the previous one wasnt? and that the Russia preferred candidate wasnt the same?

[GazB]

For the record RT does have an agenda, and they managed to insert it where,even though there was no need in it. The story speaks for itself, inserting an untrue fact into it is pointless, and harmful to it credibiltiy.

Why bother with the truth in media these days. It is about market share and exciting news footage. It is about telling like minded people what they want to hear to make them happy to continue to think the way they do yet still pretend to be open minded.

[JCR]

I've heard the same from Ukrainians I know.
Gogol is widely celebrated as Ukraine's national author, but yet you can't read his works in original in school, they have to be read in ukrainian tranlation.

[zxc]

All we can do is hope for a change. I hope Yanukovich or Tym (probaby not) will adopt Russian language as an offical language with Ukrainian.

[astana]

Isn't this sort of thing the reason the west claimed Kosovo Albanians deserved their own state?
Government sponsored oppression of language and culture.
Where are all the Euro liberals now?

It seems only the Russians can be the bad guys as per damn usual.

C'mon that was a cheap shot.

Yugoslavia was fallen apart already, the almighty Serbian has lost seval territorial pieces because of all the war, if Slobodan dindn't intent to make another mistake and got his ass whoop by NATO.

At least no one has tried to deported people or burn down villages nor shelling cities. So you ruskies can relax ... No need to play traumatized war orphant ,... :roll:

[Komes I]

Don't wont to sound like a troll or something, just wanted to ask a question:

Why shouldn't someone believe to RT?
Any example?

[User_Name]

Don't wont to sound like a troll or something, just wanted to ask a question:

Why shouldn't someone believe to RT?
Any example?

Prove them wrong in this issue:). Then we can speak again.

[Snoshi]

Don't wont to sound like a troll or something, just wanted to ask a question:

Why shouldn't someone believe to RT?
Any example?

Because they are an official mouthpiece of Putin.. Its like Iranian PressTV... Or the new Chinese CNN.

[User_Name]

Because they are an official mouthpiece of Putin.. Its like Iranian PressTV... Or the new Chinese CNN.

roflroflrofl
OMG sure Snoshi, or like israeli media:)

RT reports from russian side of view, nothing more.
As i said before, prove them wrong in this issue, if you can not, move along.
(let me guess you are a Grani reader, arent you?rofl)

[Snoshi]

roflroflrofl
OMG sure Snoshi, or like israeli media:)


Are Ynet, Haaretz or Jpost state owned state-agencies that only publish crap about its neighbours while completely ignoring problems inside of its own country?

[User_Name]

Are Ynet, Haaretz or Jpost state owned state-agencies that only publish crap about its neighbours while completely ignoring problems inside of its own country?

Do some research before claiming sh_t:).
Here are links for you rofl
http://www.russiatoday.com/features/news/37263

and serious one
http://www.russiatoday.com/Crisis/news/37149

[1curious]

Snoshi,
I have noticed on multiple occasions you’re a typical poster with “shoot the messenger” syndrome while yourself posting official mouthpieces favoring you POVs.

Can you look into a message, try to evaluate it on its merits and then pass the judgment?

I am a relatively new member here, but have noticed your posts are treated by many old-timers (even sympathetic to your views) with the “smile”.

The crux of the matter here is - a reverse nationalism is taking place and the facts sited by the source (RT) are sufficiently common and verifiable via alternative sources. If you chose to dwell on the source rather than the message, you are not enhancing your reputation, IMO.

Differences of opinions are fine but I'm still to read an evaluation from you that would go beyond uttering soundbites. Cheers.

[Snoshi]

Do some research before claiming sh_t:).
Here are links for you rofl
http://www.russiatoday.com/features/news/37263

and serious one
http://www.russiatoday.com/Crisis/news/37149

Thats "state" criticism? rofl

[Snoshi]

I am a relatively new member here, but have noticed your posts are treated by many old-timers (even sympathetic to your views) with the “smile”.
Like who?


The crux of the matter here is - a reverse nationalism is taking place and the facts sited by the source (RT) are sufficiently common and verifiable via alternative sources. If you chose to dwell on the source rather than the message, you are not enhancing your reputation, IMO.

I wont take anything that RT writes as truth as long as there is no other source for it.. And so far no one have presented an alternative source.

[1curious]

Thanks for proving my point Mr. Depth..you've been just long-listed :)

[User_Name]

And so far no one have presented an alternative source.
http://www.kp.kiev.ua/daily/060209/71888/print/
ukrainian source

[Snoshi]

http://www.kp.kiev.ua/daily/060209/71888/print/
ukrainian source

No, its not.. Its a Russian news papper based in Ukraine..

Its like calling this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/russian/news/default.stm

A Russian source

[Flamming_Python]

RT is of course a biased agency that selects which news to publish and how to publish it.

The trouble is so is every other news agency. And before anyone says anything, give me at least 1 other major news agency that doesn't demonise Russia and at least attempts to push across Russia's POV.

The fact is, RT is sorely needed.

[Snoshi]

RT is of course a biased agency that selects which news to publish and how to publish it.

The trouble is so is every other news agency. And before anyone says anything, give me at least 1 other major news agency that doesn't demonise Russia and at least attempts to push across Russia's POV.

The fact is, RT is sorely needed.

BBC and CNN do criticize Russia.. But they are not in any way as biased as RT. So comparing these agencies is ridiculous.

Like i said, the only "newspaper" that can be compared to RT is Iranian PressTV. They both refuse to criticize the leadership, they both target USA and other of its allies and they both invite "guests" of who are presented as "real" analysts to criticize USA or other countries.

[Red_Rage]

Pretty disgusting display of nationalism... I know some native English speakers who learned Russian just to read the Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Pushkin, Gogol and others in their original language. And here we have a country that speaks the language by default and does everything possible to lose it. Russian litirature (no doubt edited) on "mova" *shudder* Ukranian is not exactly the prettiest or richest of languages (especially for those speaking Russian), so translating great literary works to it is a crime against intelect.

Two or more official languages is a BLESSING. That means that by age of 18 people are given an opportunity to speak several languages while investing minimal energy. French in Canada are much smaller minority than Russians in Ukraine, yet French is one of the two official languages and French culture in Quebec is being protected on federal and provincial levels.

Anyways, it is my opinion that all the nationalist dirt coming from Ukraine is just diverstion from the fact that Ukraine is broke, politically unstable, and socially devided mess of a country. 3 opposing mafia-run power verticals is pretty much Ukranian government - best those goblins can come up with is playing the nationalist card and further alienate different layers of Ukraine's population.

[AmoebaProject]

All we can do is hope for a change.

You guys need a black president.

Snoshi - please, tell me - how many new agencies are really reporting 'good' news about Russia and 'bad' news about western-friendly ex-Soviet states?
It's just not in demand, why would they report something that proves Russian point.

[davey]

You mean the previous one wasnt? and that the Russia preferred candidate wasnt the same?

No, it did not mean that, and nowhere did I imply that. You are unnecessarily reading things that I did not say. My main rant is about the selective morality and lack of objectivity of the Western media, and the extent to which they bow to their masters' geopolitical objectives. If sainted puppets like Saakashvili or Yuschenko turn out to be real skunks, their worst actions go either under reported, unreported or misreported. The recent Georgia war is the most famous example of this and to this day, remains the most shameful chapter in the history of the Western media.

Why don't I rant about Russia Today as it is obviously not neutral? Because it is none of my business. It is well known that it is not neutral and it gets ample criticism in this forum. I'm a WESTERNER and I am concerned about what I see happening in the WESTERN MEDIA. YOU SHOULD BE TOO.

Still, you will sometimes find important facts on Russia Today that goes totally unreported in Western media. Even if RT is government owned and biased.

BTW the BBC is also government owned and it fully acts like it. Its so called neutrality and objectivity is a public relations lie designed and marketed to fool the gullible. Unfortunately Western audiences have become too lazy and complacent to notice. CNN and others lack objectivity for many reasons too wide in scope to discuss here.

In today's world you have to consult all the sources available to stay informed. In a sense, this is what Snoshi said. But unforunately he only applies that principle to RT. It should be applied to Western sources alike - everone should really consult more that just Western sources as they all contain exactly the same slant, which is why I am so irritated about it.

The incident that spawned this thread is a prime example of something that will go totally unreported in the West even if it is true. If Putin does something similar, it will be spiced up and rubbed under you nose for days on end. Just to remind us we are living in the WEST, and we should detest / hate the damn Russians. We shall love the Ukrainians, but only while Yuschenko is in power. And we shall be made to believe that Ukrainians actually support this asshole as a leader. If a Russian aligned president should come to power, it shall be by fraudulent means and he shall be corrupt, irrespective of who he is and who elected him, and irrespective of whether Ukrainian citizens' wishes are truly refleced in the vote. The Ukrainian people shall become the opressed.

[Don Changstein]

You guys need a black president.

hee hee@! black president does not make change - only vending machine do that!

[Snoshi]

Good post
but

Still, you will sometimes find important facts on Russia Today that goes totally unreported in Western media. Even if RT is government owned and biased.
I want to see these facts..

As much as BBC and CNN are biased they are still on the other planet compared to RT.

[kosse]

Hard to say what's true and what is not considering that the only source is RT.




Two or more official languages is a BLESSING. That means that by age of 18 people are given an opportunity to speak several languages while investing minimal energy. French in Canada are much smaller minority than Russians in Ukraine, yet French is one of the two official languages and French culture in Quebec is being protected on federal and provincial levels.



This is not the case always. I live in an artificially bilingual country and having two official languages is a great financial and practical burden.

For average joe around here it means being forced to learn a minority language that nobody besides those living in the rather small region populated by it's native speakers need. I personally have never spoken the language outside school. In addition, the minority language happens to be globally insignificant and the time and effort used to study it could well be used to study some other language. At least there should be choice what to study..

PS. My mother has taught the aforementioned minority language for 30 years and even she thinks that forcing people to learn it is retarded p-)

[Frutzel]

Good post
but

I want to see these facts..

As much as BBC and CNN are biased they are still on the other planet compared to RT.

Three pages full of "this news agency is bad my agencies are better BS"....get a life Snoshi. Although it's very biased it doesn't matter as long as the fact is true. RT is a joke but unless you prove this news wrong you should calm down and stop derailing it. I thaught you stopped your favorite occupation here but I guess I was wrong:roll:

[Snoshi]

Three pages full of "this news agency is bad my agencies are better BS"....get a life Snoshi. Although it's very biased it doesn't matter as long as the fact is true. RT is a joke but unless you prove this news wrong you should calm down and stop derailing it. I thaught you stopped your favorite occupation here but I guess I was wrong:roll:

So a news paper can post a "aliens" land in Ghana" newsarticle and as long as they are not proven wrong the article should be taken a "real"? :roll:

[AmoebaProject]

So a news paper can post a "aliens" land in Ghana" newsarticle and as long as they are not proven wrong the article should be taken a "real"? :roll:

Remember 'Russians invaded Georgia because they hate Freedom'?
You can report anything nowdays, especially about Russia cause it's somewhere in Asia and also evil.

[User_Name]

For average joe around here it means being forced to learn a minority language that nobody besides those living in the rather small region populated by it's native speakers need. I personally have never spoken the language outside school. In addition, the minority language happens to be globally insignificant and the time and effort used to study it could well be used to study some other language. At least there should be choice what to study..


This says all
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/1060/russianuseenny5.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Official_Russian_language_support_in_Ukraine.PNG

[Frutzel]

So a news paper can post a "aliens" land in Ghana" newsarticle and as long as they are not proven wrong the article should be taken a "real"? :roll:

Who was talking about Aliens? Don't try to twist my words Snoshi. You know exactly what I was trying to tell you.

[davey]

So a news paper can post a "aliens" land in Ghana" newsarticle and as long as they are not proven wrong the article should be taken a "real"? :roll:

An alien landing has a low probability of occurring. If a Ghanaian paper reports an Alien landing, and we cannot confirm it via credible sources, we should hold the opinion that it is unlikely to happen, and therefore most probably untrue. If after days, such a sensational event remains unreported by credible sources, we can safely conclude that it was untrue.

In the current political climate in Ukraine (my wife hails from there), the event reported has a high probability of occurring and would not be considered unusual or out of line with other similar events. It is not analogous to an alien landing. Especially considering how fake the orange revolution's democracy turned out to be in terms of installing proper values in politics. From a political angle, we can say that such incidents are expected from time to time, and therefore this incident is quite probable.*

With the Western media bias and selective reporting as prevalent as it is, we can conclude that it is unlikely that such an event would have been reported. Also keep in mind that Western media focus naturally drifted off Ukraine after the Orange Revolution which makes a report on it even more unlikely. So from the fact that it was not reported by Western sources we cannot really draw any conclusions.

We should then turn to our Ukrainian members and see if they can enlighten us. Until then, we should reserve opinion.

Due to the current political climate we should keep the RT report in mind with some concern. Not everything reported on RT is automatically a lie - if you get that impulse irrespective of the facts or circumstances you should consider the possibility that you have been thoroughly indoctrinated. RT did provide some valuable and accurate reporting on the Georgia / Russia war, mixed with some real propaganda and unsubstantiated facts at a time when Western reporting was totally off the mark, as subsequently verified after the fact. I have recordings of both sides of the story to verify this, and I must categorically state that RT's reporting was more in line with reality than that of any Western channel. Anyone with an open mind can check the recorded reports against emerging facts. Western reports contain some distortions that I consider deliberate, with some concern. (Not letting RT off the hook, but as said previously, they are not my main concern, I live in the West, and there are values we hold dear.)

*Please note that I'm not defending Kuchma or Yanukovych. I'm just stating the obvious, that the Orange Revolution failed to bring real democracy and proper decent values into Ukrainian politics. Ask any Ukrainian and they will tell you. They are thoroughly fed up with most politicians, including Yuschenko, Tymoshenko and Yanukovych. There's a leadership and successorship vacuum.

[Snoshi]

RT did provide some valuable and accurate reporting on the Georgia / Russia war, mixed with some real propaganda and unsubstantiated facts at a time when Western reporting was totally off the mark, as subsequently verified after the fact. I have recordings of both sides of the story to verify this, and I must categorically state that RT's reporting was more in line with reality than that of any Western channel.
I would like to see a source for this..

[davey]

I would like to see a source for this..

A Western source perhaps? Evaluating itself? You would not accept any other, so what now?

If you only accept Western sources, you have a real problem if such sources become polluted with selective reporting, untruths, unsubstantiated facts, innuendo or supposition as is the norm today. Just tell me, what do you accept, and what do you measure against?

Are you not concerned, that with your stance, the possibility that you might be hoodwinked is very real. And with that I'm telling you that you are being hoodwinked!

Keep an open mind. Consult a diversity of sources from a diversity of backgrounds. Ten Western sources do not provide a diversity as far as international politics is concerned. They all get their reports from the same news wire services, and their reporters are shaped by the same ideological backgrounds (the whole euro-atlantic loyalty at any price thing) . They are all influenced by the same media relations campaigns (sometimes massive and overwhelming, as we have witnessed during the Georgia war) and God forbids, by the same political strings. Have you checked out how many influential Western reporters and media figures became involved with or married politicians (Kaczynski, Anne Applebaum etc). You get the impression they are really fighting the same battle.

I have not even spoken my mind about video news releases. Yes, those inserts that are made and paid for by external entities and presented as part of a news bulletin without warning to the viewer as to its origin. This is worse than RT, because the viewer is totally unaware of who is driving content and opinion, and because content is slanted in the direction of whoever throws money at it. With RT at least, you know it's the evil Putin!

[-Julik- 4.GdKp]

Snoshi,you have to troll and spam almost every russian thread:bash:

[tyovan]

Hard to say what's true and what is not considering that the only source is RT.



This is not the case always. I live in an artificially bilingual country and having two official languages is a great financial and practical burden.

For average joe around here it means being forced to learn a minority language that nobody besides those living in the rather small region populated by it's native speakers need. I personally have never spoken the language outside school. In addition, the minority language happens to be globally insignificant and the time and effort used to study it could well be used to study some other language. At least there should be choice what to study..

PS. My mother has taught the aforementioned minority language for 30 years and even she thinks that forcing people to learn it is retarded p-)

Learning Swedish in Finland?? Or what??

[Mr.Flint]

Prove them wrong in this issue:). Then we can speak again.
I pointed to a wrong fact in RT's article. BTW that fact is not mentioned in the "Ukranian" source.

Somehow it has been ignored by the "Snoshi is a troll" crowd...

Yuschenko, was not the one who started the Ukrainisation. Kuchma was, with full support of "pro Russian" mps... like Yanukovich, who never stopped it or amended it when he was a PM....

Anyone who expects any Ukranian politician to stop the policy is deluding themselves as much as those who think that Kasparov can be a Russian president...

[TakeIt]

I pointed to a wrong fact in RT's article. BTW that fact is not mentioned in the "Ukranian" source.They simplified the situation, however they're not entirely wrong. Only during Uscheko regime ukrainisation became a monstrosity that needs to be cured.


Somehow it has been ignored by the "Snoshi is a troll" crowd...Snoshi is a troll whether there are mistakes in RT article or not. This is not related to this specific article.


Yuschenko, was not the one who started the Ukrainisation. Kuchma was, with full support of "pro Russian" mps... like Yanukovich, who never stopped it or amended it when he was a PM.... I guess it takes time to understand the difference between propagating language and forcing it.

[Snoshi]

Snoshi,you have to troll and spam almost every russian thread:bash:

Thank you very much.. Now do you have something to add..

[Flamming_Python]

BBC and CNN do criticize Russia.. But they are not in any way as biased as RT. So comparing these agencies is ridiculous.

Like i said, the only "newspaper" that can be compared to RT is Iranian PressTV. They both refuse to criticize the leadership, they both target USA and other of its allies and they both invite "guests" of who are presented as "real" analysts to criticize USA or other countries.

I would be the first to admit that when it comes to Russia-West conflicts and the recent war in Ossetia, RT talks a lot of BS. It fails to analyze both sides of the story; allegations coming from the West and leaves some information out entirely, while publishing unverified information that comes from shaky and unfounded sources; thus jumping to conclusions too quick. But perhaps when it comes to Russia, that's just what's needed for the worlds TV viewers; overall RT is doing a good job balancing things out with their counter-propaganda, although ultimately it needs to become more proffessional and balanced itself and set a good example to others, if it is to have any chance of reaching as much of a world-wide audience as the Russian point of view deserves to.

When it comes to Western coverage of Russia, the ex-Soviet Union and the countries that underwent 'colour revolutions', Western news agencies are even worse than either RT, Iranian PressTV or whatever else you could name. They don't even bother to conceal their symphathy and bias towards pro-Western movements in that part of the world, fail entirely to report any Russian arguement, listen to the Russian point of view or analyse their allegations, by default always take the side of whoever is against Russia/Russian language/Putin, etc... they never fail to analyse the situation correctly and the vast majority of their in-depth reports are just propaganda whose predictions usually turn out to be wrong. Admittedly much of this is the fault of Russia itself; which until very recently has paid little attention to the media war or its image to the outside world. But the greater part of it is of their deliberate doing; their journalists are subjected to immense editorial pressure when it comes to reporting on Russia, here is a good article by Mark Ames on the subject, where he describes this process in the 08/08/08 war between Georgia and Russia, written in the (anti-Kremlin) Exile english-language newspaper:

http://exiledonline.com/how-to-screw-up-a-war-story-the-new-york-times-at-work/

[Mr.Flint]

They simplified the situation, however they're not entirely wrong. Only during Uscheko regime ukrainisation became a monstrosity that needs to be cured.
Bollocks.
I was there when Odessa was made Ukranian speaking overnight.
I was there when the Universities in Odessa were forced to start lecturing in Ukranian, including a former Imperial one...
I remember the Ukranian lecturers gloating over the fact that the finally can lecture in Ukranian, and not in Russian.
And that was with Kuchma and later Yanukovich in power.
The ukrainisation was a monstrosity that needs to be cured, from day one, and not a single of the so called "pro Russian" mps, really did anything to cure it. The simply continued to ask for their share of the pie. Some got it, some didnt.



Snoshi is a troll whether there are mistakes in RT article or not. This is not related to this specific article.
Frankly in this thread, its mostly a case of pot calling kettle black.
He was correct in pointing RT's bias.



I guess it takes time to understand the difference between propagating language and forcing it.
It was forcing the language from day one, no one felt it as propagating...

[Flamming_Python]

I would like to see a source for this..

Why don't you compare Western and RT coverage of the war to have your answer?

Start of the War

West:

Only starts reporting on the conflict, when Russia has already started its counterattack. If deliberate: propaganda. If accidental: incredible incompetence; warning signs and preliminary steps were out there. It's funny how no major agency picked up on this before the Russian retaliation happened, in fact there was barely even a report on the tension building up there in the days before the war, until newspapers with the headline "Russian tanks rolling into Georgia" appeared the day after.

RT:

Starts reporting from the start of the Georgian attack on South Ossetia, as well as reporting preliminary events (Georgian armoured formations massing, women and kids evacuated from Tskinvali, etc...) in the days before. RT wins.

Civilian suffering

West:

Makes little coverage of the Ossetian civilian dead and refugees; their camera crews were mostly in Georgia and the ones in Ossetia mainly focussed on the plight of the Georgians living there. Concentrated on the destruction in Gori where a few buildings were damaged and destroyed while giving little footage and interviews in Tskinvali, a city which had major parts of it levelled to the ground, in which gas, water, electricity were cut off, hospitals were targetted, etc...

RT:

Makes little coverage of the Georgian civilian dead and refugees; their camera crews were almost all in Ossetia. AFAIK made no coverage whatsoever of the bombings in Gori, looting by Ossetian militias, post-conflict burning of formely occupied Georgian villiages, etc... However, it was the Ossetians who were attacked first and who suffered the most casualties and devastation during the period of the 5-day war. RT wins.

War of words

West: Gives plenty of airtime to Georgian allegations, reasons, explanations. Saakashvilli and his henchmen popped up plenty of times on air, although admitedly some Western news agencies (BBC in particular suprising me in this regard), treated their claims and accusations with sceptitisism and grilled and critized them on air. The Russian officials and explanations were also given airtime, although the amount of coverage was simply not as much. Ossetian civilians and politicians were almost completely ignored.

RT: Gives plenty of airtime to 'Wives tales' and 'Rumor mills' on the part of the Ossetians and to a lesser extent Russians. During such a conflict there will be plenty of stories such as "Georgians burn church with women and children inside", "Took drugs to allow them to become insensitised to atrocities that they are commiting", etc... Not to mention trusting the initial figures of Ossetian casualties (2000) with no hesitation or reserve whatsoever. Most of these accusations were unsubstantiated at the time and have mostly been forgotten by now due to lack of proof. Whether this was deliberate or not, it was amatuer in the extreme to put so much faith into information that was so unproven. Gave coverage to Russian and Ossetian officials and civilians, but ignored the Georgians entirely. West wins.

After combat has ended

West: By and large (not everyone but most major news sources), their post-war conclusion was that although Georgia started the war, both sides were to blame, but that Russia was the big-bad monster, who 'set a trap' for the 'hot-headed' and '****e to provocation' Saakashvilli. Much attention was paid Georgian refugees, post-conflict problems of the Georgian side, hysteria over Russia re-deploying its forces in Georgia, accusations and demands on Russia, etc...

RT: Russia was in the right, Georgia was the agressor, and Saakashvilli is a criminal megolamaniac with no problem when it comes to causing death and suffering. Perhaps not as balanced in this regard as the Western media, but probably closer to the truth. RT wins.

[Digimon]

I would be the first to admit that when it comes to Russia-West conflicts and the recent war in Ossetia, RT talks a lot of BS. It fails to analyze both sides of the story; allegations coming from the West and leaves some information out entirely, while publishing unverified information that comes from shaky and unfounded sources; thus jumping to conclusions too quick. But perhaps when it comes to Russia, that's just what's needed for the worlds TV viewers; overall RT is doing a good job balancing things out with their counter-propaganda, although ultimately it needs to become more proffessional and balanced itself and set a good example to others, if it is to have any chance of reaching as much of a world-wide audience as the Russian point of view deserves to.

When it comes to Western coverage of Russia, the ex-Soviet Union and the countries that underwent 'colour revolutions', Western news agencies are even worse than either RT, Iranian PressTV or whatever else you could name. They don't even bother to conceal their symphathy and bias towards pro-Western movements in that part of the world, fail entirely to report any Russian arguement, listen to the Russian point of view or analyse their allegations, by default always take the side of whoever is against Russia/Russian language/Putin, etc... they never fail to analyse the situation correctly and the vast majority of their in-depth reports are just propaganda whose predictions usually turn out to be wrong. Admittedly much of this is the fault of Russia itself; which until very recently has paid little attention to the media war or its image to the outside world. But the greater part of it is of their deliberate doing; their journalists are subjected to immense editorial pressure when it comes to reporting on Russia, here is a good article by Mark Ames on the subject, where he describes this process in the 08/08/08 war between Georgia and Russia, written in the (anti-Kremlin) Exile english-language newspaper:

http://exiledonline.com/how-to-screw-up-a-war-story-the-new-york-times-at-work/

There is a distinction between BBC, CNN and RT that can shed light on the suspicion of the critics. Margarita Simonyan, the editor-in-chief of the news channel, initially approached the administration with the proposal to set up the channel with the expressed purpose of presenting the Russian view of the current events. Thus, it is the raison d’être of the channel to propagate a particular interpretation of the events, not unlike the goal of the Soviet Russia Today magazine, the famous precursor of RT, was to propagate the interpretation of events from within the Soviet Russia. Hence, RT is not setup as a platform for discussing and debating current events; rather, it is an expression of one particular point of view in a debate taking place across the entire media space (not unlike Fox and MSNBC). It could be useful when the discussed event is like the August war with Georgia, which was widely discussed, but it is much less useful when the event is like the language war in Ukraine, which has no countervailing view in the general media.

A different approach to news broadcasting is to organize it around panels and studio discussion containing various opposing views on the discussed events, contributing to the emergence of balanced interpretation in the studio rather than in the general media space. Although some might disagree, I believe that CBC (and allegedly Aljazeera) is not only setup in this way but is also quite successful at it.

Given these two approaches to media broadcasting, it is not unreasonable to demand another source on the discussed event if the only coverage available had been provided by a news source positioning itself as speaking from a particular perspective. Having said that, I must admit that there is an increasing tendency among news broadcaster that position themselves as providing a balanced view of current events to simplify the message, compromising genuine and balanced discussion.

[matthew.manhorn]

Banning Russian classes from University? wtf? I only know that speaking foreign language is forbidden in Scandinavian universities but it's allowed in foreign language class. This is a disgusting display of Ukrainian nationalism when Ukraine is economically dependent to Russia

[davey]

I could add the following about coverage of the Georgian war:

With the Gori bombings it emerged that one apartment building next to an airfield was hit by a stray bomb intended for the airfield. This is how it was portrayed:

*Most reports omitted the fact that it was a stray bomb

*Most reports omitted the fact that the bomb was intended for the airfield, as were others that did hit the airfield.

*Most reports failed to mention that the quarters were inhabited by mainly military personnel connected with the airfield right next to it.

*Many reports, newspaper as well as TV, tried to create the impression that bombing of civilian quarters in Gori was common by shooting footage of this building from many different angles and presenting it as separate incidents. Anyone analyzing both the video footage and published photos will realize this immediately. Casual or lazy viewers will not pick it up. Fraud or negligence? You decide.

Furthermore:

*There were some controversial photos of alleged victims by ******* which gave the impression that they were staged for the Western press, complete with actors. Perhaps ******* did not commit the fraud, but if so, they did not check their sources and fell for it. Huge reputation hit in my eyes.

*Several Western TV stations aired footage of damage in Tskinval as footage of Gori. Fraud or negligence? An EU parliamentarian expressed surprise at the little damage in Gori, because he was evidently misled by the media.

*Footage shot by an RT team in Tskinval was presented as footage of Gori - the same mistake appeared on most Western channels. Why? No apology for this mistake was ever made AFAIK.

And so we could carry on forever. To those Westerners who still deny that something is wrong with our media, I am concerned about what is happening in our society. You should face up to these issues and not avoid it any longer.

In this context the need for a channel such as RT is obvious. Even if it is imperfect.

[davey]

When it comes to Western coverage of Russia, the ex-Soviet Union and the countries that underwent 'colour revolutions', Western news agencies are even worse than either RT, Iranian PressTV or whatever else you could name. They don't even bother to conceal their symphathy and bias towards pro-Western movements in that part of the world, fail entirely to report any Russian arguement, listen to the Russian point of view or analyse their allegations, by default always take the side of whoever is against Russia/Russian language/Putin, etc... / (http://exiledonline.com/how-to-screw-up-a-war-story-the-new-york-times-at-work/)

So very true. If you cannot see this, you should seriously question your objectivity and ask whether this barrage of anti-Russian sentiment has already brainwashed you to the extent that you cannot think straight.

When I worked in Russia Russians had a generally favourable view of the West, with a desire for contact, cooperation and cultural exchange. This constant barrage of negativity cultivated by the Neocons and their media cohorts combined with overly aggressive US foreign policy towards Russia slowly but surely poisoned Russian attitudes towards the West. I was there when it started happening. It is so unnecessary.

We don't want / need a new Cold War. The world needs nuclear disarmament and more attention to global warming and environmental issues. And a coordinated approach towards terrorism, where Russia's cooperation will be needed in the future.

[TakeIt]

Bollocks.
I was there when Odessa was made Ukranian speaking overnight.
I was there when the Universities in Odessa were forced to start lecturing in Ukranian, including a former Imperial one...
I remember the Ukranian lecturers gloating over the fact that the finally can lecture in Ukranian, and not in Russian.Since when Odessa became a prime example of ukrainization? As a person, who received education in Soviet and Post-SU Ukraine I can provide you with a batch of similar examples, but in my opinion they provide nothing except foolishness of certain individuals, however, if you want to talk about forcing ukrainian language you have to look at the steps and measures that goverment undertook during different administrations. Also you can compare intensity of media campaign including not only language itself, but new mithology, that is being created around it and Ukraine itself. Go on.


And that was with Kuchma and later Yanukovich in power.You seems to have a a certain agenda against those two.


The ukrainisation was a monstrosity that needs to be cured, from day one, I think a healthy approach to ukrainian language development could be formed, but it's hard to discuss it for me in english.


and not a single of the so called "pro Russian" mps, really did anything to cure it. The simply continued to ask for their share of the pie. Some got it, some didnt.Actually, as much as i object ukrainisation itself, i cannot turn down an idea, that country has to develop it's own culture and language. Of course it's wrong to do so in expence of other language/culture which what happens now on an immersive scale, under Uschenko and Co.


He was correct in pointing RT's bias.Irrelevant.


It was forcing the language from day one, no one felt it as propagating...You're wrong. Just simple as that.

[Mr.Flint]

So very true. If you cannot see this, you should seriously question your objectivity and ask whether this barrage of anti-Russian sentiment has already brainwashed you to the extent that you cannot think straight.
I dont think there is even a single person on this forum, who thinks western media is "good" "ok" "non biased",
Well ok, maybe with the exception of Ex-Stab, who gets his panties in a twist, when someone dares to critisize the Beeb's bias :)



When I worked in Russia Russians had a generally favourable view of the West, with a desire for contact, cooperation and cultural exchange. This constant barrage of negativity cultivated by the Neocons and their media cohorts combined with overly aggressive US foreign policy towards Russia slowly but surely poisoned Russian attitudes towards the West. I was there when it started happening. It is so unnecessary.
So Russian media/politicians, had absolutely nothing to do with :roll:
The western media and "Neocons" (Why always neocons? the so called neocons, the satanic forces of evil west, were friendlier to Russia than the liberal democrats, and their EU buddies) had plenty of assistance in Russia, whether through retards as Zhirinovsky, or personified evil as Putin, and their mouthpieces in the press...



We don't want / need a new Cold War. The world needs nuclear disarmament and more attention to global warming and environmental issues. And a coordinated approach towards terrorism, where Russia's cooperation will be needed in the future.
Lol, the same Russia that doesnt recognize some terrorist groups as terrorist?

[Mr.Flint]

Since when Odessa became a prime example of ukrainization? As a person, who received education in Soviet and Post-SU Ukraine I can provide you with a batch of similar examples, but in my opinion they provide nothing except foolishness of certain individuals, however, if you want to talk about forcing ukrainian language you have to look at the steps and measures that goverment undertook during different administrations. Also you can compare intensity of media campaign including not only language itself, but new mithology, that is being created around it and Ukraine itself. Go on.
Its a good example, because i was there at the time of these events.
And considering the fact that Odessa is essentially a "Russian" city, that makes it a pretty good example.



You seems to have a a certain agenda against those two.
Not really. IMHO the entire Ukranian political cadre needs to be hanged, for being the corrupt bastards they are.
In case you missed my point, it was that the popular cries among the Russians, about how the evil western stooge overthrown the defender of russians in Ukraine, are nothing but a fiction.

The only difference between Kuchma and Uschenko, is that Kuchma had enough brains to play the nationalists against the businessmen, and sit on both the western and the russian chairs.



I think a healthy approach to ukrainian language development could be formed, but it's hard to discuss it for me in english.
It could. But what was done was far from healthy approach.



Actually, as much as i object ukrainisation itself, i cannot turn down an idea, that country has to develop it's own culture and language.
No argument on that.



Of course it's wrong to do so in expence of other language/culture which what happens now on an immersive scale, under Uschenko and Co.
Like i said, it happened before Uschenko.
The stories about the ukranisation issues of schools in Crimea for example, began in Kuchma time.
The prohibition on all things Russian, in Lviv (well that's hardly unusual) for example happened during Kuchma, with his permission.



Irrelevant.
Why?



You're wrong. Just simple as that.
Right... You win the argument. Want a prize for that? :roll:

[Flamming_Python]

There is a distinction between BBC, CNN and RT that can shed light on the suspicion of the critics. Margarita Simonyan, the editor-in-chief of the news channel, initially approached the administration with the proposal to set up the channel with the expressed purpose of presenting the Russian view of the current events. Thus, it is the raison d’être of the channel to propagate a particular interpretation of the events, not unlike the goal of the Soviet Russia Today magazine, the famous precursor of RT, was to propagate the interpretation of events from within the Soviet Russia. Hence, RT is not setup as a platform for discussing and debating current events; rather, it is an expression of one particular point of view in a debate taking place across the entire media space (not unlike Fox and MSNBC). It could be useful when the discussed event is like the August war with Georgia, which was widely discussed, but it is much less useful when the event is like the language war in Ukraine, which has no countervailing view in the general media.

A different approach to news broadcasting is to organize it around panels and studio discussion containing various opposing views on the discussed events, contributing to the emergence of balanced interpretation in the studio rather than in the general media space. Although some might disagree, I believe that CBC (and allegedly Aljazeera) is not only setup in this way but is also quite successful at it.

Given these two approaches to media broadcasting, it is not unreasonable to demand another source on the discussed event if the only coverage available had been provided by a news source positioning itself as speaking from a particular perspective. Having said that, I must admit that there is an increasing tendency among news broadcaster that position themselves as providing a balanced view of current events to simplify the message, compromising genuine and balanced discussion.

x2

Russia Today has never positioned itself as anything but a network which promotes and defends the official Russian point of view, in contrast to some other networks which claim a balanced report but fail to deliver. In that light some of the critisisms against RT don't have as much validity; when they are accused of making propaganda and being overly biased towards the Russian side; it is exactly their intention to do so. Effectively Russia Today is a means for broadcasting the Russian SMI (Method of mass-information) to the English-speaking world, something that it is pretty good (although somewhat amateur) at, and something that is sorely needed in today's world of media warfare, mass propaganda and disinformation.

[Flamming_Python]

Any other source then Russia Today.. I dont reject that it happened, but when RT have an agenda.

Just read the RT article again, and picked up on something that I, you and everyone else seems to have missed previously:


The Russian Foreign Ministry has already reacted to an incident that has recently taken place in one of the schools in Ukraine’s capital Kiev, calling it ‘tragic and comic’. It also puts to question what would happen if those same contestants dared to perform an extract from Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’ in English – would they be also banned for reciting it in ‘the wrong language’?Your other source is none other than the Russian Foreign Ministry itself. Yes, they are of course Russian, but I severely doubt that they would waste their time commenting on something unless they knew for sure that is has happened and what exactly happened.

[TakeIt]

Its a good example, because i was there at the time of these events.I am in Ukraine almost all the time. You wanna measure the presence?


And considering the fact that Odessa is essentially a "Russian" city, that makes it a pretty good example.Never was, never is. Look up division of population by nationality. However, russian was a main speaking language there. Yet again, it was not a pure russian, as much as there was no pure ukrainian language there, merely an amalgam, dialect of different languages with predominant russian vocabulary. If you want to directly speak about ukrainisation of Osessa, compare local tv and radio stations, periodics for example here (http://misto.odessa.ua), you'll find out that all is far from that grim picture you tried to paint.


Not really. IMHO the entire Ukranian political cadre needs to be hanged, for being the corrupt bastards they are.That is for certain. No arguing here. :) Ther is even an unregistered party formed a couple of month ago under a name of "Ten bullets" or something like that.


In case you missed my point, it was that the popular cries among the Russians, about how the evil western stooge overthrown the defender of russians in Ukraine, are nothing but a fiction.Actually, if you compare how Kuchma opposed total translation and quoting of russian media to what is going on now you'll definitely get an impression, that he indeed stood against total ukrainization, like he stopped ukrainisation of all media in 2004, which was done by Uschenko later.


The only difference between Kuchma and Uschenko, is that Kuchma had enough brains to play the nationalists against the businessmen, and sit on both the western and the russian chairs.Nah, it was more than that. He managed to allow ultranationalists to do their job, however they never received advertising through goverment channels, so the amount of popularity and spreading their ideas receive was rather small.


It could. But what was done was far from healthy approach. Actually it's rather easier to count what has been done in orderly fashion, than not. Simple answer - zero, or some single digit number close to it.


Like i said, it happened before Uschenko. The stories about the ukranisation issues of schools in Crimea for example, began in Kuchma time.In 2004 out of 638 there were 7 schools(1304 children) with ukrainian language as main for education in Crimea, 14 tatarian and the rest were either russian/ukrainian or r/u/crimean-tatarian;people could choose in what language they'll be educated. In 2003 there were 5 ukrainian schools. In 2008 there were still 7 schools present with 2246 children, 340 russian, 15 tatarian and the rest 259 are mixed language schools. Additionally, while in 2004 in addition to pure ukrainian schools there were 434 ukrainian classes in 141 russian school, in 2008 we have 784 classes in all other schools.

If you see documents and notes regarding education in Crimea you'll find, that Mr.US administration was far more active in their attempts to deepen ukrainisation than Kuchma during all his reign. But Crimean administration was hardened enough to withstand that. :)


The prohibition on all things Russian, in Lviv (well that's hardly unusual) for example happened during Kuchma, with his permission.Never heard anything like that. However i knew that Lviv administration indeed tried to forbid russian songs in public spaces back in 2000 but they didn't succeed, as such attempt was classified as unconstitutional. Under Mr.US they again tried to do so in 2006, and succeded.


Why?Because he's is. :)


Right... You win the argument. Want a prize for that? :roll:The situation is that i posess or can find the knowledge/information about situation here, but i'm too lazy to type it all down. Just take my word on it.

[SniperRu]

Two or more official languages is a BLESSING. That means that by age of 18 people are given an opportunity to speak several languages while investing minimal energy. French in Canada are much smaller minority than Russians in Ukraine, yet French is one of the two official languages and French culture in Quebec is being protected on federal and provincial levels.



X2

I imigrated to Canada at the age of 8 and learnt French and English pretty quickly, now with my Russian im blessed with 3 languages I speak perfectly. Too bad alot of people cant realise that this is an opportunity and not something to be pissed about.

[serg123]

Lol, the same Russia that doesnt recognize some terrorist groups as terrorist?
Russia has clear rules for terrorist organisations to get into russian list of such organisation. They should conduct terrorist activity in Russia. So Hamas, Tigers from Shri Lanka, and many others are not in that list. In the same time some organisations which are in russian list are not recognised by US as terrorist organisations.

[Digimon]

x2

Russia Today has never positioned itself as anything but a network which promotes and defends the official Russian point of view, in contrast to some other networks which claim a balanced report but fail to deliver. In that light some of the critisisms against RT don't have as much validity; when they are accused of making propaganda and being overly biased towards the Russian side; it is exactly their intention to do so. Effectively Russia Today is a means for broadcasting the Russian SMI (Method of mass-information) to the English-speaking world, something that it is pretty good (although somewhat amateur) at, and something that is sorely needed in today's world of media warfare, mass propaganda and disinformation.

Generally, I agree with you. But your comment made me reflect on the issue of propaganda in detail. I heard the accusation of RT in propaganda a few times. I think it fails. There are two senses in which the term is commonly used: evaluative (i.e. implying normative judgement) and non-evaluative. In non-evaluative sense, propaganda means deliberate propagation or dissemination of ideas with the aim to persuade mass audiences (e.g. propaganda of healthy life style)—this is an ethically non-problematic technique. In evaluative sense, propaganda means deliberate propagation of ideas with the aim of forming an opinion in mass audiences by illegitimate means, in order to advance a particular political agenda—this is ethically problematic technique.

In non-evaluative sense, propaganda is ethically acceptable because deliberate, bona fide attempts at persuading large audiences do not violate any ethical norms. As long as these attempts are in good faith, based on valid rational arguments, and do not withhold or manipulate information, the resulting beliefs in the audience are authentic (which means that the individual autonomy of its members had not been violated). We are not interested in this sense of the word.

Propaganda has pejorative meaning when the resulting beliefs in the audience are deliberately formed by illegitimate means (e.g. manipulation of information or access to it, faulty argumentation, appeals to emotion, psychological abuse, use of peer pressure and social conformity); in such case, the resulting opinion is inauthentic and represents a violation of personal autonomy of audience members (i.e. they are being deceived or manipulated in violation of their status as moral agents).

To accuse a newscaster of propaganda, a few things have to be demonstrated: a) deliberate and systematic intent to deceive or manipulate; b) instance of alleged deception or manipulation; c) political agenda. Simply pointing out a political agenda is not enough; otherwise, most White House press releases would qualify as propaganda. Pointing out deliberate and systematic intent to manipulate and an instance of manipulation are not enough; otherwise, many commercial advertisements are propaganda. Pointing out instances of deceptive or manipulative coverage without deliberate and systematic intent to use manipulation to advance political agenda is not enough; otherwise, idiotic news segments, which are due to pure idiocy, personal biases, or psychopathic tendencies of the analysts and newscasters (e.g. Fox), would qualify.

RT, unlike Fox, is state-sponsored, so one has good reason to suspect a political agenda in its news coverage (the fact that it admits covering news from a Russian perspective also suggests a particular agenda). The problem is with pointing out instances of deception or manipulation and demonstrating systematic intent (demonstrating intent is extremely hard, so it must be inferred). I have doubts that this can be done. Intent to deceive or manipulate implies a capacity to succeed. Within Russia, TV news broadcasters have this capacity in light of their complete monopoly on airwaves (lack of opposing views). RT, on the other hand, operates on international scene, where, given the competition, it has absolutely no chance of successful manipulation or deception for any considerable period of time (this is why it is also hard to accuse US broadcasters of propaganda).

As for the format of RT, I think it is unfortunate. In my opinion, it would have been much more effective (given the goal of providing a more positive or balanced view of Russia) to go with a “discussion platform” rather than “one perspective” format. Justly or not, but from the very beginning Russia Today was perceived as a propaganda mouthpiece. Encompassing conflicting views would have given it much more credibility among its intended audience. The success of Aljazeera, I believe, can be explained by this format choice.

[Dmitriev]

Teachers punish kids for reciting Russian poetry


Why am I not suprised? I know RT is a biased source...but something like this is very possible to happen in today's Ukranization.

[1curious]

I’m going to add my 2 kopecks…

I give RT 6 out of 10. Terminology like propaganda does not suit them. Taking Mr. Depth’s fluff to heart isn’t necessary. But, if the goal is to spread Russia’s message effectively among the intended audience - the English speakers in the West - they certainly have much room for improvement.

They need to start with taking Peter Lavelle off the air and relegating him to RT’s blagosphere. The guy is smart and all that, he’s entertaining all right, but I have a hard time believing an unbiased, Western observer will treat him seriously. His passion is reminiscent of those Sunday morning religious programs most open-minded viewers here would not watch…and preaching to the choir, the expats and sympathizers, is wasting time.

Second, guys like Al Gurnov have to be given more air time. He‘s an utmost professional, educational and asks pointed and thoughtful questions. His discussion format with its alternative POVs is very appealing to an American.

Third, those graceful Russian women make RT special…more please.

[Mousepad]

Oh. Snoshi - You're the biased guy in this forum, so when You claim that RT is biased it's like pot->cattle->back. Of, fvckin, coz, we all know it's biased, but You just added them credentials, check your PayPal for surprise $$$

[Snoshi]

Oh. Snoshi - You're the biased guy in this forum, so when You claim that RT is biased it's like pot->cattle->back. Of, fvckin, coz, we all know it's biased, but You just added them credentials, check your PayPal for surprise $$$

I just enjoy receiving ad hominem attacks from Russia STRONG CREW calling other members biased rofl

[Red_Rage]

I just enjoy receiving ad hominem attacks from Russia STRONG CREW calling other members biased rofl


Your contribution to this thread, which was about forced Ukranization:


Any other source then Russia Today.. I dont reject that it happened, but when RT have an agenda.


Because they are an official mouthpiece of Putin.. Its like Iranian PressTV... Or the new Chinese CNN.


Are Ynet, Haaretz or Jpost state owned state-agencies that only publish crap about its neighbours while completely ignoring problems inside of its own country?


Thats "state" criticism? rofl


I wont take anything that RT writes as truth as long as there is no other source for it.. And so far no one have presented an alternative source.


BBC and CNN do criticize Russia.. But they are not in any way as biased as RT. So comparing these agencies is ridiculous.




Like i said, the only "newspaper" that can be compared to RT is Iranian PressTV. They both refuse to criticize the leadership, they both target USA and other of its allies and they both invite "guests" of who are presented as "real" analysts to criticize USA or other countries.


So a news paper can post a "aliens" land in Ghana" newsarticle and as long as they are not proven wrong the article should be taken a "real"? :roll:


I would like to see a source for this..




Thank you very much.. Now do you have something to add..


And as usual, when by page 4 more serious and well though out responses started pouring you were gone. I guess you think that snappy one liners make you sound smart - they don't. You contributed absolutely ZERO to thread's original topic, engaged people to find sources for you which you would dismiss anyways if they didnt fit your agenda.

[Mr.K]

I just enjoy receiving ad hominem attacks from Russia STRONG CREW calling other members biased rofl

How to bring IzraelSTRONG CREW in a thread? Make one mentioning RT.p-)

[Snoshi]

Your contribution to this thread, which was about forced Ukranization:



My posts were a direct result of the arguments presented by pro-RT posters.. Some of them had more "complex" posts but they were still empty ramblings..

My point still stands.. RT is not comparable to BBC or CNN.. It sounds and looks like Iranian PressTV, it was even made for same reason.

And so far not a single poster provided an alternative link expect one from Komsomolskay Pravda which is known for its BS.


How to bring IzraelSTRONG CREW in a thread? Make one mentioning RT.
Nothing to do with Israel strong crew.. I was born in Russia and i can read Russian unlike many Russia Strong members here.

[TR1]

My posts were a direct result of the arguments presented by pro-RT posters.. Some of them had more "complex" posts but they were still empty ramblings..

My point still stands.. RT is not comparable to BBC or CNN.. It sounds and looks like Iranian PressTV, it was even made for same reason.

And so far not a single poster provided an alternative link expect one from Komsomolskay Pravda which is known for its BS.


Nothing to do with Israel strong crew.. I was born in Russia and i can read Russian unlike many Russia Strong members here.
Oh please. BBC on anything Russian related is a old fart joke. I remember their reports on the August war...another favorite of mine is when they reported on the new Russian strategic flights, and called Tu-95s old delapitated soviet relics....LOL.

[asch]

Snoshi, did you ever said something positive about Russia? just curious.

[Snoshi]

Snoshi, did you ever said something positive about Russia? just curious.

When it comes to people then yes.. But most topics here are of political nature.

[matthew.manhorn]

They need to start with taking Peter Lavelle off the air and relegating him to RT’s blagosphere.

x2, I can't stand that gook with his pro-Kremlin rhetoric with an American accent

[Decadence]

When it comes to people then yes.. But most topics here are of political nature.

Well, maybe...after all, those politics are in our interests not yours. But then here's an example from my personal experience - during one of my stays in Ukraine I made a poor decision to discuss their politics with some one like your self (likes Russians, but hates everything Russian), when he ran out of arguments he asked me - "Do you have Ukrainian citizenship? I said - "No" He said - "Then shut the f*ck up!". And in some bizarre way he was right, even though it's hard for me to admit. I still do have plenty of arguments to operate with, but lets cut to the chase: snoshi, do you have Russian citizenship?

[GazB]

They need to start with taking Peter Lavelle off the air and relegating him to RT’s blagosphere.

I like him. He is certainly pro Russian simply because the Kremlin is pro Russian I can see how some might mistake mistake him for being pro Kremlin. I have seen him accept criticism of the leadership of Russia by foreign media, but his usual reply is that what they are doing if for Russia and no one even on the horizon in Russian politics could do a better job at the moment. ie they are not perfect and they might make mistakes but there is no alternative and they are basically doing the right things overall.

[MZKT]

It sounds and looks like Iranian PressTV, it was even made for same reason.


Yes it was


My point still stands.. RT is not comparable to BBC or CNN..

It is indeed comparable to CNN and BBC, since they were also created for the same purpose as Iranian PressTV and RT.

The whole idea behind creation of internationally broadcasting services was not some altruistic "We shall deliver the one universal truth to mankind"-approach but to deliver the national point of view to other countries, e.g. the own truth.

[GazB]

C'mon that was a cheap shot.

Yugoslavia was fallen apart already, the almighty Serbian has lost seval territorial pieces because of all the war, if Slobodan dindn't intent to make another mistake and got his ass whoop by NATO.



And that is a strange reply. Are you saying these two cases are different because one had time to develop into a war and the other is only just starting the oppression. Yes I agree that is true, but why wait for the war, why not deal with the double standards and oppression of minorities before it comes to war. Ukraine has said it wants to join NATO and the EU... well its leadership has anyway. In that case how about the EU point out that if they are going to sht all over one nationality within their borders then they have no chance of getting into the EU.

But then in the Baltic republics it is no better. I see one of them introduced a law that imposes a fine on anyone speaking a foreign language without translation. Even the French don't do that.


At least no one has tried to deported people or burn down villages nor shelling cities. So you ruskies can relax ... No need to play traumatized war orphant ,...

Hahahahahahahaha... yeah... Russia... untouched by war. :roll: :roll: :roll:


Don't wont to sound like a troll or something, just wanted to ask a question:

Why shouldn't someone believe to RT?
Any example?

because it is easier to attack the messenger than it is to deal with the message that Americas plan to expand NATO into the Ukraine and Georgia is getting the west into bed with some real cnts who really couldn't give a fk about western values or ideas.


Because they are an official mouthpiece of Putin.. Its like Iranian PressTV... Or the new Chinese CNN.

Which makes them no different from the BBC or CNN or Fox.


I wont take anything that RT writes as truth as long as there is no other source for it.. And so far no one have presented an alternative source.

So what you say is no matter what they put out you wont believe it. Yeah that is how I feel about the BBC and CNN. Take for example that ship transporting tanks that was hijacked by pirates. It initially got a lot of coverage... Russian tanks captured by pirates. Lots of talks about who they might have been sent to and if it was to violate international law by supplying weapons in the region. Then the flood of articles stopped. It was a Ukrainian vessel. All of a sudden it was not news.

The polonium poisoning case is another. It was always a conspirasy by Putin himself. Nothing else was even considered. Considering the cost per gram I would suggest that it was more likely a smuggling ring that got it wrong.


BBC and CNN do criticize Russia.. But they are not in any way as biased as RT. So comparing these agencies is ridiculous.

The BBC and CNN don't do anything but criticise Russia.


They both refuse to criticize the leadership, they both target USA and other of its allies and they both invite "guests" of who are presented as "real" analysts to criticize USA or other countries.

And CNN and the BBC both consider Tom Clancy and Felgenhauer as experts on Russian subjects...


Why don't I rant about Russia Today as it is obviously not neutral? Because it is none of my business. It is well known that it is not neutral and it gets ample criticism in this forum.

The concept of unbiased media is a joke. All media is biased but that does not mean it is all lies. RT represents a Russian point of view of things. When the west is even mentioned on RT most of the story is about they have misunderstood or don't understand Russia. In the west on the BBC and CNN it is all about how Russia has not changed enough and is basically a dictatorship and evil and nothing has really changed. Might come as a shock for some of those Russians who fought for democracy and idolised the west but the basic reality is that it was never about communism vs democracy. Nixon proved that the US could work with communist China if it felt the need to, just as all of the west could work with Uncle Joe when Adolf was a problem. The real issue is that the west will be friendly to anyone when it is in their interests to do so and whether Russia is democratic or communist or whatever it doesn't matter because right now the west doesn't need Russia and that means it sees it as a potential rival and needs to keep it in its place. They can't afford to see it succeed... bad for local morale for Russia to have a better standard of living than a democracy that has been a democracy for decades.


I want to see these facts..

As much as BBC and CNN are biased they are still on the other planet compared to RT.

There are plenty of things going on around the world that the western media doesn't bother to cover because of lack of interest that other medias do cover. Other medias including Al Jazera and RT and many other news agencies.


PS. My mother has taught the aforementioned minority language for 30 years and even she thinks that forcing people to learn it is retarded

Except in this case the minority language is Ukrainian. Russian is spoken more widely than Ukrainian around the world.


I pointed to a wrong fact in RT's article. BTW that fact is not mentioned in the "Ukranian" source.

Somehow it has been ignored by the "Snoshi is a troll" crowd...

Yuschenko, was not the one who started the Ukrainisation. Kuchma was, with full support of "pro Russian" mps... like Yanukovich, who never stopped it or amended it when he was a PM....

So the problem is even worse than RT reported. Does that make the credibility of the messenger more important than the story?


Thank you very much.. Now do you have something to add..

Do you have anything useful to add?


Frankly in this thread, its mostly a case of pot calling kettle black.
He was correct in pointing RT's bias.

Hes a troll. He has not discussed or attempted to discuss the thread topic and has just wasted time and space questioning the crediblity of a news source.
You yourself have already admitted Ukrainian government policy is to remove the Russian language from the Ukraine but I guess you agree with this troll that this event never happened just because it was from a source he does not trust.


Lol, the same Russia that doesnt recognize some terrorist groups as terrorist?

If you make them your enemies why would they care if one of the groups of people they sell weapons to happens to be your enemy. The best way to control the actions of someone is to become their friend and use pursuasion.


Why?

Identifying a news source as biased is like identifying an apple as being fruit.
The story was about a school recital competition and he has not proven anything regarding that... he hasn't even discussed it.


Your other source is none other than the Russian Foreign Ministry itself. Yes, they are of course Russian, but I severely doubt that they would waste their time commenting on something unless they knew for sure that is has happened and what exactly happened.

The point is that you wont find a western source for this story simply because there is no way to dress it up to show Russia as the bad guy and the Ukraine as the victim.


My point still stands.. RT is not comparable to BBC or CNN.. It sounds and looks like Iranian PressTV, it was even made for same reason.

BBC and CNN are sht.

[non]

GazB:Except in this case the minority language is Ukrainian. Russian is spoken more widely than Ukrainian around the world.
Except, in this case, it was decided in '91 to promote Ukrainian by independent Ukraine. There has been similar issues concerning language of secondary schooling in various parts of Ukraine, but visa versa. Ukraine is Ukraine. They can pick their own language. I personally think it's silly as well, but there's a stench of provincialism in this issue.


Yes I agree that is true, but why wait for the war, why not deal with the double standards and oppression of minorities before it comes to war.
The Ukrainian Constitution (supposedly) garantees protection of other languages spoken by the populace,e.g., Russian. It does not garantee that the Ukrainian schools will teach in any other language than the one that is determined as the official language of Ukraine. So, what "double standards"? There is a very clear demarcation between state(public) and private.If you want your child to speak fluent Russian, then teach them Russian. This is silly.

[GazB]

Except, in this case, it was decided in '91 to promote Ukrainian by independent Ukraine. There has been similar issues concerning language of secondary schooling in various parts of Ukraine, but visa versa. Ukraine is Ukraine. They can pick their own language. I personally think it's silly as well, but there's a stench of provincialism in this issue.

You can promote a language without banning other languages.


The Ukrainian Constitution (supposedly) garantees protection of other languages spoken by the populace,e.g., Russian. It does not garantee that the Ukrainian schools will teach in any other language than the one that is determined as the official language of Ukraine. So, what "double standards"? There is a very clear demarcation between state(public) and private.If you want your child to speak fluent Russian, then teach them Russian. This is silly.

So this case of children getting thrown out of school for speaking Russian. If ukrainians want to remain ignorant and not learn other languages that is one thing. Punnishing people who have lived in the Ukraine for speaking Russian at an event to celebrate something that is not even Ukrainian suggests something rather more sinister. If they had read out poems in English I doubt there would have been a problem.

This is book burning.

[Mr.Flint]

So the problem is even worse than RT reported. Does that make the credibility of the messenger more important than the story?
Familiar with the story of the boy who cried wolf?

They took a true story of complete retardation, and then inserted unnecessary and false political bias into it.

It happens once, twice, on the third time no one will take seriously what they say, even if its true. Pretty much like already happened to BBC.





Hes a troll. He has not discussed or attempted to discuss the thread topic and has just wasted time and space questioning the crediblity of a news source.
He had a valid point, even if you disagree, and think he is a troll.
Pravda (itself being a rather hillariously biased source) opted not to include false facts, and hence presented a far more credible picture.



You yourself have already stated Ukrainian government policy is to remove the Russian language from the Ukraine
Fixed that for you, because "admitting" implies prior denial, and that is something that never happened.



but I guess you agree with this troll that this event never happened just because it was from a source he does not trust.
Perhaps you should go back to page one, and read his post again, where he says, that he doesnt think that it never happened, but would have preferred another source.

And do me a favor, lay off the RussiaSTRONG pipe, because in case you missed that as well, i never said the story never happened, and actually stated, that it is not unusual occurrence.




If you make them your enemies why would they care if one of the groups of people they sell weapons to happens to be your enemy. The best way to control the actions of someone is to become their friend and use pursuasion.
Much good it did :roll:

[non]

GazB:You can promote a language without banning other languages.
Considering the number of Russian speakers in Ukiraine, apparently so.

Wait, sorry. Was that a question or a statement?
I'll treat it as a statement for the sake of cohesiveness, as well:
What is wrong with Ukraine "promoting" Ukrainian? Other than the obvious, but....well, yeah, pride can be hurtful. It's Ukraine, though, not Russia.

[serg123]

Except, in this case, it was decided in '91 to promote Ukrainian by independent Ukraine. There has been similar issues concerning language of secondary schooling in various parts of Ukraine, but visa versa. Ukraine is Ukraine. They can pick their own language. I personally think it's silly as well, but there's a stench of provincialism in this issue.

Yugoslavia could pick their own language, Georgia could pick their own language. And they did. But it seems that Kosovars and Abhazians did not respect values of democracy when majority can decide whatever they want. You know what happened then. Nationalism is a bad thing and unfortunately democracy is not a medicine against nationalism. Hitler came to power by democratic elections and had great support from majority of germans.


The Ukrainian Constitution (supposedly) garantees protection of other languages spoken by the populace,e.g., Russian. It does not garantee that the Ukrainian schools will teach in any other language than the one that is determined as the official language of Ukraine. So, what "double standards"? There is a very clear demarcation between state(public) and private.If you want your child to speak fluent Russian, then teach them Russian. This is silly.
It is wrong line of demarcation. Of coarse it is OK if you think that "people for state" and not "state for people". Take a look at Finland. Having less than 6% of swedish population they have sweedish language as a second official language in state. Local community in Finland to be recognised as bilingual should have only 10% of other language minority. In this case all communication with state should be provided on both languages. It is far away from Ukrainian situation where in areas with 90% russian population people should communicate with officials using only ukrainian language.

Unfortunately current Ukrainian president and government violate constitution and have nationalistic agenda.

[TakeIt]

What is wrong with Ukraine "promoting" Ukrainian? Becase it's "promoting", not promoting. Or you too have trouble differentiating forcing and promoting?


Other than the obvious, but....well, yeah, pride can be hurtful. It's Ukraine, though, not Russia.Meaning of this line?

[non]

Or you too have trouble differentiating forcing and promoting?
Last I checked, Russian speakers speak freely all day wherever they wish to, with certain exceptions, ofcourse.

Meaning of this line?
I really can't simplify it anymore than it was typed. Try re-reading it, perhaps.

[TakeIt]

Last I checked, Russian speakers speak freely all day wherever they wish to, with certain exceptions, ofcourse. In case you haven't noticed ukrainian officials are working to stop this.


I really can't simplify it anymore than it was typed. Try re-reading it, perhaps.Tried. Still don't understand. Try in ukrainian.

[JCR]

I remember seeing a picture of a sign lifeguards at Yalta put up.
Something like "in accordance with the policy of our president, we are only allowed to rescue you if you shout for help in ukrainian"
:P
But I can't find it right now.

[savushka]

Wow, I can't believe this news got 6 pages. Is it really that interesting? :| Meh.


Hehe, I remember how my elder brother got almost kicked out oh his school for singing anthem of the Soviet Union under the Ukrainian banner in his school. Now that was classy.

[Bolt]

Wow, I can't believe this news got 6 pages. Is it really that interesting? :-| Meh.
95% of those 6 pages is a discussion about RT's bias.

[Dmitriev]

What is wrong with Ukraine "promoting" Ukrainian? Other than the obvious, but....well, yeah, pride can be hurtful. It's Ukraine, though, not Russia.

Nothing wrong with it, and is actually good to promote Ukrainian culture...but when they block you Russian channels, all movies must be translated into Ukrainian with a quality ****... and when in some schools everyone must speak Ukrainian. meaning that half of the staff must quit the job...now that is a different story.

[Digimon]

My point still stands.. RT is not comparable to BBC or CNN.. It sounds and looks like Iranian PressTV, it was even made for same reason.


I think many will agree with you on this point. I think the question of disagreement is a semantic one: can you call a propagation of one-sided view in a media space characterized by pluralism a propaganda?

But putting this question aside, what would you think about the reported story if it were true?

[freak77power]

The latest outrage:

http://www.russiatoday.com/features/news/37103



I wonder just what poems will be classified as 'Russian'? Most of Ukraine's greatest poets, writers, musicians wrote their material in the Russian language. Will those works be deemed too Russian as well? Or will they force it to undergo a half-assed translation into Ukrainian first?

There is no Ukranian nation, it's artificially made and Ukranians are nothing but Russians. That's the fact, and that's History. It's very simple. Of course they are going to do this, cause truth hurts badly.

[Alexandr]

and Ukranians are nothing but Russians.

not exactly,there are a lot of Ukranians with Polish,Jewish,Crimea-Tatarian,Moldovan,Romanian roots.

[AmoebaProject]

Snoshi, did you ever said something positive about Russia? just curious.

He said Buk-M1 was alright, true story.

[perdurabo]

There is no Ukranian nation, it's artificially made and Ukranians are nothing but Russians. That's the fact, and that's History. It's very simple. Of course they are going to do this, cause truth hurts badly.
those east of Kiev will say that, those west from Kiev will say that they are diffrent nation, personally i've met few ppl from Lwów/Lviv area and they think about themselves as Ukrainians...:roll:
I wonder if somone in this contest did parts from Romeo and Juliet and was it in Ukrainian or in English? For me using other language than my country in normal contest isn't right but banning and asking for insta-translation was wrong IMO.
BTW enjoyed reading russian literature in oryginal(espetially "Master and Margaret"), we have good translation but oryginal is better.

[Hast2]

There is no Ukranian nation, it's artificially made and Ukranians are nothing but Russians. That's the fact, and that's History. It's very simple. Of course they are going to do this, cause truth hurts badly.

Technically, yes. But this ends here. Example ; We can say what Americans, or Australians, or Canadians are no more but English, Scottish, Irish, French, ect people.
Still, Russians in today's Ukraine aren't incomers, it's their land as well, they are there since Kievskaya Rus, so Russian should be the second official language, imho.

[AlexMartin2]

Technically, yes. But this ends here. Example ; We can say what Americans, or Australians, or Canadians are no more but English, Scottish, Irish, French, ect people.
Still, Russians in today's Ukraine aren't incomers, it's their land as well, they are there since Kievskaya Rus, so Russian should be the second official language, imho.

If Ukrainian leadership was sane, it would be the best decision.
But even before Yuschenko, they didnt want it.

I can answer why. Because Russian language and culture would "kill" Ukrainian. Its not because there are more Russains than Ukrainians, its because Ukrainian language (and frankly speaking Ukrainian nation also) are artificial.

Of course many did not agree with my opinion, but I learn it speaking with many Russians and Ukrainians living in Ukraine. Even many Ukrainians think that is better to learn and speak Russian than their own language. This is not normal situation in any sense.
And situation is even worse! A lot of people are dont want to consider themselves as Ukrainian because of their leadership glorifying Nazi collaborators.

[davey]

It's all a bit confusing.

My wife hails from Ukraine and her mother tongue is Russian. When I ask her about her ethnicity, she says "Ukrainian". When I ask her why she does not identify as Russian, because she speaks Russian, she says no, she is a Russian speaker of Ukrainian nationality and Ukrainian ethnicity. In her own words, a "Russified" Ukrainian.

Her background is 1/2 central Ukrainian, 1/4 Carpathian and 1/4 Russian. She admits that her identification as a "Russified" person of Ukrainian ethnicity was influenced by Ukrainization campaigns since independence. I think it reflects reality on the ground, where many Russian speakers were told by the state that they are actually "Russified" Ukrainians. In practice she is actually quite pro-Russian.

[JCR]

Problem is, nationality is always a bit of a definition.
Nations have been built by the exact language policies Yushenko is pursuing.
That is how the british almost eradicated the gaelic languages or how the french got rid of german language in Elsass, the breton language, the norman language etc.
The spanish tried the same (less successful) with Katalan and Basque.
In 19th century, children were beaten by their teachers in Wales if they spoke Gaelic.
Problem is, these peoples were all minorities without an external supporter.
Another problem is that the rest of the civilized world is now in favor of minority languages and rights.
Yet another problem is that Ukraine is neither the british empire nor the french republic, but well....Ukraine...

Interestingly at the very time the western european nations pretty much abandoned the concept of a nation defined by culture, language and race, the eastern europeans seem to have embraced this concept with a fervor.

[matthew.manhorn]

The decision should belong to the Ukrainians of this generation. Most Belarusian teens I know don't bother to learn Belarusian.

[GazB]

Familiar with the story of the boy who cried wolf?

If you want to compare to that story you'd have to change it so that each time the boy cried wolf there was one, but it was 10 ft tall and the boy claimed it was 12ft tall.


He had a valid point, even if you disagree, and think he is a troll.

What valid point? If the arguement and the thread was about the Credibility of RT and other news agencies then he would have a valid opinion. His point was a point of view rather than a fact.

If I stated that Janes was unreliable and didn't trust it and someone posted a thread about an incident that janes reported on and I went on and on about how the incident might have happened but I don't trust Janes... I would expect to be told to get the chip of my shoulder and either discuss the topic at hand or STFU. Or if I wanted to discuss the credibility of Janes that I should start a new thread on that topic and leave this topic alone.


Perhaps you should go back to page one, and read his post again, where he says, that he doesnt think that it never happened, but would have preferred another source.

Indeed. His topic is the credibility of RT while the thread topic was an incident in a school.


And do me a favor, lay off the RussiaSTRONG pipe, because in case you missed that as well, i never said the story never happened, and actually stated, that it is not unusual occurrence.

I don't smoke. And my problem with you was not that you were bashing Russia or anything like that. You were defending his OT rant that basically belongs somewhere else. Support a troll and get treated like one.


Much good it did

Would have to agree with you. Yeltsen basically signed everything put in front of him but it really bought no friends in the west. Russia learned that pretty D quick. Having said that sanctions and isolation really don't seem to be effective either.


What is wrong with Ukraine "promoting" Ukrainian? Other than the obvious, but....well, yeah, pride can be hurtful. It's Ukraine, though, not Russia.

You don't promote a product by banning all its competition. If you want to ban speaking Russian why not ban other minority languages too?
Perhaps Russia should start banning things too. Georgia has banned Russian language TV. Perhaps Russia should reciprocate in all bans. No speaking Latvian in Russia or you get a $100 fine. Not Ukrainian language to be taught in schools. Georgian TV banned.


But it seems that Kosovars and Abhazians did not respect values of democracy when majority can decide whatever they want.

The concept of democracy is not mob rule. A democracy is supposed to protect the interests of all its citizens... including minorities.


95% of those 6 pages is a discussion about RT's bias.

Because with the other 5% there is little to discuss.

Banning languages is like burning books.


My point still stands.. RT is not comparable to BBC or CNN.. It sounds and looks like Iranian PressTV, it was even made for same reason.

RT puts out a Russian view of things. BBC puts out British point of view. CNN puts out part of American point of view. Fox puts out another part of American point of view. Iran TV puts out Irans POV. All same.

You think they are different because you hold views closer to British and American POV, which is different from Iranian or Russian POV.


not exactly,there are a lot of Ukranians with Polish,Jewish,Crimea-Tatarian,Moldovan,Romanian roots.

And there are no Russians with non Russian roots?


For me using other language than my country in normal contest isn't right but banning and asking for insta-translation was wrong IMO.

The competition was part of celebrations for Valentines Day. I am interested to learn more about this Ukrainian day of celebration... :):)


The decision should belong to the Ukrainians of this generation.

The problem is they don't seem to be able to control their government. It seems the government tells the people what to do rather than the other way around.

I fill out official forms and put European New Zealander for my ethnicity because that is the only option that fits. I consider myself a New Zealander and don't consider myself European at all. I have never been to Europe.

The Maori population of New Zealand is about 10-15%. There are probably more Chinese descended New Zealanders than there are Maori.
Maori is an official language of NZ.