Cock up or conspiracy? Why haven't we seen this on the BBC?

[bigandy]

I've been pointed towards this video by a person of russian origin living in eastern Ukraine



This was made/recorded by the BBC, but I have never seen it on the british news It backs up some of what the russians are saying Why hasn't this been aired on our TVs? Is the BBC censoring itself? Or is someone "guiding" it?  It doesn't "fit" into the left leaning metro liberal allegations normally laid at The Beeb's door

Or is it made to look like its made by the BBC  The voice is familiar and BBC ish

[Teddy Bear]

Welcome to the forum Bigandy and your input.

I will have to assume that this is a clip from the BBC, possibly the World Service. The guy talking could well be based in Russia or the Ukraine and as is often the case, local reporters have a different world view than those based in here. Dynamics and society that make their reality is far different.
My impression was that though he was negative toward the extreme right groups that were operating there, he didn't want to ruffle any feathers. Especially as they might have a more powerful future there. This actually is typical BBC behaviour. In the same way we see their deference and appeasement of Islam, not because they really respect any religion but because they're shit scared of them.
That's the BBC way. They decide who they think will benefit them the most and produce the output to suit their agenda.

[bigandy]

I hear what you're saying but wasn't quite my point  Here is a BBC reporter (paid by us) making a very interesting point - in my opinion - but it took someone living in Ukraine finding it on Youtube and sending the link to me  This report, as far as i know, has not been aired on the BBC at all so someone has decided NOT to broadcast it  Why?

[Teddy Bear]

The only reference to 'right-wing and Ukraine by the BBC that I can find is in this article back in January, which is taken from Der Spiegel and turns out to be quite prophetic, where all they write is
Ukraine
The rise of the right wing - The battle between protesters and Ukrainian police is creating an opening for right-wing groups in Ukraine, writes Der Speigel's Benjamin Bidder, Christian Neef, Vladimir Pylyov and Matthias Schepp. The result could be civil war.

I must admit I really haven't followed the goings on in Ukraine with any depth. Sounds like you have though. What angle do you see the BBC have been following in their reporting on the subject? What do you see they have been avoiding telling, and who have they been promoting? Can you point to any articles to highlight your view?

[bigandy]

Well, there's a lot of reporting from Ukraine (although its died down a bit now) but whenever there's any reference to the Russian point of view, or those of russian origin) its always referred to as propaganda eminating from Moscow Or there's the implication that the Kremlin is up to no good For example "Moscow has moved 16,000 troops into the Crimea" No it hasn't - there are 25,000 already there by agreement! And if you look at the map of the area, you can see that you can only get troops into Crimea either by sea or through Ukraine Crimea has no direct border with Russia All these little details are "swept under the carpet" all in the general effort of not letting the facts get in the way of a good story Who or what's behind it? I don't know

[Teddy Bear]

Reading the latest article from the BBC on the subject I can see what you mean.
It appears that the BBC have had to make a choice, either side with Putin or the EU and USA, and they've picked the latter as the only realistic way they could go.
Like I said I don't know the ins and outs of this situation to really understand what's gone on here, although I don't think for a moment that EU and American interests in the outcome have necessarily anything to do with ethics or morality, but are acting out of their own self interest.
Reading certain passages in the article it looks like Russia might indeed have some validity to their stance.

Analysis

Paul Adams
BBC News, Washington
Six hours of talks, some of it conducted in warm spring sunshine, but there appears to have been little meeting of minds at the US ambassador's London residence.

But that doesn't mean that diplomacy has run its course. Russia is coy about what its next actions in Crimea will be, saying it will wait for the results of Sunday's referendum.

John Kerry says Moscow's decision will be of "enormous consequence" and that any Russian ratification of the results would represent a "back door annexation".

Mr Kerry came to London looking for assurances this would not happen. He didn't appear to get any, but he said he and his Russian counterpart would carry on talking. A slender chance, then, to avoid a further deterioration.

Mr Kerry referred repeatedly to Russia's "legitimate interests" in Ukraine. Perhaps, amid all the heated rhetoric, Washington admits that it's been a little too dismissive of Russia's case so far?

Both men described the talks as constructive. But Mr Lavrov's phrase seems to sum up this encounter: "No common vision."

Also, under the 'Moscow's Goals' section I read this paragraph

"Russia was against the violent coup [the revolution in Ukraine last month], which was masterminded mostly by the Americans, whose goal is to bring Ukraine into Nato. And that is a red line for Russia," said Vyacheslav Nikonov, a senior member of the Russian parliament.

"Russia regards this as an existential threat and will do whatever it takes to prevent it happening."

You're continued monitoring of this situation is welcome Bigandy

[Teddy Bear]

I find many of the articles in the Commentator, as well as the new Breibart London, excellent for providing context on various issues.
Here's a short one from the former to shed some light on certain dynamics related to the EU/Russia face off.

EU referendum disgraces come home to roost over Crimea
Russia is a nasty neo-imperial dictatorship. The EU is a stupid, anti-democratic neo-imperial mess. You don't have to be Vladimir Putin to laugh out loud at EU leaders decrying the referendum in Crimea this weekend

James Halling

It's like some dystopian fantasy-nightmare, except it's real. You've got Britain, bravely pushing its foreign policy through a democracy-hating EU (so David Cameron and the Foreign Office can say how much better off we are when we work with our "European Partners").

You've got a former senior member of the pro-Soviet Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), Catherine Ashton, spouting forth as EU foreign policy supremo from Brussels.

And guess what? Vladimir Putin doesn't take them seriously! Well. Who'd have thought it?

The truth is that years of anti-democratic behaviour by the EU are now coming home to roost over Ukraine and Crimea. It isn't Kremlin propaganda that the Irish were forced to vote again (twice) after turning in referendum results that Brussels didn't like.

It isn't a piece of Russian deception that France and the Netherlands rejected the European Constitution, only for Brussels to rename it the Lisbon Treaty and proceed anyway.

Those referendums were conducted according to the absolute gold standard. And the EU trashed them. So what was British Foreign Secretary William Hague hoping to achieve when, on Friday, he chided Russia because this weekend's referendum in Crimea might not live up to "standards"?

He's probably right. But does he think the Russians didn't notice what Europe really thinks and does about referendums and democratic standards?

So long as Britain is a member of the EU, Hague has got to expect to be laughed at for that. I don't like what Putin et al are doing any more than Hague does.

But he's building his castle on sand. Catherine Ashton indeed. It makes you want to weep...with laughter...

[steevo]

I'm not surprised when communist-like authoritarianism takes hold, nationalist sentiment in its various forms starts to take hold. But there are both extremes here as the pro-Russian groups of thugs have imposed their will as well. From what I've seen I get the impression most protesting in the Ukraine (not Crimia) want leadership that promotes democratic governance. I feel for those who've lived under leadership restricting more and more rights. It's no small handful but many, many who long for freedom.

I also don't see Putin's move here to be a logically deduced threat to Europe anymore than before the crisis when Russia had secured access to the Baltic port. Given the history of Russian/Ukraine relations and cooperation it's not unreasonable, at least here, to believe this is all about an imposed status quo. But I do believe Putin's future objective is military encroachment upon the West as he's already sent a spy ship to Cuba (home of the missile crisis over 50 years ago) just off our coast. He's also planning on helping to build more reactors for Iran. He could well start the beginning of a new rather official cold war.