I've been trying to read up about the thousands of Russian troops, weapons and deaths but never see much about Russia taking over the Crimea. Where's the media when you need them. Worthless they are and it only shows their biased viewpoint. Fighting has been ongoing now for almost a year and not once have I seen on the spot coverage of what was going on in Crimea with Russian troops. Matter of fact I don't know what's going on with Ukrainian troops either. If this would have happened when a Republican was in the White House I'm more than certain the media would be blasting away at how irresponsible they were for not supporting the Ukrainian side and have coverage of the killings that go on over there due to the Russians invading the Crimea. This is why we should not trust the media at all for they twist the truth and only tell you what they want you to know, assholes they are!
Really? Perhaps you should try accessing "liberal" news (i.e. anything not Fox News or Republican talk radio). http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/crimea.htm
I think you got the media all wrong. The lack of certain coverage, has to do more with journalistic incompetence than conspiracy. Back in the day, when TV was young, there were only a few national news programs; nightly news. All the media businesses could recruit the best talent, for their limited number of slots. Now, there are so many news programs, the talent pool is very diluted, and business need to accept the bottom of the barrel. For example, during Benghazi, the President and Hillary came to the conclusion a book caused the riot leading to the deaths at the Embassy. This turned out to be false. They tried to do the best they could, but got it wrong. Foreign affairs also take talent. Based on all the news agencies' first instinct, the liberal journalists mostly got it wrong, in real time, via 20/20 hindsight. They too, did the best they could, but were not up for the task. The reason many journalists at FOX got it right, is FOX is the top station in the news marketplace. This means they get the best sponsors, make the most money, and therefore can recruit and afford the best talent. The other stations seem to have gotten lower draft picks, and constantly demonstrate lack of top notch instinct. The conspiracy angle of attaching some new agencies to each political party, is more of a free market ploy to hide the lopsided talent pool. The image of a propaganda wing sort of implies talent, albeit diabolical. This sounds smarter and more worth listening to than a group that score low in journalistic competence, with 20/20 hindsight. Maybe a good web site or even topic would be to look at issues that resolve, and then go back to see what the various news companies had to say originally. Then we can see if the free market correlation is correct.
I don't believe that there was a lot of fighting and bloodshed in the Crimea. While there were significant Ukrainian forces there, including the majority of the Ukrainian Navy and an important Air Force Base, they didn't really resist the Russian takeover. The Russians outnumbered the Ukrainians, had the element of surprise, and the Ukrainian leadership was still disorganized in the wake of the Maidan revolution. I believe that the Ukrainian troops were given several options. They could join the Russian military, they could take off their uniforms and return to civilian life, or they could return to Ukraine in military order, provided that they surrendered their arms. Apparently the first two options were taken mostly by soldiers whose homes were in Crimea and who intended to stay. The rest were allowed to return to the Ukrainian mainland, and eventually most of the aircraft and ships left behind were returned to Kiev's control. So the Russian takeover of Crimea was relatively peaceful and bloodless.
I think that the best and most detailed sources of information on military events in Crimea are publications like Warships International Fleet Review and Air Forces Monthly, particularly the issues for the months immediately after the Russian takeover. They published some very informative articles full of detailed information on what happened at particular Ukrainian bases, what happened to their naval and air inventories and so on.
Again I say that the media isn't reporting anything about the death rate that I can Google about. Nothing about those deaths shows me we are being screwed again about the truth as to what's going on in this war unlike the Iraq war we heard many times of the death rates. So where did you find your information about this "bloodless" war that you claim no one is being injured or killed? I'm waiting for you to post a link as to which biased media source you read your information from.
Funny isn't it that the nightly news or any TV news never reports what's going on in the Crimea war that Russia started. I'm fed up with the medias lack of honest reporting and am so disgusted with it makes me want to puke.
Then why is there still fighting going on there today? Withdrawal from Debaltseve Despite the ceasefire, heavy fighting continues around Debaltseve with rebel forces pressing to capture the strategically important road and rail hub, to join up territory held in Donetsk and Luhansk regions. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...iIH4Cg&usg=AFQjCNEg9M4WjCbcjpt8l7N8kTUwBHDlew
So let me get this right, because you think the "media" isn't reporting anything about the death rate in the Ukrainian-Russia conflict you think you cannot trust the media. Just where have you heard or seen any of the media say this is a bloodless war? Maybe your perception of a bloodless war has more to do with you, than it does the media. Below is a link to a recent article from the "liberal" press on the Ukrainian death toll. So you perceptions are clearly wrong. A simple Google search revealed the following: "Ukraine crisis: Conflict death toll soars to more than 6,000 as US and Russia hold talks" 3/2/15 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-...aine-death-toll-soars-past-62c000kerr/6275728 Yazata didn't say the war was "bloodless". Yazata said he/she believed the Russian invasion and takeover of Crimea (a portion of Ukraine) was relatively bloodless for the reasons referenced. Yazata didn't mention the ongoing fighting in Eastern Ukraine. You have created a straw man. Yazata was correct. Russia's invasion of Crimea was relatively bloodless because it was a surprise attack with overwhelming numbers and because the Maidan left Kiev in a state of disarray.
Debaltseve isn't in the Crimea. It's a railroad junction in the coal-mining Donbass region several hundred miles to the northeast of Crimea. There was extensive coverage of the recent fighting in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, in all of the world's news media including Fox news. The fighting between the Ukrainians and Russian-equipped rebel proxies and/or Russian regulars in Donbass was far more intense than anything seen in the Crimea. Both the Russians and the Ukrainians have been keeping their casualty figures secret, for their own domestic political reasons. The best numbers are probably estimates from NATO, the EU or the UN.
So if the nightly news doesn't cover the stories you want to hear about that makes the media dishonest? The "media" is much larger than the nightly news. In my last post I referenced are recent report on the number of deaths in the Russian-Ukraine fighting published by ABC. Perhaps you need to learn how too google? Perhaps you need to view something other than Fox News? The nightly news only has a limited amount of time to present a large amount of information while keeping people entertained. So that means some editing needs to occur. I suggest you learn how to google. There is a lot of information out there. But in this brave new world of information, you also need to be able to screen out specious news sources (e.g. Republican entertainment, Russian state controlled press, et al).
So TV news talks about the weather, interesting people (to them), new cars, popular actors and actresses, clothes design and on and on with their crap that means nothing to most people other than wasting their time on bullshit. Now Russia invaded Crimea and all we hear is very little on the major TV news which , to me, is something of more importance than the bullshit the TV news talks about.
Yes and that means Russia wants to take more with its land grab than it already has taken if you don't see that.
My point is that we hear little to nothing about Russia invading Crimea on the TV news and if we do it is lacking in content.
I don't know where you have been but the press has provided extensive coverage of events in Ukraine and Crimea. But it is old news. Should things change, the nightly news will report it as they have done. The nightly news generally reports changing events (e.g. the recent Russian, Europe and Ukraine truce talks last month). I mean how many times do people need to hear the same old stuff repeated over and over? The fact is what is happening in Ukraine is more of the same old stuff. Perhaps you thrive on repetition, but most people eventually get bored. Meanwhile, there are many things changing like the 2016 POTUS election, airliner crash, fires, etc.
Because not much has changed. However, if you look beyond the nightly news there is a lot of reporting.
If anyone wants eyewitness accounts of how the current cease-fire is holding up in the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, the OSCE cease-fire monitors are publishing daily reports. (The OSCE is the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, tasked by the Minsk accords with monitoring the ceasefire. http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm Apparently the cease-fire is holding in broad outline, but there are many small-scale violations by both sides, mostly sporadic artillery fire. Here's what was happening on Friday, March 27. http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/148101 Small-arms fire around Donetsk airport, military trucks seen driving around, unexploded ordinance teams at work, and what may have been a small engagement east of Mariupol.
