Russophobia \ Putinphobia in the media

[alhoon]

I firmly believe that the news these days are capitalizing on people's interest on Ukraine to report any non-incident with Russians as something terrible and foreshadowing of worse things to come, in order to generate interest on their pages.

"OMG! A Russian submarine may have been in Sweden!" Not important. The submarine could well have been damaged as the news report now. Not to mention that violations of national waters by the Russians or within NATO countries are common and nobody cares.

"Russians are sending their army to their border islands in the artic!" ( Here ) Yeah, they're trying to protect their oil exploration fields in the artic after Sweden sent their military in the area to look for the submarine. Kinda predictable and within their rights. NOTE: A lot of people with good arguments disagree that Sweden could do anything in the Arctic. I understand and I agree. But the "in reaction to Sweden's activity" was what the article said.

"NATO airplanes intercepted Russian airplanes in the Baltic!" ( Here ) So? The Russian airplanes didn't even violate NATO airspace according to the article. And again according to the article NATO regularly does that stuff and in neither of previous occasions the airplanes proved to be a threat.


Seriously all these non-incidents reported as terrible news and warmongering do in my opinion is take the world's eyes from real bad stuff Russia does in Ukraine or to their own people. They also scare the public and ferment slowly fear and distrust between the West and Russia.

News agencies, we know that a new Cold War would be awesome for your ratings. It would also be good for Hollywood. However, a new cold war would be bad for society, science, world economy and humanity.

Disclaimer: I don't say that Russia's actions in Ukraine are OK or within their own borders the tightening of the government powers and the purges. I don't say that the submarine isn't a violation.
I'm saying that there are incidents that are important, like Ukraine, Russia becoming more authoritarian and incidents Adar posted in post#14 (that never made it to mainstream news) ...
and there incidents that are OK (like Russia bolstering their arctic borders) or not important (like a single violation of national borders and Russian airplanes using the international airspace).

And the Media don't seem to be able to tell the difference.

[Kraut]

"Russians are sending their army to their border islands in the artic!" ( Here ) Yeah, they're trying to protect their oil exploration fields in the artic after Sweden sent their military in the area to look for the submarine. Kinda predictable and within their rights.

Maybe my geographic knowledge is too limited to understand this, but the last time I looked up a map, the ARCTIC sea was not adjacent to the BALTIC sea. And the last time I checked the news, the Swedish military was searching in their national waters off Stockholm - that´s some decent way away from the arctic oil fields shown on the map. Also, I must have missed the threats from Sweden towards Russia.


So, Swedophobia?

[alhoon]

Maybe my geographic knowledge is too limited to understand this, but the last time I looked up a map, the ARCTIC sea was not adjacent to the BALTIC sea. And the last time I checked the news, the Swedish military was searching in their national waters off Stockholm - that´s some decent way away from the arctic oil fields shown on the map. Also, I must have missed the threats from Sweden towards Russia.


So, Swedophobia?

Nope, you missed Sweden moving their military towards the artic too.

so.. what does Putin have to do exactly to another country so that you guys stop resorting to this dumb term 'russophobia'? i mean, do Russian tanks have to literally enter Kiev for you guys to realize "hmm ok well maybe this stance on Russia is well-founded"

Don't get me wrong, the Media do well in accusing Russia for Ukraine. But instead of focusing just on Ukraine, we also learn that Russian ships were in international waters, that Russian jets moved close but didn't enter a Baltic states' airspace and that Russia is moving army within their territory.

Reporting on Russia's tightening grip on media, reporting on Ukraine even reporting on Putin mentioning nukes = good.
Reporting on random staff and that Putin has been spotted with a sweater that matched the color of Sweden hence he probably plans to launch an invasion = bad.

Everything does not run around Ukraine nor should the events in Ukraine make the reporting of threatening behaviour elsewhere any less meaningful. I am not sure would I agree with you that the constant violations of national borders are "non-incidents".

That everyone does it and nobody cares, which I don't think is an accurate assesment anyway, doesn't mean it is alright. The incident is important, because Russia has, if the sub is Russian, violated the territorial waters of a country that isn't even part of NATO. The good old argument that "but others do it as well" is no excuse and never has been in the first place. Infact it is an lazy and lame excuse.

You also ignore the fact that incidents where Russia has violated, or has come close to, violating foreign air space has been on the rise for some years now.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9d016276-4...#axzz3GscXf1ri

http://cphpost.dk/news/russians-incr...ace.10752.html

So, how is this okay? And how is this increase not important? Because Russia might be getting bad publicity?

NATO seems to think that constant violations of national borders are non-incidents though. Our borders are infringed upon more times in a day than Sweden's are by Russia in a year and everyone calls us paranoid for mentioning it. Lazy excuse? How do you think we feel when we hear that lazy excuse by every agency in the world?
Why the double standard then? It's either "chill, a couple dozen dogfights per month in your airspace and in your neighbors airspace is nothing to worry about" as we are told for decades or it's "OMG! They went near your airspace! " make a pick.

[Tiberios]

Nope, you missed Sweden moving their military towards the artic too.

This is a map of Sweden. Now do please tell me how Sweden is able to deploy troops in an area they can't reach without deploying troops in either Finland or Norway (or Russia itself)?

NATO seems to think that constant violations of national borders are non-incidents though. Our borders are infringed upon more times in a day than Sweden's are by Russia in a year and everyone calls us paranoid for mentioning it. Lazy excuse? How do you think we feel when we hear that lazy excuse by every agency in the world?
Why the double standard then? It's either "chill, a couple dozen dogfights per month in your airspace and in your neighbors airspace is nothing to worry about" as we are told for decades or it's "OMG! They went near your airspace! " make a pick.

So because NATO accepts, which they shouldn't, that Turkey and Greece acts like two spoiled brats it suddenly means that what Russia is doing is okay or not an issue? Yeah, I don't buy it.

It got damaged there because... it trespassed Sweden's national waters. I didn't say they didn't do it, I say it's hypocritical to make such a hype over it when there are hundreds such incidents per year, every year by Russia that nobody cared for, for decades and that when others do it, it's still ignored. And I don't just talk about Greece-Turkey infringements here. USA also "comes close" to national borders of Iran quite often. And actually bombed inside Pakistan without warning a few times (although at least they killed OBLaden that way). Look at what importance China places to other countries national borders.
But suddenly, NOW, it's important that Russia did it. When Russians were doing that for years as the sources of both of you show... nah, then it wasn't important.


As far as "But the Baltic is on the other side!" well, from the article screaming "the Russians are coming!" http://www.examiner.com/article/russ...deploys-troops


"As the crisis over a 'mysterious' and unknown Russian submarine believed to be trapped in Swedish coastal waters escalates, President Vladimir Putin is taking no chances that their Northern European neighbor will use its military to threaten discovered oil fields Russia has made claim to in the Arctic region. And on Oct. 21, the Russian leader has decided to react with force and is deploying troops and robotic sentries to the Arctic to ensure the dispute reaches no further than its current location."


Russians, as the article states, put their military along the whole artic border. Well, good for them, it's their border. It won't cause WW3.

Trespassed Swedish waters? It ended up in an archipelago close to the Swedish capital, that is more than trespassing, that is a deliberate provocation and a serious incident (at least for Sweden). If it had been an accident and the Russians had no intentions of violating Swedish territorial waters, a diplomatic solution would have been found quickly and the whole incident would have been a non-issue. As Aanker mewntioned, this also happens just after Russia has annexed the Crimea and sponsored an insurgency in Eastern Ukraine. Besides that, Russias military budget is being increased and, as I mentioned in my previous posts, incidents of Russian aircraft violating, or coming close to doing so, the airspace of their neighbours, have increased in the previous years.

This is not some isolated incident that just happens out of nowhere, which is the exact reason that it is indeed a serious issue.

As for the whole "the Russians are comming", I don't see any fear mongering in the article at all.

You keep reposting that article and now I'm wondering if you even bothered to read it, because it clearly states that Sweden deployed its forces to look for the submarine, which is in the Baltic, while the Russians has deployed their troops in the Artic. The very notion that Sweden is able to threaten seriously Russian interests on it's own and in the Arctic, is laughable and only portrays how poor Russian state propaganda is when they actually try to portray Sweden as some kind of threat to Russia's interests there.

So, as I said before, the Russians are deploying troops in an area outside of Swedens reach, based on Swedish military operations that they themselves have caused by violating Swedish territorial waters in the first place. Again, if Russophobia is alive and well in Western media, the actions of Russia isn't exactly making things any better and I must say your examples of Russophobia in Western media are far from impressive.

[alhoon]

Tiberie: Good post in general, although I don't agree 100%.

Again, if Russophobia is alive and well in Western media, the actions of Russia isn't exactly making things any better and I must say your examples of Russophobia in Western media are far from impressive.

I never said that Russian actions decrease the tensions. Not at all. I don't condone Russia's actions.
Yes indeed, there are way more impressive examples of Russophobic articles in the Western Media, but I don't read them.
As far as the deployment article: Yes, the article itself states what happened. But the title of the article "Russia sends military to protect Arctic oil region after Sweden deploys troops" made me think "OMG! Russia must have deployed tons of ships in neutral waters! ! !"... only to read that they put army in their island and their arctic borders.

BUT: I disagree with you that the rising budget of Russia, the "coming near" to violation, which is not a violation etc are important issues.
What Russia does in Ukraine is an important issue. What China did in South China sea, that nobody cares for, is an important issue. Russia staging exercises of nuking Sweden is an important issue.

A submarine inside the waters and "airplanes close to the borders" are not. I'm not saying that what Russia did with the submarine is OK, I never, ever said that. I also never said it's an isolated incident that has nothing to do with Russia's latest actions and their blatant disregard of international law, that seriously starts surpassing USA's levels.

I say that even with the Ukraine situation and the big picture etc... it's not as important as China building an air corridor in a contested island in South China Sea (and that also comes in context with Chinese aggressive actions in the area lately), not even close. It's not as important as NATO countries trespassing each other's borders 100 times/month. It's not as important as Russia staging nuking Sweden exercises (That also was in context with Russian actions but before Crimea nobody cared).

As your sources prove, it's not something Russia started doing after March. They've been doing it for years. But the media decided to care now. That's my point in this thread. There are threads that condemn or defend Russia's actions. This thread is about the media coverage of those actions.

If China annexes a part of Vietnam or something in 2 years, and the Chinophobia starts, people will say "See this? in 2014 Chinese built stuff on a contested island!" Yeah, but it wasn't given any attention in 2014.


* Kinda out of topic but must be said:

So because NATO accepts, which they shouldn't, that Turkey and Greece acts like two spoiled brats...

We are not acting as spoiled brats. We are protecting our airspace and along with it the integrity of our country as many times per day as it takes. We won't back down from our rights just because foreigners think we should.
The Turks do the same thing. We ... disagree on where the national airspace ends indeed, but it's not like we act as spoiled brats. It's a serious issue and we take national sovereignty seriously as do the Turks.

[Kraut]

Nope, you missed Sweden moving their military towards the artic too.

Indeed interesting, please provide a source.

[alhoon]

Except the article says Russian Special Forces. And rebels getting arms from Russia is already well known. So whether or not rebels try to maybe kill a member of Parliament or something doesn't mean that was Moscow's intent or that Russia even desires something like that.

Ukraine intelligence claims it was Russian special forces. It could be false. And known or not, those grenades and the bomb that almost killed a candidate were 99.99% Russian origin.
I agree that Rebels trying to kill a candidate doesn't mean it's something Russia desired. But once you provide the weapons to rebels, you're responsible to a degree with what happens with these weapons. It doesn't take too much thought to realize that some rebels would be extremists and target civilians in Kiev.

Indeed interesting, please provide a source.

The article claimed the Russians moved their army to their arctic border for that reason, not I. I claimed the article was bullcrap putting too much importance in a non-issue.

[Captain Jin]

Ukraine intelligence claims it was Russian special forces. It could be false. And known or not, those grenades and the bomb that almost killed a candidate were 99.99% Russian origin.
I agree that Rebels trying to kill a candidate doesn't mean it's something Russia desired. But once you provide the weapons to rebels, you're responsible to a degree with what happens with these weapons. It doesn't take too much thought to realize that some rebels would be extremists and target civilians in Kiev.

Yes I said that before in my original post. The source is Ukrainian counter-intelligence. A dubious source of information to be sure. So again, I don't necessarily find it that believable. Furthermore there really isn't any proof that there would somehow be a 'fanatical or extremist' entities within the rebel camp. In fact there is little or no evidence that at all. You're just making assumptions and this dubious claim from Ukrainian counter-intel isn't strong enough to support the idea. In fact while you think it's more important than Russia sending a sub into Swedish waters, it's not necessarily, because there isn't much veracity to the claim. And in my opinion it's only creating more fear mongering given the lack of reliability of the source.

[Kraut]

The article claimed the Russians moved their army to their arctic border for that reason, not I.

But you claimed that I missed how Sweden did that:

Nope, you missed Sweden moving their military towards the artic too.

That sounded much like I would have missed a fact, right?

[Captain Jin]

I firmly believe that the news these days are capitalizing on people's interest on Ukraine to report any non-incident with Russians as something terrible and foreshadowing of worse things to come, in order to generate interest on their pages.

Who cares? That's all the media does when it comes to any damn 'issue'. Whether it's ebola, Russians, race-baiting, or literally everything the US ever does ever etc, is blown out proportion and made into bs issues constantly. It's all about developing interest and over-hyping things. Anyway it's not like there isn't any attention to the real stuff not being shown. Whatever you mean by that. And as far as the Cold War is concerned, at least in terms of the intelligence realm, that never really ended. It just took about a decade before the West realized it and about another decade until the West in the civilian world realized it.

[snuggans]

so.. what does Putin have to do exactly to another country so that you guys stop resorting to this dumb term 'russophobia'? i mean, do Russian tanks have to literally enter Kiev for you guys to realize "hmm ok well maybe this stance on Russia is well-founded", where are you guys drawing the line exactly? if Russia hadn't been annexing territory and sending unmarked military and spetznas while Putin blatantly lies on Russian national TV, maybe then i'd legitimately understand using the term. instead i'm visualizing this situation as if an unbitten person was in the same room as other people, some who have been bitten by an unruly dog that's in the room, and the unbitten person is being met with cries of "cynophobia!!" because they are anxious around the dog and keep their distance from it. then again, most of the people using that term have been forcing themselves for months to believe that the referendums in Crimea and eastern Ukraine were legit; some of it is trolling, unironically using the term 'Novorossiya' to refer to southern and eastern Ukraine, denial of everything. basically 'russophobia' as it's used here in these forums is at its core a fallback that's used when the whitewasher has nothing else of real substance to say.

[Heathen Hammer]

so.. what does Putin have to do exactly to another country so that you guys stop resorting to this dumb term 'russophobia'? i mean, do Russian tanks have to literally enter Kiev for you guys to realize "hmm ok well maybe this stance on Russia is well-founded", where are you guys drawing the line exactly? if Russia hadn't been annexing territory and sending unmarked military and spetznas while Putin blatantly lies on Russian national TV, maybe then i'd legitimately understand using the term. instead i'm visualizing this situation as if an unbitten person was in the same room as other people, some who have been bitten by an unruly dog that's in the room, and the unbitten person is being met with cries of "cynophobia!!" because they are anxious around the dog and keep their distance from it. then again, most of the people using that term have been forcing themselves for months to believe that the referendums in Crimea and eastern Ukraine were legit; some of it is trolling, unironically using the term 'Novorossiya' to refer to southern and eastern Ukraine, denial of everything. basically 'russophobia' as it's used here in these forums is at its core a fallback that's used when the whitewasher has nothing else of real substance to say.

Incorrect, given how referendums are legit and Novorosssiya is now a country, no matter how much you hate the "evil Russians", it is still a fact. Also there is no evidence that there is Russian military's presence in Ukraine either, it is mostly a rebellion by pissed off locals against the corrupt oligarchy and almost a century of ukrainification.
Basically, you are justifying rusophobia in media with false claims, made by same media, that were debunked months ago. What a great way to prove the opposite point.

[Vanoi]

Incorrect, given how referendums are legit and Novorosssiya is now a country,

The reuslts of the refendums in Donteks and Lubnask could not be verified independetally. We have been over this.

I no matter how much you hate the "evil Russians", it is still a fact. Also there is no evidence that there is Russian military's presence in Ukraine either, it is mostly a rebellion by pissed off locals against the corrupt oligarchy and almost a century of ukrainification.

You just admitted in the other thread Russia did support the sepertaists. How did the rebels get T-72B3 tanks again?

[Heathen Hammer]

The reuslts of the refendums in Donteks and Lubnask could not be verified independetally. We have been over this.

But observers were invited to well, observe the referendums.

You just admitted in the other thread Russia did support the sepertaists. How did the rebels get T-72B3 tanks again?

No I didn't, I only recognized the possibility. If they do, its a good sign.

[Vanoi]

But observers were invited to well, observe the referendums.

What observers were present at the Dontesk and Lubansk refendums?

[Finlander]

Everything does not run around Ukraine nor should the events in Ukraine make the reporting of threatening behaviour elsewhere any less meaningful. I am not sure would I agree with you that the constant violations of national borders are "non-incidents".

[Tiberios]

"OMG! A Russian submarine may have been in Sweden!" Not important. The submarine could well have been damaged as the news report now. Not to mention that violations of national waters by the Russians or within NATO countries are common and nobody cares.

That everyone does it and nobody cares, which I don't think is an accurate assesment anyway, doesn't mean it is alright. The incident is important, because Russia has, if the sub is Russian, violated the territorial waters of a country that isn't even part of NATO. The good old argument that "but others do it as well" is no excuse and never has been in the first place. Infact it is an lazy and lame excuse.

You also ignore the fact that incidents where Russia has violated, or has come close to, violating foreign air space has been on the rise for some years now.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9d016276-4...#axzz3GscXf1ri

http://cphpost.dk/news/russians-incr...ace.10752.html

So, how is this okay? And how is this increase not important? Because Russia might be getting bad publicity?

"Russians are sending their army to their border islands in the artic!" ( Here ) Yeah, they're trying to protect their oil exploration fields in the artic after Sweden sent their military in the area to look for the submarine. Kinda predictable and within their rights.

Kinda predictable, are you kidding me? You conveniently ignore the minor, but rather imporant detail: That Sweden doesn't even border the Artic ocean and they are looking for a submarine in the Baltic ocean. So basically Russia is deploying troops in an entirely different area, based on Swedish military operations in the Baltics, that have only been initiated because a (suspected) Russian submarine has penetrated deep into Swedish territorial waters.

Even if there is widespread Russophobia in the media, Russia's actions are certainly not making things better.

[Vanoi]

If people don't like planes violating their sapce, just act like Turkey and Syria do and shoot down eahc other's aircraft if it even strays for a second in the airsapce of the other country.

Thats not the bets option, but with these constant air violations i wouldn't be surprised if this ends up happening.

[Aru]

It's just going back to Western media practices of second half of 20th century.
Russian media are the same, btw. So is the media of any two opposing counries in the World.

[Heathen Hammer]

It's just going back to Western media practices of second half of 20th century.
Russian media are the same, btw. So is the media of any two opposing counries in the World.

This.