Russische leiders in hun eigen woorden

[patrickve]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Voltian

Te veel whiskey gedronken Bach...

Wodka he

[Bach]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Voltian

Gij meent dat. Putin, in tegenstelling tot de Westerse leiders is volgens jou een zorgzaam leider die het beste wilt voor zijn volk?

Te veel whiskey gedronken Bach...

Het vet gedrukte zijn woorden die u in mijn mond legt. U bent oneerlijk.

[Bach]

Introductie van anti spiegel:

Lavrov: "The EU has lost its meaning"
Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov gave a 25-minute interview to the BBC, it shows very impressively how destroyed the relationship between the West and Russia is.

The interview was published on the site of the Russian Foreign Ministry, which is important because the BBC is unlikely to broadcast it in full.

For all readers, I would like to send something in advance for understanding. The interview is about, among other things, the Minsk Agreement, about which politicians and the media in the West have reported for eight years that Russia would not implement it and that therefore one could not relax the Russia sanctions.

This was a lie, because Russia is not mentioned in the agreement at all and therefore there are no obligations in the agreement that Russia could implement. Instead, the opposite was true: Russia pushed for the implementation of the agreement, but Kiev – with the tacit support of the West – refused to implement the agreement for eight years.

The West has turned a blind eye to Kiev's behavior, and Germany and France, which, together with Russia, were guarantor powers for the implementation of the agreement, have insisted – at least officially – on the implementation of the agreement, but without exerting pressure on Kiev to also implement its obligations entered into in the agreement. In November 2021, Germany and France also openly refused to implement the agreement.

However, this was not reported in the West, and this is probably an important reason why Russia took military action four months later, after the Minsk agreement was officially buried by Germany and France, even if the Western media did not report on it.

Now let's move on to the BBC's interview with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, which sounds more like an argument than an interview. Anyone who knows the earlier statements of Lavrov, who is a professional diplomat and has always been very diplomatic in his statements, will recognize here that Russia considers relations with the West to be broken off and that Russia no longer takes the EU seriously as a subject of international politics and is now saying this openly, because the EU follows the US guidelines so blindly – even to its own detriment – that it no longer makes sense to talk to the EU.

Interview of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with the BBC in St. Petersburg on June 16, 2022

Question: Before making the decision and announcing the start of the military operation, as he calls it, did President Putin talk to you about whether to do this?

Lavrov: There is a decision-making mechanism in every state. In this case, the mechanism that arose in the Russian Federation has been fully activated.

Question: Did he consult with you?

Lavrov: I'll explain it again: there are things that you don't talk about in public. There is a mechanism for decision-making. This was fully complied with.

Question: I ask this because you have been Foreign Minister for 18 years and an invasion of a sovereign neighboring country is an external matter. The president must have expected that this would trigger an international echo. I thought he would consult with you.

Lavrov: Steven, you are an experienced journalist who is very familiar with the conditions in Russia, around Russia and in the post-Soviet space. In your question, the desire to "cancel" everything that happened before February 24 of this year sounds – "cancel culture". For eight years, we have worked with the involvement of our intelligence services, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Defense for the implementation of the Minsk Agreement unanimously approved by the UN Security Council.

In these eight years, we have managed to get Donetsk and Lugansk – which, as you remember, originally declared their independence in 2014 in response to the neo–Nazi coup in Kiev - to sign the Minsk Agreement, which guarantees the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine. When Chancellor Scholz now says that Russia should be forced to make agreements with Ukraine that respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, then it seems to me that he is not from this world, but from somewhere in the "cosmos". After all, for eight years we have been pushing to implement the agreement that guarantees the territorial integrity of the Ukrainian state.

Question: But the situation changed four months ago.

Lavrov: The situation has not changed. We return to what was agreed in the Minsk agreement: the protection of the Russians in the Donbass, betrayed by both the French and the Germans. The British were also on the front line. All our Western colleagues said that they could not force Kiev to implement the Minsk Agreement.

Question: If the goal is to protect the Russians in the Donbass, then why have more civilians been killed in the LNR and DNR in the four months since the start of the military operation than in the entire last year?

Lavrov: You have also seen the reports of the German television ARD and the main French channel, in which it was reported the other day that a maternity hospital in Donetsk and a market were attacked by Russian forces and that dozens of civilians were killed by the bombing? They said unequivocally that it was the Russian military that did this. Just as in the attack on the railway station in Kramatorsk, it was claimed that it was Russia. Although Western journalists proved that the projectile came from the territory controlled by the Ukrainian military. (Note. d. Übers.: Details on how the Tagesschau deliberately lied to its viewers can be found here. And here you can find more information about the rocket in Kramatorsk, which, according to Western media, is supposed to have been fired by the Russian army at civilians at the city's railway station, although it was immediately proved that it was fired by the Ukrainian army)

Question: Last year, eight civilians were killed on the territory of the LNR and DNR, seven the year before. A death is a tragedy. However, this is not a genocide, which official bodies in Russia often talk about. Given these figures, how can you say that it is a reasonable decision to invade Ukraine?

Lavrov: We did not invade Ukraine. We called a military operation when there were no options left for us to explain to the West that he participated in criminal acts by dragging Ukraine into NATO and patronizing and promoting the neo–Nazi regime, whose president Zelensky said in September 2021 - didn't you tell your viewers that? - that everyone who feels like a Russian in Ukraine should go to Russia. He said this publicly. When a CNN correspondent pointed out to him that the Azov regiment had been put on the list of extremist terrorist organizations in some Western countries, in the United States and in Japan, Zelensky shrugged his shoulders and said that there are many such battalions and regiments, they are just as they are. (Note. d. Übers.: Even more: Zelensky not only directly asked Ukrainian citizens who consider themselves ethnic Russians to leave the country, he specifically referred to them not as "people", but as "subjects")

Question: Let's look at the consequences. Four months have passed. The result: thousands of civilians killed, more than 14 million Ukrainians forced to flee their homes, significant losses among Russian troops, a heap of sanctions against Russia. And this is a right decision?

Lavrov: I'll tell you again: we had no other choice. We have already explained all this a thousand times. Now the Ukrainian regime is attacking civilians and cities with its Western weapons, just like in 2014, when the putschists came to power, when they bombed the center of Lugansk from airplanes, when they burned 50 people in Odessa. Does anyone else remember this?

Question: If they had not attacked, there would have been no weapons from the West.

Lavrov: We did not attack anyone. The Russians in Ukraine were attacked. Imagine that you are an Englishman. Are you English or Scottish?

Question: I gave you the numbers. Eight deaths last year, seven....

Lavrov: I am just explaining to you that the Ukrainian regime is bombing its own population. And they're selling the guns so it can continue to do that. About the genocide. Are you English? Imagine if Ireland – not Northern Ireland, but the Republic of Ireland - banned the English language. How would the English feel?

Question: We would certainly not invade Ireland.

Lavrov: That would not humiliate you? The Russian language is banned in Ukraine. Try to have a conversation in Russian on the street in Kiev when young people with certain clothes are on the way there.

Question: Why do you think NATO is a threat? Why do people in Russia often talk about five waves of NATO expansion?

Lavrov: I think that NATO is a threat, because we have been close friends with our friends in Serbia for a long time. They told us what the North Atlantic Alliance is. In Afghanistan, the Afghans – from almost all ethnic groups - with whom we have relations also tell us what the alliance is and how it bombed weddings. Simply because she thought: why did people gather there? We should bomb them as a precaution.

I'm just explaining to you why NATO is a threat. Talk to the people of Iraq and Libya, whose country was completely destroyed. And after that, NATO still declares itself a defense alliance. We are told not to worry, Ukraine's accession to NATO - we have been told – will not pose a threat to the Russian Federation. With all due respect to our colleagues in the North Atlantic Alliance, but Russia has the right to decide for itself what is a threat to its security and what is not.

Question: Before the annexation of Crimea in 2014, there were no NATO troops in Eastern Europe…

Lavrov: I'll tell you more: there was no annexation of Crimea.

Question: As a result of the annexation of Crimea in 2016, there were 4,500 soldiers there. After February 24, 2022, there will be 40,000. This is the result of Russian actions.

Lavrov: After all, you are an intelligent person. These are facts. I will tell you some more facts. Their entire analysis is based on the culture of deletion, the cancel culture. They cancel everything that preceded the event, which they call either invasion or annexation. What happened on February 21, 2014 in Ukraine? We call this a coup d'etat. What do you call that?

Question: I asked you first. What do you call that?

Lavrov: I have already said that it was a coup d'etat that took place the morning after the signing of the agreement between the then president and the opposition leaders by France, Poland and Germany. The morning after, the opposition leaders spat on Germany, France and Poland, which, as they say in Russian, "diluted" themselves. We called this a coup d'etat. And what did they call it?

Question: Do the events of eight years ago give you the right to do what you are doing now?

Lavrov: It's not about law. I want you to say it quite frankly. We call this a coup d'etat. What is it called in the UK?

Question: I wanted to ask you the following.

Lavrov: I would like to understand your logic, because in order for me to give you a clear answer, you need to clearly explain what you are talking about.

Question: I want to understand your logic. They say NATO is a threat. Now they say that there is too much NATO on the borders with Russia. And now, as a result of the Russian actions, there is "even more NATO." Finland and Sweden join the alliance.

Lavrov: Finland and Sweden have long ago subordinated themselves to the Anglo-Saxons in the framework of EU and NATO rapprochement. The EU has lost its importance.

Question: Is it a failure of Russian diplomacy that Sweden and Finland become members of NATO?

Lavrov: Sweden and Finland exercise their sovereign right and act as their government wants. The opinion of the people is of little interest, just as the opinions of the peoples were not taken into account when solving the tasks set for NATO.

Question: So this is not a threat to Russia?

Lavrov: Let's see how it turns out. If and when Sweden and Finland join NATO, we will see what will really happen there. Whether armaments will be delivered there, whether new contingents will be stationed. I can assure you that no one will listen to the Europeans, Finland or Sweden. They are now telling us that they will not have foreign armed forces and military bases. But the US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said that the US is planning to increase its military presence in Europe, but that they have not yet decided whether it will be a permanent, rotating or permanent rotating presence. He has not said a word that he will consult the EU. He does not want to listen to the European allies. He made that decision and he announced that the decision will be made in Washington.

Question: Russia says it is fighting the Nazis in Ukraine.

Lavrov: There are no Nazis being fought in Ukraine. Nazism is flourishing in Ukraine.

Question: Listen to what the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights says. Speaking in May of this year, following the observer mission, she said that in the village of Yagodnoye, Chernigov region, the Russian military detained 360 people, including 74 children and 5 people with disabilities, for 28 days in the basement of a school without a toilet and water. 10 elderly people died. Is this a fight against Nazism?

Lavrov: International officials, including the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and - to my great regret – the UN Secretary–General and many other UN representatives, are subject to Western pressure and often act as mouthpieces of fake news.

Question: So Russia has a halo?

Lavrov: Russia does not have a halo. It is as it is. We are not ashamed to show ourselves as we are.

May I ask you so that I can understand the policy of your media regarding the tragedy in Butcha. Did you report this? I'm sure you reported that it was Russia. Right? The Guardian newspaper, published in London, subsequently published the results of a preliminary forensic medical examination, which showed that the vast majority of people whose bodies were shown on all TV channels in the world received their injuries from exploding artillery shells. (Note. d. Trans.: This is an interesting point, because according to the Western media, which attach Butcha to Russia, Russian soldiers shot the people in Butcha. This thesis is refuted if they were killed not by bullets, but by artillery ammunition. Therefore, the investigation reported by the Guardian has been largely ignored by the Western media and quickly forgotten again, details can be found here)

Question: What is the purpose of your question? We don't have much time.

Lavrov: We don't have much time, but you don't want to explain to me why you are constantly telling untruths, to put it mildly. I asked you a question: how did the BBC report on the events in Butcha?

Question: I was not in Butsha. I am in Russia and therefore I am asking about the Russian point of view. As Russian President Vladimir Putin stated at the time, the goal of the operation is regime change. Isn't that right?

Lavrov: The goal of the operation is to protect the rights of Russians, who for eight years have been blatantly disregarded not only by the Kiev regime, but also by the entire West and the civilized community, which refused to implement the Minsk Agreement.

If you did not want to protect the rights of Russians in the Donbass by implementing the UN Security Council resolution by Kiev, we will protect the rights of Russians themselves. That's what we do.

Question: Vladimir Putin turned to the Ukrainian soldiers on February 25 this year and asked them to take power into their own hands, as it was easier for Russia to negotiate with them than with this gang of junkies and neo-Nazis who settled in Kiev. This sounds like a direct call to military rebellion.

Lavrov: No, it sounds like a direct call to fulfill his military duty and not to serve the Nazis, who forbid everything that displeases their regime, including Russian education, culture and media. The BBC has not been banned there because it does not make public the truth about what has been going on there for eight years. I asked you: were you or one of your colleagues from the BBC in the Donbass during the eight years when the civilian population there was bombed by Kiev's soldiers?

Question: Our team has repeatedly asked the leadership of DNR and LNR for permission to come and see what is happening for six years. We received a rejection every time. I think if a genocide had really taken place there, they would have been interested in us coming and seeing it, but no. Why don't they let us in?

Lavrov: I don't know why they didn't let you in. Our journalists worked there around the clock, showing the results of the bombing of the Kiev battalions. You should move to the Ukrainian side of the contact line. This kind of destruction does not exist there.

Question: Your president recently praised Peter the Great very much for allegedly taking back the original Russian territories, and even added that "it is up to us to take back and secure them as well.“ How many and which areas are you still planning to take back?

Lavrov: President Putin has said everything, I have nothing to add. I'll tell you again: you are trying to forget everything that preceded this event. They deny, cancel, do not want to hear what preceded the February 24 vote in Crimea. They don't like that we are very patient. But when our thread of patience "breaks", we react to the insolence and humiliation against the Russian people. So it was with the coup in February 2014, when people came to power who said that they would abolish the status of the Russian language and expel the Russians from the Crimea, after all, armed men were sent there. What did the BBC report on this? Nothing at all. They said this was a normal democratic process.

Question: Can you categorically say that there will be no more Russian special operations and invasions of other neighboring territories?

Lavrov: We trusted your Word for a long time. Your comrades-in-arms, your compatriots, together with other members of the North Atlantic Alliance, solemnly proclaimed the principle of indivisibility of security, according to which no one has the right to strengthen his security at the expense of the security of others. When we said that NATO's five-fold expansion was violating our security, we were simply ignored. Now French President Macron said that one should talk to Russia and not humiliate the Russians. Do you know who answered him? The Czech Foreign Minister Lipavsky. He said that Macron did not understand anything, and hinted that it was necessary to humiliate the Russians. How do you feel about this?

Question: I want to ask a question about the British who were recently sentenced to death…

Lavrov: For this, you should conduct an interview in the Donetsk People's Republic.

Question: Russia is the only country that recognizes the DNR.

Lavrov: No, not the only one, several other countries have recognized them.

Question: I think the DNR has a strong influence in Russia.

Lavrov: We are friends and allies.

Question: In the eyes of the West, Russia is responsible for the fate of these people. Do not believe that this death sentence…

Lavrov: I am not at all interested in the "eyes of the West". I am interested in international law, according to which mercenaries are not combatants. That's why it doesn't matter what you have in your eyes.

Question: You are not mercenaries, you served in the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

Lavrov: This has to be decided by a court.

Question: Do you believe that there is an independent judicial process?

Lavrov: I am convinced that there is an independent judicial process. Do you think that courts are independent with you? After the death of Litvinenko, her "independent" court announced a public trial, that is, it placed the case under secrecy. They did the same with the Skripals. So much for the law.

Question: Has the British government approached you to discuss the fate of these men?

Lavrov: I did not hear that you turned to us. They got used to doing everything in public. They began to explain that they are worried about their subjects. I don't know if they turned to us or not. You need to contact the DNR.

Question: What do you say now about relations with the United Kingdom? To say they are bad is to put it mildly.

Lavrov: In my opinion, there is no more room for maneuver in this regard. Both Boris Johnson and Liz Truss publicly say that they need to defeat Russia and bring it to its knees. Then go ahead, force us to our knees!

Question: How does Moscow see the UK now?

Lavrov: It is a country that is once again trying to sacrifice the interests of its people to the ambitions of politicians who think only about the next elections and nothing else.

Question: You criticize the countries that supply weapons to Kiev. Who bears the greater blame? The countries that supply weapons to the country that defends its territory, or the country that attacked it?

Lavrov: How can she defend her country when she is bombing her own citizens? I remind you once again that in September 2021 Zelensky said that if you want to think in Russian and consider yourself a Russian, you should go to Russia. Why don't you talk about it? Why do you forget the events that preceded this? Now that they are bombing their own cities, settlements, markets, maternity homes and hospitals, everything is fine. They ask why Russia is waging a "war" - in response to what we are showing. If you are not shown the consequences of the bombing of Donetsk, Kramatorsk and other inhabited areas in the UK, you probably see them here. Have you reported anything about this?

Question: You said that you would defend the Donbass and the people in the Donbass. I told you that twenty times more people have died since the beginning of the Russian military operation …

Lavrov: And I told you that these people are being killed by neo-Nazis. I asked them if they show the results of the bombing of settlements by the Ukrainian army. Or do you not show this in your reports? They don't show it. Right? That is why now you need to pull a few words of regret from my nose about what happened, so that you can send a report to London and use my words to confirm the mendacious version of what is happening in Ukraine, which you are constantly spreading.

Question: You are wrong about that.

Lavrov: When you are in Moscow, you can't help but see what journalists are showing in the Donbass, what is happening as a result of the bombing of settlements and people. Do you report on it or not?

Question: I would like to ask you…

Lavrov: This means that they are not reporting on this.

Question: I have been in Russia for almost 30 years. I have traveled all over the country. In the villages and cities that I visited, I often heard the phrase: "The main thing is that there is no war." I know that your country suffered terribly, so it's hard to understand that your country "unleashed a war" in Ukraine. I don't understand why this was necessary. To destroy Ukraine and the future of your country?

Lavrov: I heard you. Can you understand the political course pursued by Kiev over the past 10 years, namely, to ban everything Russian? Do you think that "if only there was no war" means the possibility of humiliating Russians, Russia? As the Czech Foreign Minister says in response to Macron, who insists on not humiliating the Russians. For some reason, no one reports about it. You got what you need for your line, for the logic of your shipments.

The phrase "The main thing is that there is no war" is a phrase that is deeply rooted in the Russian people. But it is also about pride, about what we call the sense of dignity that Ukraine, with your support, is trying to deprive all Russians.

https://www.anti-spiegel.ru/2022/lawrow-…

Men kan inderdaad goed merken hoe verzuurd de relatie geworden is, hoe groot de afstand in gezichtspunt over wat er gaande is. Rusland die wijst op de blindheid van het westen voor de oorzaken van de invasie. De BBC die een portret van imperialisme poogt te schetsen. Lavrov die goed weet dat het interview enkel gebruikt zal worden voor propaganda doeleinden tegen Rusland. Butcha komt aan bod (aangebracht door Lavrov zelf). Zweden Finland komen aan bod. En meer.

[Der Wanderer]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door patrickve

Uiteraard is dat een (enorme) baat. Er zijn enorm veel dingen die men doet om de winst te maken van geen schuldgevoel te hebben. Maar nu is "de miserie die anderen hebben" iets dat mij TOTAAL geen enkel schuldgevoel zou opleveren. Er bestaan/hebben bestaan/zullen bestaan miljarden wezens die miserie hebben. Dat hoort bij het leven. Ik heb daar niks mee te maken. Gezien ik die niet allemaal kan helpen, moet ik er geen enkele helpen. Dat "wildvreemden" dus miserie hebben vind ik normaal, en ik heb daar verder niks mee te maken. Dat geeft mij niet het minste beetje schuldgevoel, omdat ik niet oorzakelijk die miserie veroorzaak. Mocht ik er niet zijn, dan was die miserie er ook.

Dat is 1. sofistisch (als iedereen mensen in de nabije omgeving helpt, maakt dat wel een verschil op grote schaal, en om te beginnen voor die paar mensen natuurlijk, dus je kan een mode van 'helpen' - niet te verwarren met 'afhankelijk maken' of 'zot zijn' - in gang zetten of bevorderen); 2. psychologisch onjuist (je eigen houding 'kleurt' wel degelijk je bestaan en wijze van ervaren van de wereld). (En los daarvan, ja, mensen kunnen ook 'gewoon' een kat helpen...)

[Voltian]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Bach

Het vet gedrukte zijn woorden die u in mijn mond legt. U bent oneerlijk.

Ik denk dat dat een faire conclusie is uit je catalogus van anti-Westerse posts hier, maar goed, als je kwetsbaar vogeltje wilt spelen, ik zal het aanpassen:

Je vindt Putin dus een zorgzaam leider die het beste wilt voor zijn volk. Seriously?

Ik vraag me af welke andere persoonlijkheidseigenschappen en prioriteiten kon afleiden uit die speech.

[Der Wanderer]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door patrickve

Ik kan daar met mijn verstand dus niet bij. Het komt bij mij niet op om iemand of iets te helpen "zomaar". Yikes. Ik heb lang geleden al een motorrijder tegen een boom zien spetsen toen ik daar fietste. Dat was ergens ten zuiden van Middelkerke. Gewoon doorgefietst.

Is dit een pleidooi voor camera's met gezichtsherkenning?

[Voltian]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Bach

Introductie van anti spiegel:





Interview of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with the BBC in St. Petersburg on June 16, 2022



Men kan inderdaad goed merken hoe verzuurd de relatie geworden is, hoe groot de afstand in gezichtspunt over wat er gaande is. Rusland die wijst op de blindheid van het westen voor de oorzaken van de invasie. De BBC die een portret van imperialisme poogt te schetsen. Lavrov die goed weet dat het interview enkel gebruikt zal worden voor propaganda doeleinden tegen Rusland. Butcha komt aan bod (aangebracht door Lavrov zelf). Zweden Finland komen aan bod. En meer.

Interessant hoe hij de moeilijkere vragen ontwijkt.

[Bach]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Voltian

Interessant hoe hij de moeilijkere vragen ontwijkt.

Dat is van de twee kanten. "Heeft u gerapporteerd over ....?" No comment.

[Voltian]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Bach

Dat is van de twee kanten. "Heeft u gerapporteerd over ....?" No comment.

Ja euh, de journalist stelt de vragen, de interviewee beantwoordt de vragen?

[Erw]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Voltian

Ja euh, de journalist stelt de vragen, de interviewee beantwoordt de vragen?

Je bedoelt, een geinterviewde die tegenvragen stelt, is foei?

[Voltian]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Erw

Je bedoelt, een geinterviewde die tegenvragen stelt, is foei?

Euh nee? Het is gewoon vrij normaal dat in een interview één persoon de vragen stelt en de andere antwoorden geeft? Het is niet gek dat de interviewer niet op vragen van de geïnterviewde antwoordt. Het stellen van wedervragen is bovendien een gekende techniek van de geïnterviewde om lastige vragen te ontwijken.

Gaat gij tijdens een sollicitatiegesprek de interviewer misschien ook beginnen ondervragen of zo?

[Bach]

Ja maar dit zijn vragen naar de BBC en hun geloofwaarigheud zelf. En dat recht heeft de geïnterviewde. Lavrov geeft de BBC de mogelijkheid hun manipulatie van info mbt bepaalde feiten te ontkennen wat niet gebeurd. Onrechtstreeks gebruikt hij de BBC om de lezer opmerkzaam te maken op hun manipulatie.

Anderzijds kan men moeilijk verwachten dat Rusland ja of nee antwoorden geeft op vragen zoals of regime change de bedoeling is. De journalist weet dat ook. Hij stelt die vragen dan ook niet omdat hij een antwoord verwacht maar omdat hij een bepaalde indruk wil geven van de geïnterviewde. Die heeft dat echter door.

Het was wel interessant om lezen vond ik. De BBC heeft deze keer een iets meer ingelichte journalist gestuurd ook. Soms zijn het echt onbeschofte oningelichte oenen met een stijl die ze nooit zouden proberen tegen westerse regeringsleiders.

[Bach]

...

[Bach]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Erw

Je bedoelt, een geinterviewde die tegenvragen stelt, is foei?

Relevante tegenvragen over het manipulatief gedrag van de BBC zelf. Lavrov weet ook dat de BBC enkel uit is op wat quotes die ze uit context kunnen blokletteren om de anti Russische propaganda in het westen kracht bij te zetten. Het is daarom niet buiten context de BBC te confronteren met hun eigen eerdere manipulaties.

[Voltian]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Bach

Relevante tegenvragen over het manipulatief gedrag van de BBC zelf. Lavrov weet ook dat de BBC enkel uit is op wat quotes die ze uit context kunnen blokletteren om de anti Russische propaganda in het westen kracht bij te zetten. Het is daarom niet buiten context de BBC te confronteren met hun eigen eerdere manipulaties.

De belangrijkste tegenvragen gaan over het brengen van nieuws over Butcha & shelling van Donetsk door Oekraine.

Nu moet je de interactie eens goed nalezen en kijk hoe de journalist ermee omgaat. hij doet dat goed.

[Bach]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Voltian

Gaat gij tijdens een sollicitatiegesprek de interviewer misschien ook beginnen ondervragen of zo?

Hangt ervan af wat voor job het is. Ik zou als interviewer juist vragen verwachten van de sollicitant. De vergelijking met het Lavrov BBC interview loopt mank echter. Je kan ook zien dat de interviewer de situatie gebruikt om statements te maken alsof daarover geen twijfel zou bestaan. Ook een bekende taktiek.

Komt vaak voor en is onrespectvol.

Zo van "Hoe denkt u dat X zal reageren op uw agressieve ongeprovoceerde invasie?" Of "Heeft u spijt van uw stalking gedrag?" Dat lijkt op een ja nee vraag maar is het niet. Als de geïnterviewde dan geen ja of nee antwoord geeft lijkt dat een ontwijkend antwoord. Het probleem is dat er geen akkoord is over de premissen en er dus geen ja of nee antwoord op de vraag mogelijk is.

[Voltian]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Bach

Hangt ervan af wat voor job het is. Ik zou als interviewer juist vragen verwachten van de sollicitant. De vergelijking met het Lavrov BBC interview loopt mank echter. Je kan ook zien dat de interviewer de situatie gebruikt om statements te maken alsof daarover geen twijfel zou bestaan. Ook een bekende taktiek.

Komt vaak voor en is onrespectvol.

Zo van "Hoe denkt u dat X zal reageren op uw agressieve ongeprovoceerde invasie?" Of "Heeft u spijt van uw stalking gedrag?" Dat lijkt op een ja nee vraag maar is het niet. Als de geïnterviewde dan geen ja of nee antwoord geeft lijkt dat een ontwijkend antwoord. Het probleem is dat er geen akkoord is over de premissen en er dus geen ja of nee antwoord op de vraag mogelijk is.

Goh ja, jij leest er andere dingen in en trekt andere conclusies dan ik. Maar het is een goede bron, want het zijn Lavrov's woorden zelf. Laten we het daar maar op houden...

[Pandareus]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Bach

Ja maar dit zijn vragen naar de BBC en hun geloofwaarigheud zelf. En dat recht heeft de geïnterviewde. Lavrov geeft de BBC de mogelijkheid hun manipulatie van info mbt bepaalde feiten te ontkennen wat niet gebeurd. Onrechtstreeks gebruikt hij de BBC om de lezer opmerkzaam te maken op hun manipulatie.

Anderzijds kan men moeilijk verwachten dat Rusland ja of nee antwoorden geeft op vragen zoals of regime change de bedoeling is. De journalist weet dat ook. Hij stelt die vragen dan ook niet omdat hij een antwoord verwacht maar omdat hij een bepaalde indruk wil geven van de geïnterviewde. Die heeft dat echter door.

Het was wel interessant om lezen vond ik. De BBC heeft deze keer een iets meer ingelichte journalist gestuurd ook. Soms zijn het echt onbeschofte oningelichte oenen met een stijl die ze nooit zouden proberen tegen westerse regeringsleiders.

Lavrov heeft BBC niets te geven, behalve antwoorden op de gestelde vragen. Of weigeren om antwoord te geven.

[Bach]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Voltian

De belangrijkste tegenvragen gaan over het brengen van nieuws over Butcha & shelling van Donetsk door Oekraine.

Nu moet je de interactie eens goed nalezen en kijk hoe de journalist ermee omgaat. hij doet dat goed.

Hij is bovengemiddeld maar hij antwoord soms wel, wat de vraag oproept waarom op andere pertinente vragen niet. Het zijn retorische vragen die Lavrov stelt. De journalist weet heel goed bv dat het Guardian nieuws mbt de verwondingen in Bucha repressed werd en waarschijnlijk ook dat dit gebeurde omdat het niet de narratief van Russische oorlogsmisdaden ondersteunt. En Lavrov weet dat de journalist dit weet. Het stilzwijgen is een erkenning van schuld in deze context evenzeer als dat een erkenning van de feiten dat zou zijn. De journalist was niet bereid te liegen dus zweeg hij. Het publiek weet hierdoor dat Lavrov gelijk heeft. Hij heeft alzo zijn punt gemaakt van onbetrouwbaarheid van de BBC mbt berichtgeving over deze oorlog.

Zit maar eens in een interview waarbij de journalist enkel uit is om iets te vinden om je slecht af te schilderen wetend dat hij de rest zal weg laten in de artikels die de BBC aan de grote klok zal hangen.

Wat ook sprak uit het taalgebruik van Lavrov was dat hij de westerse arrogantie grondig beu was en geen zin meer had tot veel diplomatie daaromtrent. Ik waarschuw al langer dat de verslaving aan suprematie gedachten zo ingeburgerd is is het westen dat men niet eens meer beseft hoe voor het hoofd stotend dat die houding eigenlijk is. En uiteindelijk zelfdestructief. Ook op dit forum is dat goed merkbaar.

[Bach]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Pandareus

Lavrov heeft BBC niets te geven, behalve antwoorden op de gestelde vragen. Of weigeren om antwoord te geven.

Een case in point over wat ik hier boven argumenteer ivm suprematie verslaving.