Russian President Vladimir Putin’s statements, affirmations and denials in recent months have caused the US State Department, the New York Times, and other news agencies to begin to publish articles labeling his words “lies,” “fiction” and “false claims.”

Putin has maintained strong stances against accusations of Russian involvement in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, as well as on the purpose and presence of Russian troops stationed near the Eastern Ukrainian border, but realities have shown otherwise.

On April 17 chinks in the veneer began to show when Putin publicly stated that Russian troops were at work in Crimea from the outset. Putin had previously denied any Russian participation in Crimea. The Russian representation at the UN and Russian diplomats in serving in foreign countries had also vehemently denied accusations of Russia’s actions. In the same nationally televised presentation, Putin referred to Eastern Ukraine as “New Russia,” but continued to deny that so-called pro-Russian forces attacking buildings in Eastern Ukraine and calling for Russian intervention and Crimea-style referendums to separate from Ukraine were Russian soldiers. Putin called such allegations “all nonsense.”

Justifying the pro-Russian presence in Crimea, Putin stated, “They acted politely, but resolutely and professionally. There was no other way to hold the referendum in an open, honest and honorable way and allow the people to express their opinion.”

On April 20, the New York Times reported on photos endorsed by the Obama administration linking the “green men” operating in Eastern Ukraine to the Russian military. The Ukrainian government also announced they had proof the forces were Russian in origin.

Then, on May 17, Ostro reported that the head of the self-proclaimed Peoples Republic of Donetsk (DRP), Aleksandr Boroday, had told a press conference that the forces in Crimea and those in East Ukraine were under “a single command” and that he had worked in Crimea as a spin doctor.

A of group of the DRP, who had forcefully occupied Donetsk government buildings, pronounced a separate state April 7, and held a Crimea-style referendum May 11. The DRP announced that the turnout for the referendum was 75 percent and the vote was 89 percent in favor of separation from Ukraine.

During the original Crimean occupation by Russia–which at the time was not admitted to be participated in by Russia–Russia amassed a sizable military force near Crimea on Russian soil, but after the peaceable annexation of the peninsula in the wake of the March 16 referendum, the force was withdrawn. A force then amassed on the borders of Eastern Ukraine. Originally, the Russian government denied any buildup of troops. Then Putin continuously maintained that the buildup was for military exercises, of which NATO and other organizations reported they had seen no evidence. At the end of March Putin announced that the massive Russian force had been ordered to withdraw, but NATO and other organizations reported that they had seen no evidence of withdrawal. Then again on May 19, Putin publicly ordered the forces Ukrainian border to return to their home bases, and said that the withdrawal had started. Again, NATO stated that it had seen no sign of soldiers returning to their bases.

The response to Putin’s words and the contrast with Russian actions have caused Western politicians and media to begin to label Putin as a falsifier and a liar. On March 5 the Office of the Spokesperson of the US State Department published a statement on the US State Department website titled, “President Putin’s Fiction: 10 False Claims About Ukraine,” where the office lists 10 of “Putin’s recent claims justifying Russian aggression in the Ukraine, followed by the facts that his assertions ignore or distort.”

On March 6, the New York Times–America’s second-largest newspaper by circulation and most popular with internet readers–covered the Russian response to the US State Department article, but in its headline called the 10 Russian claims “Lies.”

The long list of news organizations which have begun to publish articles on Putin as using lies include Forbes, the National Post, and Telegraph UK.

A senior White House official commented on the most recent statements by Putin about the withdrawal of troops on the eastern border of Ukraine, “As you’ll recall, they’ve made similar claims before. They made them at the end of March and didn’t follow through, so we’ll be tracking this closely over the course of today and the coming days, and we’ll want to see clear, firm evidence of this move before we make any judgment.”

Sources:

US State Department

Seattle Times

New York Times

New York Times

Ostro

The Interpreter

Share and Enjoy

The post Russian President Putin “Lies,” Speaks “Fiction” and Makes “False Claims,” Say US State Department, NY Times, Others appeared first on The Speaker.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s Council on the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights has published a report that finds that the Crimean referendum that served as the sole pretense of validity in Putin’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea, was falsified.

Council member Yevgeny Bobrov, human rights worker Svetlana Gannushkina and lawyer Olga Tsetlina prepared the report after visiting Simferopol and Sevastopol April 15-18. The report was published on the President Soviet website Monday.

Although many reports from various sources have found that Russia had falsified the vote, these reports were discredited by the Russian government as US propaganda.

The report finds that the turnout for the referendum in Crimea was 30-50 percent–not the reported 50-80 percent–and only 50-60 percent of those voters favored joining Russia. Voter turnout and support for Russia was higher in Sevastopol city, where, the Council reported, there was a heightened fear of “illegal armed formations.”

The Crimean referendum was held March 16 behind a blockade of armed Russian and pro-Russian forces, which prevented Ukraine from entering Crimea to enforce Ukrainian law while the referendum took place. The results of the referendum were announced to be 97 percent of an 83 percent turnout in favor of joining Russia, although the ballot only had two options: join Russia and revert to an earlier constitution to separate from Ukraine.

Separatist forces in Southeastern Ukraine are also calling for Russia to assist them in Crimea-style separatist referendums.

Sources:

President Soviet

Kharkiv Human Rights Group

Share and Enjoy

The post Russian Government’s Own Civil Society Organization Finds Crimean Referendum Falsified appeared first on The Speaker.

Feb. 1, 2014, an amendment to Russia’s “On Information, Information Technologies and Information Protection” law took effect.  The amendment allows the government to restrict access to websites with content that calls for riots, extremist activities, and participation in mass public events.

The bill is part of a trend in Russian law which began with President Vladimir Putin’s election to a second term in 2012.  The amendment in question allows the government to silence not only national criticism–it does this through other laws, such as its 139-FZ (2012) censorship law–but also criticism anywhere else in the world.  The measure shields Russia from political dissent.

A commonly cited example is Facebook.  During Russia’s 2012 presidential election, Facebook was used to organize protests against Putin.  Using the newly amended bill, the government’s agency responsible for monitoring such threats, Roskomnadzor (an acronym for Federal Service for Supervision in Telecommunications, Information Technology and Mass Communications), can contact Facebook when it finds such material and request Facebook remove the material.  If Facebook does not remove the material, Russia can block the site nationwide.

Roskomnadzor has had some success.  YouTube took videos, but filed a lawsuit in a Russian court to seek a finding that a video was not offensive (a video showing how to make fake cut-wounds).  Facebook removed a suicide-themed user group called “Club Suicid,” but stated that they had removed the video because it violated their terms of use, not because of the Russian legislation.  Facebook does block some content from some nations, such as Holocaust denial from Germany and France and defamation of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in Turkey.  Twitter removed posts that seemed to be related to drug deals and promoting suicidal thoughts.

The rationale for the bill was terrorism.  Child pornography, suicide encouragement, and drug information are also used to legitimize this category of legislation.  Roskomnadzor began by singling out only distressing material, such as real encouragement of suicide, child pornography and terrorism.  However, on March 13, 2014, several independent news sites were blocked.

Highbeam Business

Share and Enjoy

The post Russian Law Allows Blocking Facebook, Google, YouTube, and Any Other Foreign Site (Feb. 1 Amendment) appeared first on The Speaker.