General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Do political pundits who deny the Russian invasion of Crimea deserve to be taken seriously at DU? [View all]
By all reported accounts, several days after the departure of former Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych from Kiev in February 2014, well-armed and organized military units began appearing throughout the Crimean peninsula in Ukraine. These units seized the local parliament, airports, harbors and other government installations in the run-up to a hastily organized March 16, 2014 plebiscite asking Crimeans to accept Crimea's annexation into the Russian Federation.
Russian President Vladimir Putin initially denied the involvement of Russian military in the seizure of Crimea (claiming that the troops involved were "local militia) but after Crimea was annexed by Russia admitted that the Russian army played a role.
Despite this in your face admission of a Russian invasion of Crimea, there exist some to this day who deny Russia ever invaded Crimea. Frequently, they'll point to the existence of prior treaties allowing Russia to maintain its pre-existing Black Sea fleet bases on the peninsula, omitting the fact that no treaty allowed the military to leave the bases and occupy sovereign Ukrainian territory. Some deny that Russian military ever occupied Crimea prior to the March 16th vote, claiming that it was local Crimeans who were armed with military grade weaponry and traveling in military convoys.
Needless to say, such denial flies in the face of common sense.
But these denials are not limited to mere novices. Here at DU, opinion pieces by authors such as Robert Parry and John Pilger contain flat out denials that Russia ever invaded Crimea, and that the "west" is to blame for the current separatist crisis in Ukraine. We are told that these pundits are "treasures" who have some special insight into the truth in Ukraine, as opposed to the "mainstream media" report.
But honestly--should we take these people seriously? Would we take someone who denies the moon landing or the Holocaust seriously? Would we take people who claim we weren't attacked by hijacked airliners on 9-11 seriously? Those types of opinions typically are sent off to creative speculation.
But because the names Robert Parry and John Pilger are attached, journalists who at one point in their career had respectability, we are told that these denials in the face of facts are acceptable, and we are the ones who need to "wake up."
I'm not so sure of that.