Spats between the US and Russia over Ukraine Flood Weibo
Once again, Russia’s views on Ukraine separatism go beyond the Russian and U.S. media.
On the afternoon of Mar. 9, a representative for the Russian Embassy in China sent eight consecutive messages via Sina’s Weibo microblogging site, blasting previous criticisms from Washington over the state of affairs in Ukraine. A reporter for the First Financial Daily, while checking the authority of the individual posting on the Russian Embassy’s Weibo account, noted that the eight messages took only 10 minutes to catch the attention of Chinese netizens. Thereafter, subsequent forwarding and comments took the issue past the number three position on Weibo. Some comments and forwarded messages on this issue via Weibo exceeded 2,000 in number.
Sina news also reported that U.S. President Obama would meet with Ukrainian Interim Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk in Washington on Wednesday to discuss the issues surrounding the Ukraine situation. Yatsenyuk claims he will visit the U.S. to take part in “highest level talks to solve the Ukraine crisis.”
U.S. and Russian Networks Ablaze with Fiery Speech
Since Mar. 5, both the U.S. and Russia have been drawing support from angry sentiments across new media sources. On the 5th, the U.S. Department of State posted an article on its website outlining the 10 major false statements that Russian President Vladimir Putin had made at a recent media conference. At that media, conference on Mar. 4, Putin had firstly spoke out in response to recent changes within the Ukraine situation. Putin had claimed that the Russian military presence in Crimea was merely for the protection of Russian military assets, and that the military assets and equipment in Crimea were not Russian army, but merely “Public Security Forces.” But in their retort to this, U.S. officials claimed to have extremely strong evidence that members of the Russian military forces in the region were from a specially created unit that was formed to oppose any Ukrainian opposition. Putin had also claimed that the opposition forces were not abiding with agreements made by Viktor Yanukovych on Feb. 21. The U.S. claimed that Yanukovych had not only refused to fulfill the completion of the agreement, but he had also fled Kiev and left behind evidence of mass corruption. Putin also refused to recognize the legitimacy of the interim Ukraine government, and said he still considered Yanukovych to be the legitimate president of the country. Washington stated that it already acknowledged the 82 percent-plus voter support for the new government, and was looking forward to the new election on May 25.
Then, on Mar. 9, the Russian Embassy in China’s homepage took the initiative, posting an opinion piece by foreign ministry spokesperson Lukashevich. In his opinion piece, Lukashevich criticized the article posted on the U.S. Department of State’s website that “distorted” the Ukraine situation, and claimed it was a “double standard” on Washington’s part. He also took to Weibo, divulging the content of his article through the service.
From Lukashevich’s standpoint, the U.S. State Department was disregarding the present situation in Ukraine when attempting to decipher the events unfolding there. Lukashevich believed that Washington would certainly not admit it had fuelled the violent protests in Kiev square, that it also had helped instigate the violent overthrow of the legitimate government and that it was now helping to pave the way to power for the group in Kiev that was pretending to be the legitimate government. Moreover, Lukashevich also cited a previous historical example where the U.S. protected itself with excuses when a nation was in a state of regional conflict, how it got involved with that other country’s affairs, denounced itself for going well beyond its national borders and then finally, in response to an as yet non-existing threat to its own national security, called in the military to solve the issue.
Lukashevich’s harsh conclusion was that Russia disdained arguing in response to any future rhetoric from the White House, stating that “it’s evident that Washington, as always, cannot understand those events that don’t conform to the U.S. model.” Washington is unable to restrain itself; it refuses to accept that things don’t always turn out the way it wants them to. The U.S. forces its ideologies on all those around them, and it has grown comfortable playing the role of the double-talking “big man of the law.”
Russia Desires “Equal” Dialogues with the West
On Mar. 8, U.S. President Obama, along with UK Prime Minister David Cameron, French President Francois Hollande and a number of other European representatives, held a teleconference over the Ukraine situation. They pressed Russia to withdraw its troops stationed near Crimea, but Russia responded with a firm denial that troops stationed near Crimea were “acting outside agreements.” Russia also stated that it sought equal footing in dialogues with the West.
At the same time, G7 leaders pressured Russia to withdraw the armed forces it had sent into the Crimea region around the end of February and to permit international observers and human rights watchdogs into the area. Furthermore, the G7 insisted that Russia quickly establish a relations team to hold talks with Ukraine, help relieve the emergency situation in the region and return political autonomy to Ukrainian leadership. The G7 warned that, if Russia could not fulfill these terms to the satisfaction of the U.S. and EU coalition, both the United States and Europe would intensify existing economic sanctions against Russia.
On Mar. 7, Obama discussed the Ukraine situation with German Chancellor Angela Merkel via telephone. That same day, Russian presidential spokesperson Dmitry Peskov held an exclusive interview with Russian National Television. In the interview, Peskov stated that he didn’t think a new Cold War had started and that he didn’t believe that one would. He said that, even though Russia and the West differed strongly on the Ukraine situation, both sides held hopes that mutual points for agreement on settling the Ukraine situation could be reached through dialogue.
On the afternoon of Mar. 9, a representative for the Russian Embassy in China sent eight consecutive messages via Sina’s Weibo microblogging site, blasting previous criticisms from Washington over the state of affairs in Ukraine. A reporter for the First Financial Daily, while checking the authority of the individual posting on the Russian Embassy’s Weibo account, noted that the eight messages took only 10 minutes to catch the attention of Chinese netizens. Thereafter, subsequent forwarding and comments took the issue past the number three position on Weibo. Some comments and forwarded messages on this issue via Weibo exceeded 2,000 in number.
Sina news also reported that U.S. President Obama would meet with Ukrainian Interim Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk in Washington on Wednesday to discuss the issues surrounding the Ukraine situation. Yatsenyuk claims he will visit the U.S. to take part in “highest level talks to solve the Ukraine crisis.”
U.S. and Russian Networks Ablaze with Fiery Speech
Since Mar. 5, both the U.S. and Russia have been drawing support from angry sentiments across new media sources. On the 5th, the U.S. Department of State posted an article on its website outlining the 10 major false statements that Russian President Vladimir Putin had made at a recent media conference. At that media, conference on Mar. 4, Putin had firstly spoke out in response to recent changes within the Ukraine situation. Putin had claimed that the Russian military presence in Crimea was merely for the protection of Russian military assets, and that the military assets and equipment in Crimea were not Russian army, but merely “Public Security Forces.” But in their retort to this, U.S. officials claimed to have extremely strong evidence that members of the Russian military forces in the region were from a specially created unit that was formed to oppose any Ukrainian opposition. Putin had also claimed that the opposition forces were not abiding with agreements made by Viktor Yanukovych on Feb. 21. The U.S. claimed that Yanukovych had not only refused to fulfill the completion of the agreement, but he had also fled Kiev and left behind evidence of mass corruption. Putin also refused to recognize the legitimacy of the interim Ukraine government, and said he still considered Yanukovych to be the legitimate president of the country. Washington stated that it already acknowledged the 82 percent-plus voter support for the new government, and was looking forward to the new election on May 25.
Then, on Mar. 9, the Russian Embassy in China’s homepage took the initiative, posting an opinion piece by foreign ministry spokesperson Lukashevich. In his opinion piece, Lukashevich criticized the article posted on the U.S. Department of State’s website that “distorted” the Ukraine situation, and claimed it was a “double standard” on Washington’s part. He also took to Weibo, divulging the content of his article through the service.
From Lukashevich’s standpoint, the U.S. State Department was disregarding the present situation in Ukraine when attempting to decipher the events unfolding there. Lukashevich believed that Washington would certainly not admit it had fuelled the violent protests in Kiev square, that it also had helped instigate the violent overthrow of the legitimate government and that it was now helping to pave the way to power for the group in Kiev that was pretending to be the legitimate government. Moreover, Lukashevich also cited a previous historical example where the U.S. protected itself with excuses when a nation was in a state of regional conflict, how it got involved with that other country’s affairs, denounced itself for going well beyond its national borders and then finally, in response to an as yet non-existing threat to its own national security, called in the military to solve the issue.
Lukashevich’s harsh conclusion was that Russia disdained arguing in response to any future rhetoric from the White House, stating that “it’s evident that Washington, as always, cannot understand those events that don’t conform to the U.S. model.” Washington is unable to restrain itself; it refuses to accept that things don’t always turn out the way it wants them to. The U.S. forces its ideologies on all those around them, and it has grown comfortable playing the role of the double-talking “big man of the law.”
Russia Desires “Equal” Dialogues with the West
On Mar. 8, U.S. President Obama, along with UK Prime Minister David Cameron, French President Francois Hollande and a number of other European representatives, held a teleconference over the Ukraine situation. They pressed Russia to withdraw its troops stationed near Crimea, but Russia responded with a firm denial that troops stationed near Crimea were “acting outside agreements.” Russia also stated that it sought equal footing in dialogues with the West.
At the same time, G7 leaders pressured Russia to withdraw the armed forces it had sent into the Crimea region around the end of February and to permit international observers and human rights watchdogs into the area. Furthermore, the G7 insisted that Russia quickly establish a relations team to hold talks with Ukraine, help relieve the emergency situation in the region and return political autonomy to Ukrainian leadership. The G7 warned that, if Russia could not fulfill these terms to the satisfaction of the U.S. and EU coalition, both the United States and Europe would intensify existing economic sanctions against Russia.
On Mar. 7, Obama discussed the Ukraine situation with German Chancellor Angela Merkel via telephone. That same day, Russian presidential spokesperson Dmitry Peskov held an exclusive interview with Russian National Television. In the interview, Peskov stated that he didn’t think a new Cold War had started and that he didn’t believe that one would. He said that, even though Russia and the West differed strongly on the Ukraine situation, both sides held hopes that mutual points for agreement on settling the Ukraine situation could be reached through dialogue.