(no subject)
пару днів назад я давав лінк на статтю в "дейлімейл", де нєкій с позволєнія сказать журналіст писав як українці утискають русскіх і як україну несправедливо відірвали від росії
но єсть і нормальні люди - позавчора автора чучуть висєклі:
(ізвєняюсь шо непонашому)
Peter Hitchens is a forceful, tenacious, eloquent and brave journalist. But one of his weaknesses is a soft spot for big countries, and a blind spot for smaller ones. His recent piece about Ukraine (or more accurately about why Ukraine should belong to Russia) is a dismaying lapse. The main thrust is that Ukraine's language law is absurd and that Crimea is historically Russian. This latter point may come as a surprise to the Crimean Tartars who were deported en masse in 1944. That great crime, and the Tartars' attempts to regain some status in their ancestral homeland, receive not a single mention in Hitchens's piece. It is true that Ukraine's post-independence borders are a mish-mash (much of what he says applies to Odessa too). But his wider and wilder swipes are startlingly wrong.
An example:
Now the creation of a fanciful new country called Ukraine, less than 20 years ago, is running into trouble as many of its inhabitants prefer to be Russian.
It would be nice to see some polling data to support that. (None exists). But it gets worse.
We insisted on humiliating the Kremlin, when Mikhail Gorbachev had kindly dismantled the communist machine. We sponsored annoying mini-states next door to Russia.
Just read that again. First it is insulting to the millions of people who through their own bravery and vision helped overthrow the evil empire. Mr Gorbachev, ducking, weaving and waffling at the top, played a part. But only a part. Then comes the zinger: "annoying mini-states". That must mean among other countries Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, who remerged from communist captivity in 1991 (with, it should be said, the heartfelt and generous support of the then Russian leader, Boris Yeltsin). Mr Hitchens appears to be arguing that they should have stayed inside Russia, volens nolens, and that the West should not have lifted a finger to help them.
It is tempting to give the piece a thorough fisking. But that might be to give it undue weight. The blogger Democratist gives it a bucket of bile. Among his milder comments he calls it:
a badly written, willfully misleading, dangerous apologia for the advancing specter of revanchist Russian imperialism He also suggests that it is part of a wider PR effort to sanitize Russia's image.
в кінці Хітченс там оправдуєцця, шо він хотів зовсім не то сказать, і нічо такого не імєв в віду, і вопше він гєрой, потомушо їздив в румунію в 1989 році.