Current Event Eportfolio Assignment Samuel Colby 4/23/2014 Humanities 10am Class

On the forefront of the international stage today, the Ukraine crisis glares at the U.N. like a ticking time bomb, waiting for the proper moment to explode. Naturally, this is a widely covered and disputed subject. There are many different opinions on whether there should be intervention, and who should step up to the plate. The U.S.A. was naturally one of the first to stand up for the Ukraine, and Russia was very un-fond of that. Many countries have taken to needling the U.S. of A., saying it needs to stop meddling with other peoples affairs. Others encourage it, saying that something needs to be done about the radical separation and possible civil war impending upon the nation. As it stands currently, Russia has dug in. They have not actually entered the country yet; however, they have massed on the border between the two countries, and seem to be preparing for something big. Within the country itself, major proRussian separatist groups have formed, and begun to take offer key governmental buildings. Ukraine has responded to this measure by saying they will begin Anti-Terrorist actions to attempt to bring the peace and control back. Russia, however, has different plans. Russias foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, says that if its interests in Ukraine are attacked, it will certainly respond. This statement made by Mr. Lavrov was covered by many international news agencies, from CBS to BBC to Aljazeera.

CBS, BBC, and Aljazeera were chosen for this analysis because they provide news to a very wide range of people. They represent three distinct nationalities in news that have a very large influence on national politics. CBS is an American news agency that is generally considered to be somewhat liberal, while BBC is British European, and Aljazeera is founded in Qatar, in the Middle East. I personally gravitated towards the CBS article, partially because it was the most detailed of the reports. I noticed that there were a few differences in the reports, little facts changed, things mentioned, and things unmentioned. CBS was distinctly the most detailed and wordy of the reviews. It contained the most information. It talks a lot about the situation in the Ukraine, and how its a war of propaganda and perception. It never shows any examples of that propaganda, however. Much of the article is about interpreting Mr. Lavrovs intentions, and just how far the Russian administration will go with the conflict. This article makes a strong point to link the U.S.A. and the Ukraine as allies, implying some sort of connection in almost every statement regarding the two. It seems like the CBS article was very sympathetic to the Ukrainians, and portrayed Russia as something resembling a big bully. This article definitively paints Russia as an instigator in the conflict. It claims that Russia has broken the Geneva treaties, and that its separatist para -militaries had kidnapped and killed two people (differing from the two other articles), which sparked the Anti-Terrorism movement from the Ukrainian leaders. It seems that they try very hard to justify every movement that the Ukrainian government seems to be making. This is not done in an overly present way, but they provide some form of excuse or reasoning for each decision made by the Ukrainians. Many times statements are repeated, emphasizing the importance of this conflict. Statements like Ukraine has been engulfed in its biggest political crisis since the

1991 fall of the Soviet Union. (Russian Foreign...) The entire article works into a theory: that Russia is creating unnecessary strife in a nation that should have its own independence. A consistent theme appeared to me as I read through this article. They justified Ukraines efforts, and ensured the people knew of their condemnation towards Russias actions. It exemplified Bidens actions, to offer support to the beleaguered interim government. The BBC Article is an interesting contrast to the CBS counterpart. It borderlines on antiU.S; not blatantly, of course, but it genuinely focuses very strongly on the anti-American feelings surrounding the conflict. Much of the article regarded how the U.S.A. interacted with Putin and his administration, almost posing the Americans as brash and brazen. Of course, from an international perspective, this is the American Stereotype. Other than the anti-American sentiments involved, the BBC focused heavily on the revolution, aggression from the separatists, and internal strife brought on by this turn of events. It possibly signifies that the BBC editors possibly did not agree with the U.S.A.s heavy handed approach to these matters, though they intrinsically believe something should be done. Half of their article is labeled Aggressive rhetoric. This article contains many pictures of men with guns, and quotes from the United States denouncing the pro-Russian separatists, and suspicion as to the veracity of some of the Ukrainian claims. No-one was hurt, it said. The ministry's claim has not yet been independently confirmed; This quote accurately sums up the overall attitude of the BBCs writing. Reporting the statements, but qualifying them. A major difference between the CBS and BBC article is the lack of mention regarding the bodies of those allegedly abducted by the separatists. This is an interesting discrepancy. The BBC article accredits the slow separatist overtaking of Ukraine to the move for Anti-Terrorist measures to be taken; however, they

never mention murder or death in the way the American article did. Several other conflicts were highlighted, such as the brief 2008 war that Russia had with Georgia. The conflict in Georgia is remarkably similar to the one in Ukraine. The BBC article uses this to highlight the possible consequences that Ukraine may be facing. Overall, BBC is somewhat condescending of the approach that the U.S.A. is taking towards Ukraine. They give Russia a bit more say than CBS did. In addition, there was a bit more focus on Ukraines internal strife, rather than that caused by Russia. Aljazeera takes a very in the middle approach. In fact, they seemed remarkably impartial, though they did have predictions and assumptions as to how they assumed this conflict would play out. Aljazeera mentions most of the details in some form or another, but doesnt elaborate on them in the same way that CBS or BBC did. It does heavily emphasize that America and Ukraine are together vs. Russia in this dispute. Aljazeeras facts do tend to align more closely with CBSs, though there are some differences. According to the Aljazeera article, there was only a single dead politician that inspired the Anti-Terrorism acts, rather than two unnamed dead people. In addition, they dont make any sorts of rash statements. Everything is very reserved. They say A deal last signed last week in Geneva is at risk of crumbling as Ukraine and the US continue to trade barbs with Russia, (Ukraine to take) In this statement, they remain neutral, though represent the situation. It is a similar story with several other quotes, saying things such as The agreement has come under trouble, Russia has upper hand in the talks, and will engineer the Ukraine as it wishes. (Ukraine to take) Through these statements, they are analyzing and interpreting the information they see, rather than representing a group, as both of the others tended to do.

In comparison between the three different sources, CBS seems to represent American interests, BBC seems to be more concerned with Ukrainian interests, and Aljazeera seems more concerned with observing and interpreting how everything will play out in the end. Their motives could possibly be related to things we have studied in humanities in several ways: sensationalizing media, radical civil disobedience, and inequality. Sensationalist media and propaganda has been an ever-present entity in media since the earliest days of civilized warfare. Dehumanizing your enemy is the first step to destroying them, and many people are very worried about how this is happening in Ukraine. Several of the articles mention the propaganda war going on, and how its creating an Us vs. Them environment. This relates to several topics discussed in class. Firstly, the purposes of negative propaganda: supposedly, this issue is rampant throughout Ukraine. This negative propaganda serves to dehumanize the enemy, to incite an irrational emotional response. Secondly, it was the first step to genocide a harrowing and intimidating foreshadowing into the future. Radical civil disobedience is nothing new; after all, our nation was founded on it. Rebellion due to civil inequality in various forms has been covered all semester long. An interesting parallel can be drawn: Aljazeera makes a comment that many Russian native Ukrainians felt extraordinarily persecuted due to their heritage. Russian speaking natives claim that they are treated as sub humans. (Ukraine raids) The country as a whole was ripe for conflict. When a 40% of the populace is repressed or discriminated against. It is a direct response to the inequality in a nation. It could be hypothesized as to the differences and similarities between this conflict and the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s. The difference

could perhaps distinct difference in leadership. IE: Martin Luther King leading a campaign of peaceful civil disobedience, verses Vladimir Putins alleged secret instigation of the pro-Russian militants. In conclusion, three different nationalities produced three individual interpretations of one major event. This can be attributed to national feelings considering the entire Ukraine conflict, and overall national bias. The current international perspective feels that America is holding onto cold war bias. (U.S. must acknowledge) Perhaps this is true, but anyone could bet that CBS never mentioned such an idea in their article, while more politically gutsy news entities were easily willing to take that jump. These themes are consistent throughout the nonAmerican new channels. This whole conflict is a prime example of humanities studies. In fact, many of the subjects covered are very pertinent to what the entire Ukraine conflict is all about. Between the propaganda war, inequality, and riotous disobedience, it makes a fantastic, albeit somewhat depressing case-study.

Bibliography-"Russia's foreign minister vows response if citizens attacked in Ukraine." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 23 Apr. 2014. Web. 25 Apr. 2014. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russias-foreignminister-vows-response-if-citizens-attacked-in-ukraine/ "Ukraine to take on 'aggressors' as Russia threatens retaliation | Al Jazeera America." Ukraine to take on 'aggressors' as Russia threatens retaliation. N.p., 23 Apr. 2014. Web. 25 Apr. 2014. <http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/4/23/ukraine-operationeast.html>. "Moscow, Kyiv exchange blame as Ukraine deal falls flat." Moscow, Kyiv exchange blame as Ukraine deal falls flat | Al Jazeera America. N.p., 25 Apr. 2014. Web. 24 Apr. 2014. <http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/4/21/ukraine-crisis-lavrovgeneva.html>. "Russia in new Ukraine attack threat." BBC News. BBC International, 23 Apr. 2014. Web. 25 Apr. 2014. <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27124453>. "Ukraine raids spark war of words." BBC News. BBC International, 24 Apr. 2014. Web. 25 Apr. 2014. <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27152019>. "Ukraine claims city hall in Mariupol cleared of pro-Russia militants, but reality on ground less clear." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 25 Apr. 2014. Web. 25 Apr. 2014. <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-claims-city-hall-in-mariupol-cleared-of-pro-russiamilitants/>. "U.S. must acknowledge Russias strategic interest and cooperate | Al Jazeera America." U.S. must acknowledge Russias strategic interest and cooperate. Aljazeera America, 25 Apr. 2014. Web. 25 Apr. 2014. <http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/4/21/u-s-mustacknowledgerussiasstrategicinterestandworktogether.html>.