Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Ukraine on Fire (2016 film)" in English language version.
In addition to Putin, Stone interviews former President Viktor Yanukovych and Minister of Internal Affairs, Vitaliy Zakharchenko, who explain how the U.S. Ambassador and factions in Washington actively plotted for regime change.
But this reconstruction lacks something, and that lack penalizes our understanding. We see no mention of Golodomor, the genocidal famine Stalin imposed on the country in the 1930s, killing millions of Ukrainians. There's no mention of Stalin's collectivization of lands, nor his persecution of religion. These oversights make it hard to understand why the Nazis were welcomed as liberators. They weren't welcomed because the Ukrainians were Nazis too, but because the population was desperate for salvation.
But this reconstruction lacks something, and that lack penalizes our understanding. We see no mention of Golodomor, the genocidal famine Stalin imposed on the country in the 1930s, killing millions of Ukrainians. There's no mention of Stalin's collectivization of lands, nor his persecution of religion. These oversights make it hard to understand why the Nazis were welcomed as liberators. They weren't welcomed because the Ukrainians were Nazis too, but because the population was desperate for salvation.
Damit bedient er ein klassisches Propaganda-Narrativ des Kremls[In doing so, he is using a classic Kremlin propaganda narrative]
Oleh Tyahynbok is the only one of the three who has actually resorted to xenophobia and anti-Semitic rhetoric. But after the Maidan revolution he lost most of the seats in parliament that his party had, including his own.
Oleh Tyahynbok is the only one of the three who has actually resorted to xenophobia and anti-Semitic rhetoric. But after the Maidan revolution he lost most of the seats in parliament that his party had, including his own.
On his Facebook page, Oliver Stone stated at the end of 2014 that Yanukovytsh's resignation was actually a coup, directed by the CIA and therefore the United States. According to Stone, the Western press is withholding the facts that prove American involvement.
Do you really believe Mr. Stone that in any of the great events in world history during the past centuries the intelligence services and spies of the great powers of the time were not involved? Simply noting this fact in isolation from all other events leads either to apologetics or conspiracy theories.
As Oliver Stone admits, the project aims to inform a Western world very often trapped by biased and distorted information flows from media.
Sono queste le keywords del docufilm di Igor Lopatonok e Oliver Stone che nella mattinata di ieri hanno presentato in anteprima nazionale 'Ukraine on Fire'.
Because YouTube removed Oliver Stone's documentary "Ukraine On Fire," which tells the story of the 2014 Euromaidan protests from a Russian point of view, I watched it last night on Rumble. A few years ago, I had tried to watch Stone's 2017 interviews with Putin, broadcast on Showtime, but turned them off because it was obvious that Stone was enamored of his subject, and was not interested in asking hard questions. I expected "Ukraine On Fire" to be propaganda, and indeed it was. But that doesn't mean it is entirely a lie, and in any case, it's important to know how the other side regards a conflict, if only to understand how they are likely thinking.
Reporter Sharyl Attkisson claimed that according to "recent experience," censorship will only serve to "[elevate] its importance and relevance."
Do you really believe Mr. Stone that in any of the great events in world history during the past centuries the intelligence services and spies of the great powers of the time were not involved? Simply noting this fact in isolation from all other events leads either to apologetics or conspiracy theories.
