Relax. There aren't that many ultranazis in Ukraine, they adopt them across the world.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28329329
http://www.uacrisis.com/mark-paslavsky-american-radical-killed-in-ukraine/
What I got from his words - he loves his country and defends it, but constant stream of propaganda loosened his abilities for critical thinking.
"God exists, no matter if you believe it or not". Got it, you are religious person, and I'm not going to teach you critical thinking.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/female-editors-of-le-monde-and-the-new-york-times-spiked-in-a-single-day-9372053.html
And I wouldn't link you news about James Foley.
Work of journalist is dangerous and many of them were killed in the war of oligarchs, which occurred in Russia during 90th.
Problem with Ukrainian Nazis is not the existence - they are everywhere, problem lies in the attempt to legalize them. USA offered money to Right sector so they would form political party, now they are legalized as police force.
http://www.uacrisis.com/us-offered-to-finance-right-sector/
http://www.trust.ua/news/92059-bojcy-pravogo-sektora-snimut-maski-i-obzavedutsya-udostovereniyami.html

Why do you say those two women were fired because they allowed pro rebels (and that's a stretch. English at least article hardly is anti western. ) articles to show up on their websites? I don't get the connection.

And I wasn't talking about war journalist losing their life.
I'm talking journalist losing their life in home country. Plenty of examples with russia more than just coincidence. Not many really in the west

Oh please, not the government, but the corporations and lobbies that influence (edit:as in "pay") the government. Turns out the editors of the major german newspapers are members in the most important NATO lobbies. Now who's suprised about what they report and what they omit?

First article shows that militants don't have Russian government support and many of them aren't Russian at all, which contradicts general line of US government that there are millions of terrorists on the East, which are GRU in disguise.
Second article simply says that despite hysteria in press, France is going to work with Russia, middle finger to US.
And then both redactors decided that they want to spend more time with kids. Simultaneously.

There were wars in Russia. When USSR, which didn't allow private ownership, crumbled, people, which wanted to own profitable plants and mines arisen. They fought to death, had private armies of mobsters(with generals getting pompous funerals http://imgur.com/gallery/CcyXm ), used journalists as media cannon fodder and so on. There were rumours about usage of tanks and military helicopters by corrupt generals.
West has these wars in Middle ages, now you don't question property of families like Rothschild.

Wow, "When USSR, which didn't allow private ownership, crumbled, people, which wanted to own profitable plants and mines arisen" is indeed a perfect peak summary of 2 pages of pure ignorance and lunacy above.

You couldn't be more wrong, but it's funny seeing you claiming critical thinking, yet accepting almost every bit from russian medias in a rather.... uncritical way. This all despite your claims all media being bought.

I definitely can be more wrong. I can believe that militants bomb themselves, though UN confirmed that official Kiev does this. I can believe that banning TV channels in Ukraine is a big step to democracy.
If militants did thing at least somewhat similar to this http://www.uacrisis.com/ukrainian-soldier-killed-while-trying-to-rape-underage-girl/ you would've expected to hit it front pages in all papers. (I don't exclude possibility that this is made-up story, but knowing that this is commander from Maydan...) But no. Nothing.
Only word diarrhoea "terrorists terrorists terrorists" with no proofs of terror.

You see, when you're linking to sites with subjects like "French and Spanish volunteers joined self-defense forces against neo-Nazi radicals and Ukr army" in the news it doesn't prove your point at all and makes all other news at that site rather questionable.
In fact, you haven't proved any of your points at all during whole topic, while blaming me, DarzaR and others in being blinded by propaganda, while, at the same time, making rather idiotic claims based on russian propaganda and shady sites which i haven't stumbled upon at all at first few pages on google, which kind of makes me think that you're specifically trying to find only sites that agree with your idea of facts instead of comparing different sources to make your own mind.
It's ok to love your country and try to justify every shit government does - it's your home after all, just don't be stupid about it.

Its really funny Putin now calling Ukrainian people Nazis and talking about Ukrainian army as Wehrmacht. He seems to be getting as insane as Stalin was at the end. Well at least all the western states now recognize this as war. Or as polish foreign minister said today:

Quote:
"If it looks like a war and it sounds like a war and there are dead people like in a war then it is a War." - by Radoslav Sikorski Polish foreign minister.

Собака лает, караван идёт, батальоны варятся в котлах.
Кстати, информация о сбежавших станках таки правда - частники переехали. http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=1923359

Time would prove. I don't have monopoly for truth, some info I have can be wrong.
About you - simple logic - western media parrots everything official Kiev says, Russian media is "all lie" , so how credible your sources? "We made up these news, and NYT posted them, so this is truth now!"
Darzar, as I understand - is one of these people which blame their faults on their surrounding. Don't care about him.
Who else? Siannah? Western media says that western media is free. Hallelujah!
Can't disprove? Call opponent stupid, right?

About you - simple logic - russian media parrots everything the Kreml says, western media is "all lie", so how credible are your sources?

To answer your question: most western (or better: non-russian) medias aren't controlled by their government and therefor more credible. Note, that I'm not claiming each and everyone of them to be unbiased. But from the mixture of them, one can actually form their own opinions while governmental controlled only allow one opinion - the one the government wants.

They are incredible.
Puns aside, I see 2 points of view in press:
1. There are millions of terrorists which don't do terror actions and bomb themselves
2. People revolted against government, which took power as a result of revolt and experience bombing from officials. UN made a report today that official Kiev do sucks.
Go figure.

off
"Darzar, as I understand - is one of these people which blame their faults on their surrounding. "
Not of any importance, but any help from English speakers in decyphering ^ is appreciated.

I've seen the report and yes, there are claims brought up against the Ukrainian army. However, did it slipped your critical mind how the very same report distinguishes between the "Ukrainian forces" and "armed groups"? Or did you missed that intentionally?

The following quote:
" a wide array of serious human rights abuses committed primarily by the armed groups who have seized control over a large part of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in eastern Ukraine since mid-April. It also documents violations committed by Ukrainian forces in their efforts to recapture territory, from which armed groups are conducting operations and in which they have located military objectives. "
leaves little to none interpretation about who those "armed groups" are. And no, not the Ukrainian army - just in case your critical mind plays tricks on you. Again.

Source

Well, actually the data from this topic could be used in some work on some paper on statistics (ofc not exclusively, just as one of the sources, nothing too special here), showing what the less a contributor is able in logic, in work with sources, or simply in coherent speak - the more likely is what he\she would "support the Russia cause". But again, its of no any news, and there is enough data for such hypothetical paper from the given source already present. Also, when one is dragging himself into a discussion with non-coherent contributor, it could be seen as either his\her own inability to tell one from another (i.e. incompetence), or as his\her intentional decision to see a non-coherent interlocutor as eligible one, equal to coherent ones in purpose of conversation (i.e. abusive to other contributors). Thats my last one on a given subject.