4 ms·

1. We do not want war. 2. The other side is solely responsible for the war. 3. The enemy has the face of the devil. 4. It is a noble cause that we defend and

by harry8 5y ago

1. We do not want war. 2. The other side is solely responsible for the war. 3. The enemy has the face of the devil. 4. It is a noble cause that we defend and not particular interests. 5. The enemy commits atrocities knowingly; if we make unfortunate mistakes, it is involuntary. 6. The enemy uses unauthorised weapons. 7. We suffer very few losses, while the losses of the enemy are enormous. 8. Artists and intellectuals support our cause. 9. Our cause has a sacred nature. 10. Those who question our statements are traitors. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Basic_Principles_of_War_Propaganda https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Basic_Principles_of_War_... Don't kid yourself that is not happening now, as it did in 1914, 1939, 2003 and countless other times. Noticing its existence is not support for anything at all. Whatever our feelings about it all we should be asking "How is this different to our feelings about how we thought the Iraq and Afghanistan wars would play out and how they actually did?" The stakes are really quite high.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
I'm not sure if this was your intent, but you describe very well what Russia is telling its own people.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mjevans 5y ago
> 1. We do not want war. In 2014 Russia invaded Ukraine, the world did nothing of consequence which emboldened the aggressor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_relations#Annexation_of_Crimea_and_war_in_eastern_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_relatio... > 2. The other side is solely responsible for the war. Aside from good countries and people turning a blind eye and doing nothing; yes. Russia is clearly responsible for the aggression and (presumed guilty in the court of media coverage) warcrimes (yet to be tried and found guilty anywhere; but the gears of law are slow and this official designation will likely happen after the war). > 3. The enemy has the face of the devil. No comment, but I don't think anyone believes the average soldier on either side is this. > 4. It is a noble cause that we defend and not particular interests. As if anyone could ever drop 'particular interests' in any action that could border on the next world war or the deployment of weapons of mass destruction (Russia's nukes). > 5. The enemy commits atrocities knowingly; if we make unfortunate mistakes, it is involuntary. Some occasional error? Maybe mistakes. Repeated attacks on civilian targets? Not mistakes. > 6. The enemy uses unauthorised weapons. We hope not, thus far the really bad ones haven't been covered, at least just yet. > 7. We suffer very few losses, while the losses of the enemy are enormous. We, the general West, have so far not been involved in the fighting. Those who are involved seem to both be taking unfortunate losses. > 8. Artists and intellectuals support our cause. > 9. Our cause has a sacred nature. To make the world a better place with more freedoms and personal liberties, quality and safety of life, and less war-mongering dictators? > 10. Those who question our statements are traitors. Which statements are in question? You and others are all free to do so in the society I live in. While I have heard that laws in Russia have 'consequences' for the dissemination of facts and opinions the government disagrees with. Some of the cases have been light. Many protestors have been arrested though.
- c0nducktr 5y ago
  I don't have the interest or time to go through all of these, (and I many of your comments I don't disagree with) but this one stuck out: > 7. We suffer very few losses, while the losses of the enemy are enormous. Everything I've seen in the media (I live in the USA) has been about how the Ukrainian forces have been absolutely kicking the Russian's asses in this war. The "West" supports Ukraine, so their forces could be consider "our forces". It might be true, might not be, but it would fall in line with these 'Principles of War Propaganda"
  - mjevans 5y ago
    Yes, my "answer" to that question was a specific dodge, which also let me cast the losses on the actively fighting sides in a light I view as morally correct. __all__ of those people fighting in Ukraine right now are unfortunate. Ukrainians for a greedy invasion directed by the elite in a far away land, and the soldiers of that same land who, surely, are getting the worst feed of propaganda of all. None who are injured or dieing have any real say in the outcome. They are all unfortunate people.
astrea 5y ago
I'm sure the people of Iraq and Afghanistan would argue there was an equal amount at stake.
mardifoufs 5y ago
1914 is especially relevant. The world pushed itself into world War for the same reason some people are now advocating for military action against Russia; we have to save the underdog european country of Serbia/Ukraine or else the Austrians/Russians will gain a hegemony over the rest of the Balkans/Eastern europe, plus they wouldn't dare actually going to war against us and they are just bluffing. It's a bit maddening that a NFZ has even been proposed by actually serious people and repeatedly normalized as a harsh but possible choice by journalists and the media. To me, that's so much more dangerous than any "dangerous misinformation" or call for violence that we were so obsessed about suppressing in the past 2 years. The normalization is working, because that there's even a discussion on enforcing a no fly zone over the military of a nuclear power would've been unthinkable even in the depths of the cold war. And the comparisons to ww2/hitler are not helping at all.
- sidibe 5y ago
  > we have to save the underdog european country of Serbia/Ukraine or else the Austrians/Russians will gain a hegemony over the rest of the Balkans/Eastern europe The West isn't actually scared of the threat of Russian hegemony over Ukraine. It's more just that it would be a tragedy for Ukrainians who have been trying since the early 2000's to shake free of them. It's also about solidifying the idea that you don't take over neighbors for imperial reasons. The appeals to "you could be next" aren't really a motivator in all this for any NATO country, but there is a lot of sympathy from liberal democracies for a country trying to become one being invaded by a relic from the past.
  - mardifoufs 5y ago
    I know that our military and state leadership are not really worried about further russian expansion... but amongst the public it's an extremely common argument. There are a few examples of that even in this thread.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Well, what do you think will happen if Russia takes Ukraine? Do you think they will settle back in into a peaceful stance, uninterested in further conflict? That Ukraine is truly the final step in whatever geopolitical strategy they're enacting?

by harry8 5y ago

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

I'm not sure if this was your intent, but you describe very well what Russia is telling its own people.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

mjevans 5y ago

> 1. We do not want war. In 2014 Russia invaded Ukraine, the world did nothing of consequence which emboldened the aggressor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_relations#Annexation_of_Crimea_and_war_in_eastern_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_relatio... > 2. The other side is solely responsible for the war. Aside from good countries and people turning a blind eye and doing nothing; yes. Russia is clearly responsible for the aggression and (presumed guilty in the court of media coverage) warcrimes (yet to be tried and found guilty anywhere; but the gears of law are slow and this official designation will likely happen after the war). > 3. The enemy has the face of the devil. No comment, but I don't think anyone believes the average soldier on either side is this. > 4. It is a noble cause that we defend and not particular interests. As if anyone could ever drop 'particular interests' in any action that could border on the next world war or the deployment of weapons of mass destruction (Russia's nukes). > 5. The enemy commits atrocities knowingly; if we make unfortunate mistakes, it is involuntary. Some occasional error? Maybe mistakes. Repeated attacks on civilian targets? Not mistakes. > 6. The enemy uses unauthorised weapons. We hope not, thus far the really bad ones haven't been covered, at least just yet. > 7. We suffer very few losses, while the losses of the enemy are enormous. We, the general West, have so far not been involved in the fighting. Those who are involved seem to both be taking unfortunate losses. > 8. Artists and intellectuals support our cause. > 9. Our cause has a sacred nature. To make the world a better place with more freedoms and personal liberties, quality and safety of life, and less war-mongering dictators? > 10. Those who question our statements are traitors. Which statements are in question? You and others are all free to do so in the society I live in. While I have heard that laws in Russia have 'consequences' for the dissemination of facts and opinions the government disagrees with. Some of the cases have been light. Many protestors have been arrested though.

c0nducktr 5y ago
I don't have the interest or time to go through all of these, (and I many of your comments I don't disagree with) but this one stuck out: > 7. We suffer very few losses, while the losses of the enemy are enormous. Everything I've seen in the media (I live in the USA) has been about how the Ukrainian forces have been absolutely kicking the Russian's asses in this war. The "West" supports Ukraine, so their forces could be consider "our forces". It might be true, might not be, but it would fall in line with these 'Principles of War Propaganda"
- mjevans 5y ago
  Yes, my "answer" to that question was a specific dodge, which also let me cast the losses on the actively fighting sides in a light I view as morally correct. __all__ of those people fighting in Ukraine right now are unfortunate. Ukrainians for a greedy invasion directed by the elite in a far away land, and the soldiers of that same land who, surely, are getting the worst feed of propaganda of all. None who are injured or dieing have any real say in the outcome. They are all unfortunate people.

astrea 5y ago

I'm sure the people of Iraq and Afghanistan would argue there was an equal amount at stake.

mardifoufs 5y ago

1914 is especially relevant. The world pushed itself into world War for the same reason some people are now advocating for military action against Russia; we have to save the underdog european country of Serbia/Ukraine or else the Austrians/Russians will gain a hegemony over the rest of the Balkans/Eastern europe, plus they wouldn't dare actually going to war against us and they are just bluffing. It's a bit maddening that a NFZ has even been proposed by actually serious people and repeatedly normalized as a harsh but possible choice by journalists and the media. To me, that's so much more dangerous than any "dangerous misinformation" or call for violence that we were so obsessed about suppressing in the past 2 years. The normalization is working, because that there's even a discussion on enforcing a no fly zone over the military of a nuclear power would've been unthinkable even in the depths of the cold war. And the comparisons to ww2/hitler are not helping at all.

sidibe 5y ago
> we have to save the underdog european country of Serbia/Ukraine or else the Austrians/Russians will gain a hegemony over the rest of the Balkans/Eastern europe The West isn't actually scared of the threat of Russian hegemony over Ukraine. It's more just that it would be a tragedy for Ukrainians who have been trying since the early 2000's to shake free of them. It's also about solidifying the idea that you don't take over neighbors for imperial reasons. The appeals to "you could be next" aren't really a motivator in all this for any NATO country, but there is a lot of sympathy from liberal democracies for a country trying to become one being invaded by a relic from the past.
- mardifoufs 5y ago
  I know that our military and state leadership are not really worried about further russian expansion... but amongst the public it's an extremely common argument. There are a few examples of that even in this thread.
ineedasername 5y ago
Well, what do you think will happen if Russia takes Ukraine? Do you think they will settle back in into a peaceful stance, uninterested in further conflict? That Ukraine is truly the final step in whatever geopolitical strategy they're enacting?