3 ms·

Open Letter: IEEE Spectrum editors apparently fell for Russian propaganda

8 points by thesephist 5y ago

Georgelemental 5y ago
It's precisely when the stakes are highest, when passions are the most inflamed, and when the divide seems unbridgeable that we need to consider the other side's perspective. Not publishing the Russian point of view won't stop Russians from having that point of view, it will just play into the propaganda that the Russian state is a victim and everyone is out to get them. Reaching out and engaging with individuals on the other side is the only way to stop the madness of war.
- eesmith 5y ago
  In this specific case of the IEEE, the Russian commenter says “I believe that no one knows what is really happening. We see some facts, which look quite realistic, followed by numerous very questionable interpretations.”, “I can’t imagine that our country can be an aggressor”, and “there has to be another explanation of what we see in Ukraine today” Are these true? You tell me - is the interpretation that Russian should not have invaded Ukraine, and that the world should support Ukrainian sovereignty "questionable" in any serious sense? Historically speaking, which wars would have been stopped had your policy been in place? Would either of the two world wars been stopped? How much more consideration would we need for Germany's perspective on Lebensraum as a justification for territorial expansionism and genocide? Would the American Civil War have stopped if the South better understood the North's position regarding slavery, or vice versa? Would the British have NOT gone to war with the Falklands if they had just listened more to the Argentinian's long-held land claims and the junta's need "to mobilise the long-standing patriotic feelings of Argentines towards the islands, diverting public attention from the chronic economic problems and the ongoing human rights violations of its Dirty War,[19] bolstering the junta's dwindling legitimacy"? (Quoting Wikipedia.) Also, when you write "other side's perspective", who gets the right to decide that perspective? Why Gorbunov and no mention of the the 8,000 Russian scientists who have spoken against the war? The US claims they invaded Iraq because of Iraqi nuclear weapons, despite the IAEA findind "no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq". The US even presented "evidence" to the UN Security Council - much of what was latter shown to be wrong. Yet presenting that false propaganda increased world-wide support for war. Just like false propaganda can dissuade support for the defense of Ukraine. Don't trust FUD arguments.
  - Georgelemental 5y ago
    The war in Ukraine might had been been prevented if the West had made more serious efforts towards defusing the situation (like actually implementing Minsk II, for example). Instead, we let the shelling continue, allowed Azov to grow in influence, refused to budge on Ukraine joining NATO, etc. Saying "but that doesn't morally justify Russia's invasion" doesn't negate our responsibility to not do things that make war more likely. World War II might have never happened if the Allies hadn't imposed devastating reparations on Germany post World War I. The reparations destroyed the German middle class, leading to huge resentment and anger which Hitler used to justify and support his evil We'll never know the answer to the "what ifs". But it doesn't hurt to try to not repeat the same mistakes again

8 points by thesephist 5y ago

It's precisely when the stakes are highest, when passions are the most inflamed, and when the divide seems unbridgeable that we need to consider the other side's perspective. Not publishing the Russian point of view won't stop Russians from having that point of view, it will just play into the propaganda that the Russian state is a victim and everyone is out to get them. Reaching out and engaging with individuals on the other side is the only way to stop the madness of war.

eesmith 5y ago
In this specific case of the IEEE, the Russian commenter says “I believe that no one knows what is really happening. We see some facts, which look quite realistic, followed by numerous very questionable interpretations.”, “I can’t imagine that our country can be an aggressor”, and “there has to be another explanation of what we see in Ukraine today” Are these true? You tell me - is the interpretation that Russian should not have invaded Ukraine, and that the world should support Ukrainian sovereignty "questionable" in any serious sense? Historically speaking, which wars would have been stopped had your policy been in place? Would either of the two world wars been stopped? How much more consideration would we need for Germany's perspective on Lebensraum as a justification for territorial expansionism and genocide? Would the American Civil War have stopped if the South better understood the North's position regarding slavery, or vice versa? Would the British have NOT gone to war with the Falklands if they had just listened more to the Argentinian's long-held land claims and the junta's need "to mobilise the long-standing patriotic feelings of Argentines towards the islands, diverting public attention from the chronic economic problems and the ongoing human rights violations of its Dirty War,[19] bolstering the junta's dwindling legitimacy"? (Quoting Wikipedia.) Also, when you write "other side's perspective", who gets the right to decide that perspective? Why Gorbunov and no mention of the the 8,000 Russian scientists who have spoken against the war? The US claims they invaded Iraq because of Iraqi nuclear weapons, despite the IAEA findind "no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq". The US even presented "evidence" to the UN Security Council - much of what was latter shown to be wrong. Yet presenting that false propaganda increased world-wide support for war. Just like false propaganda can dissuade support for the defense of Ukraine. Don't trust FUD arguments.
- Georgelemental 5y ago
  The war in Ukraine might had been been prevented if the West had made more serious efforts towards defusing the situation (like actually implementing Minsk II, for example). Instead, we let the shelling continue, allowed Azov to grow in influence, refused to budge on Ukraine joining NATO, etc. Saying "but that doesn't morally justify Russia's invasion" doesn't negate our responsibility to not do things that make war more likely. World War II might have never happened if the Allies hadn't imposed devastating reparations on Germany post World War I. The reparations destroyed the German middle class, leading to huge resentment and anger which Hitler used to justify and support his evil We'll never know the answer to the "what ifs". But it doesn't hurt to try to not repeat the same mistakes again