7 ms·

Whenever I read articles like this, I can't help but feel that I'm being sold a narrative of some sort. It's hard to filter through all the noise...

by lprd 4y ago

lin83 4y ago
You probably are. Everyone wants to spin things for there own benefit. However I think it's mostly in the interest of the aggressor to keep people lost in arm-chair debating about global powers by manufacturing suspicion of critical voices and fueling competing narratives, as it leaves them free to reshape the world through violence. As a European who campaigned against the Iraq and other wars, whatever the propoganda we are being sold is, for me it doesn't change the reality that millions of Ukraines are now refugees fleeing to my country and 10,000s have been murdered in cold blood.
1337shadow 4y ago
Because it's what they are doing all along. Example: > Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine to force it to renounce the West and to submit to the Kremlin I wonder what's their source, based on Putin's declarations this should be: > Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine to force it to renounce the West and to remain neutral because it's located between the west and russia and because the west promised it https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-is-vladimir-putin-right-a-bf318d2c-7aeb-4b59-8d5f-1d8c94e1964d https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-e...
- astine 4y ago
  Based on Russian state propoganda and Putins own words, the motive for the invasion is Russian nationalism. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240
kkfx 4y ago
When you read about local episodes, like a single bombing event, there is not much to filter: such small scale details are unknowable by the public, you can only know a bit if you were there or have someone you trust in place. Large scale things on contrary are far easier to spot, at least at a certain scale and at a certain extent. For instance when we keep reading "the Russian bombing hospitals, theaters and schools" it's evidently propaganda not because "Russians are good" vs "Russians are bad" but because missiles&co are not that cheap nor that abundant so an error can always happen, but normally no one army in the world waste ammo for nothing and as a result if those bombing are true then means Ukrainian army choose to violate Geneva conventions recycling hospitals, theaters, schools etc for military purposes and than as a result for the other side they became legit targets. But as always people at scale do not like to reason, prefer being fed with emotions. With similar simple reasoning following the classic Latin cui prodest we can easy conclude that this war is needed by USA and UK élites against the EU, Ukraine and Russian interest. Unfortunately for those élites that move means pushing Russia toward China witch is less weak alone than Russia and far more important with Russian natural resources and a far augmented military tech transfer from Russia China will arrive in few years to have enough military capacity to counter USA and UK together. Those élites play the same game they have played with nazi Germany, counting on similar outcome, of course as back then against their own citizens interests. On the other side Russia need safety at their western borders, for them nazis are ok-ish if on their side, not ok if on NATO side, so they haven't really choice but go to war. China needs stability to keep growing, as any dictatorship that need to grow, but also to sustain it's population. There is no morale on all sides, just mix of interests, some legit some criminal, and different school of thoughts confronting.
- trhway 4y ago
  >because missiles&co are not that cheap nor that abundant Russia is mostly using in Ukraine (like before in Syria) dirt cheap unguided WWII style bombs, like FAB-250 (550lb) and FAB-500 (1100lb). > if those bombing are true then means Ukrainian army choose to violate Geneva conventions recycling hospitals, theaters, schools etc for military purposes and than as a result for the other side they became legit targets. You forgot to update your Russian propaganda version to spread. For example Russia hitting the Mariupol hospital because there supposedly was an Ukrainian army command center is the old version of their propaganda. Now they tell that they didn't hit the hospital, and that there were no Ukrainian military there, and it was just a real hospital which Ukrainians intentionally blown up.
- kergonath 4y ago
  > Large scale things on contrary are far easier to spot, at least at a certain scale and at a certain extent. For instance when we keep reading "the Russian bombing hospitals, theaters and schools" it's evidently propaganda not because "Russians are good" vs "Russians are bad" but because missiles&co are not that cheap nor that abundant so an error can always happen, but normally no one army in the world waste ammo for nothing and as a result if those bombing are true then means Ukrainian army choose to violate Geneva conventions recycling hospitals, theaters, schools etc for military purposes and than as a result for the other side they became legit targets. This is disingenuous. Russia has a long history of bombing civilians as a psychological weapon. Both Grozny and Aleppo are well documented. Your arguments “the Russians are not stupid, so if they seem to be doing stupid, then it’s propaganda” rests on very faulty premises. They are not stupid, and are deliberately targeting civilian populations. We know their doctrine and we have seen their playbook. You are only carrying water here and your rhetorics are obvious. > With similar simple reasoning following the classic Latin cui prodest we can easy conclude that this war is needed by USA and UK élites against the EU, Ukraine and Russian interest. This is an interesting conspiracy theory. > On the other side Russia need safety at their western borders, for them nazis are ok-ish if on their side, not ok if on NATO side, so they haven't really choice but go to war. Come off it. NATO is an existential threat to Russia only if Russia’s existence depends on being able to invade its neighbours. The fact that its former satellites ran to the West at the moment they got the chance is telling. If they wanted stability, they’d have increased cooperation instead of rattling their metaphorical sabre for 20 years. NATO was not more menacing 2 months ago than it was 20 years ago, quite the contrary. It was desegregating before being reinvigorated by this stupid, pointless agression. Finland and Sweden applying was unimaginable just a couple of weeks ago. If stability was the point, a hot war was the absolute last thing to do. Also, is there any evidence, even circumstantial, that Ukraine has a significantly larger nazi relative population compared to any surrounding country? Its government is just as incompetent and corrupt as you’d expect given the context. Where are their nazi policies? You seem to be making a lot of effort to sound reasonable, but ultimately
jdrc 4y ago
It depends on where you re reading from. For americans, it seems the war is becoming more of a partisan issue, but for europeans it's much more clear cut, as many of them have memories of the same things happening a few decades ago.
- alienicecream 4y ago
  Memories from a few decades ago? Are you talking about the bombing of Serbia by NATO?
  - jdrc 4y ago
    soviet invasions
Cthulhu_ 4y ago
Not participating / letting it just go past you until the smoke clears is, in your case, an option as well; you don't HAVE to pick a side if you don't feel like you're adequately informed, or you don't trust the media or the 'side' said media mostly reports on. One example; A Russian warship has sunk. This has been confirmed by the Russians, so that part is a fact. However, while the Ukranian side claims it was done by Ukranian anti-ship cruise missiles, the Russians claim it was "just" a fire / incident on board. I mean personally am more likely to believe the side that isn't the aggressor and isn't run by an authoritarian person / government, but the news I follow didn't make any calls themselves; they just reported what the one AND the other side claimed, plus the facts (yesterday of a Russian warship being on fire, today of it having sank).
- jacquesm 4y ago
  Good example. The part where it gets interesting: the Ukrainians claimed the hit before the Russians reluctantly admitted to 'the fire' and the vessel was well over the horizon.
- alienicecream 4y ago
  The Ukrainians have made numerous false claims so far in this war. That would be evidence weighing against your heuristic.
  - procgen 4y ago
    If you had told me two months ago that the Russian navy would be so incompetent as to lose their flagship to the bottom of the Black Sea, I would not have believed you. Now it seems that further humiliations are not only possible, but probable.
    - alienicecream 4y ago
      They lost a nuclear sub during a training exercise due to a faulty weld on a torpedo, I'm not sure why this would be so out of the realm of possibility.

Whenever I read articles like this, I can't help but feel that I'm being sold a narrative of some sort. It's hard to filter through all the noise...

by lprd 4y ago

Whenever I read articles like this, I can't help but feel that I'm being sold a narrative of some sort. It's hard to filter through all the noise...

lin83 4y ago

You probably are. Everyone wants to spin things for there own benefit. However I think it's mostly in the interest of the aggressor to keep people lost in arm-chair debating about global powers by manufacturing suspicion of critical voices and fueling competing narratives, as it leaves them free to reshape the world through violence. As a European who campaigned against the Iraq and other wars, whatever the propoganda we are being sold is, for me it doesn't change the reality that millions of Ukraines are now refugees fleeing to my country and 10,000s have been murdered in cold blood.

1337shadow 4y ago

Because it's what they are doing all along. Example: > Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine to force it to renounce the West and to submit to the Kremlin I wonder what's their source, based on Putin's declarations this should be: > Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine to force it to renounce the West and to remain neutral because it's located between the west and russia and because the west promised it https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-is-vladimir-putin-right-a-bf318d2c-7aeb-4b59-8d5f-1d8c94e1964d https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-e...

astine 4y ago
Based on Russian state propoganda and Putins own words, the motive for the invasion is Russian nationalism. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240

kkfx 4y ago

When you read about local episodes, like a single bombing event, there is not much to filter: such small scale details are unknowable by the public, you can only know a bit if you were there or have someone you trust in place. Large scale things on contrary are far easier to spot, at least at a certain scale and at a certain extent. For instance when we keep reading "the Russian bombing hospitals, theaters and schools" it's evidently propaganda not because "Russians are good" vs "Russians are bad" but because missiles&co are not that cheap nor that abundant so an error can always happen, but normally no one army in the world waste ammo for nothing and as a result if those bombing are true then means Ukrainian army choose to violate Geneva conventions recycling hospitals, theaters, schools etc for military purposes and than as a result for the other side they became legit targets. But as always people at scale do not like to reason, prefer being fed with emotions. With similar simple reasoning following the classic Latin cui prodest we can easy conclude that this war is needed by USA and UK élites against the EU, Ukraine and Russian interest. Unfortunately for those élites that move means pushing Russia toward China witch is less weak alone than Russia and far more important with Russian natural resources and a far augmented military tech transfer from Russia China will arrive in few years to have enough military capacity to counter USA and UK together. Those élites play the same game they have played with nazi Germany, counting on similar outcome, of course as back then against their own citizens interests. On the other side Russia need safety at their western borders, for them nazis are ok-ish if on their side, not ok if on NATO side, so they haven't really choice but go to war. China needs stability to keep growing, as any dictatorship that need to grow, but also to sustain it's population. There is no morale on all sides, just mix of interests, some legit some criminal, and different school of thoughts confronting.

trhway 4y ago
>because missiles&co are not that cheap nor that abundant Russia is mostly using in Ukraine (like before in Syria) dirt cheap unguided WWII style bombs, like FAB-250 (550lb) and FAB-500 (1100lb). > if those bombing are true then means Ukrainian army choose to violate Geneva conventions recycling hospitals, theaters, schools etc for military purposes and than as a result for the other side they became legit targets. You forgot to update your Russian propaganda version to spread. For example Russia hitting the Mariupol hospital because there supposedly was an Ukrainian army command center is the old version of their propaganda. Now they tell that they didn't hit the hospital, and that there were no Ukrainian military there, and it was just a real hospital which Ukrainians intentionally blown up.
kergonath 4y ago
> Large scale things on contrary are far easier to spot, at least at a certain scale and at a certain extent. For instance when we keep reading "the Russian bombing hospitals, theaters and schools" it's evidently propaganda not because "Russians are good" vs "Russians are bad" but because missiles&co are not that cheap nor that abundant so an error can always happen, but normally no one army in the world waste ammo for nothing and as a result if those bombing are true then means Ukrainian army choose to violate Geneva conventions recycling hospitals, theaters, schools etc for military purposes and than as a result for the other side they became legit targets. This is disingenuous. Russia has a long history of bombing civilians as a psychological weapon. Both Grozny and Aleppo are well documented. Your arguments “the Russians are not stupid, so if they seem to be doing stupid, then it’s propaganda” rests on very faulty premises. They are not stupid, and are deliberately targeting civilian populations. We know their doctrine and we have seen their playbook. You are only carrying water here and your rhetorics are obvious. > With similar simple reasoning following the classic Latin cui prodest we can easy conclude that this war is needed by USA and UK élites against the EU, Ukraine and Russian interest. This is an interesting conspiracy theory. > On the other side Russia need safety at their western borders, for them nazis are ok-ish if on their side, not ok if on NATO side, so they haven't really choice but go to war. Come off it. NATO is an existential threat to Russia only if Russia’s existence depends on being able to invade its neighbours. The fact that its former satellites ran to the West at the moment they got the chance is telling. If they wanted stability, they’d have increased cooperation instead of rattling their metaphorical sabre for 20 years. NATO was not more menacing 2 months ago than it was 20 years ago, quite the contrary. It was desegregating before being reinvigorated by this stupid, pointless agression. Finland and Sweden applying was unimaginable just a couple of weeks ago. If stability was the point, a hot war was the absolute last thing to do. Also, is there any evidence, even circumstantial, that Ukraine has a significantly larger nazi relative population compared to any surrounding country? Its government is just as incompetent and corrupt as you’d expect given the context. Where are their nazi policies? You seem to be making a lot of effort to sound reasonable, but ultimately

jdrc 4y ago

It depends on where you re reading from. For americans, it seems the war is becoming more of a partisan issue, but for europeans it's much more clear cut, as many of them have memories of the same things happening a few decades ago.

alienicecream 4y ago
Memories from a few decades ago? Are you talking about the bombing of Serbia by NATO?
- jdrc 4y ago
  soviet invasions

Cthulhu_ 4y ago

Not participating / letting it just go past you until the smoke clears is, in your case, an option as well; you don't HAVE to pick a side if you don't feel like you're adequately informed, or you don't trust the media or the 'side' said media mostly reports on. One example; A Russian warship has sunk. This has been confirmed by the Russians, so that part is a fact. However, while the Ukranian side claims it was done by Ukranian anti-ship cruise missiles, the Russians claim it was "just" a fire / incident on board. I mean personally am more likely to believe the side that isn't the aggressor and isn't run by an authoritarian person / government, but the news I follow didn't make any calls themselves; they just reported what the one AND the other side claimed, plus the facts (yesterday of a Russian warship being on fire, today of it having sank).

jacquesm 4y ago
Good example. The part where it gets interesting: the Ukrainians claimed the hit before the Russians reluctantly admitted to 'the fire' and the vessel was well over the horizon.
alienicecream 4y ago
The Ukrainians have made numerous false claims so far in this war. That would be evidence weighing against your heuristic.
- procgen 4y ago
  If you had told me two months ago that the Russian navy would be so incompetent as to lose their flagship to the bottom of the Black Sea, I would not have believed you. Now it seems that further humiliations are not only possible, but probable.
  - alienicecream 4y ago
    They lost a nuclear sub during a training exercise due to a faulty weld on a torpedo, I'm not sure why this would be so out of the realm of possibility.