18 ms·

NATO has been on Russian borders for almost 2 decades (and way longer if you include Norway, but that border is arguably too remote to really count). So what pl

NATO has been on Russian borders for almost 2 decades (and way longer if you include Norway, but that border is arguably too remote to really count). So what plan, exactly?

golergka 4y ago
> So what plan, exactly? That's a question on everyone's mind about this whole invasion. I guess I should have said “idiotic justification as portrayed by Russian propaganda” instead of “plan”.
- 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
  i am not an american, nor russian. i come from a third world country far from this drama. to me, "russian propaganda" is the same as "american propaganda" which demonizes the other and calls their version as the "ultimate truth". don't americans/west see their media/actions as what it is, propaganda aganinst russia? blocking RT across america/EU is seen as protecting free speech but god forbid if russia reciprocates with banning american companies? then its an action against free speech, again?
  - spaniard89277 4y ago
    I can see it (am spaniard), and there's definitely propaganda. But ultimately it was Russia who invaded Ucraine and the reasons provided are very vague, at best. The Speech Putin did had some etnonationalism BS and claims of defending the land agains the threat of NATO. In most bordering NATO countries what you have is SAMs (anti-air missiles), and honestly pretty much any NATO country could claim that they feel threatened by Russian nukes. And there's apprently plenty of gas just about the Dombass region and to the west of Crimea, such a coincidence. So yeah, propaganda all around, but if you cut through it there isn't much left for russian sympathy.
    - jhugo 4y ago
      Right, exactly. It's blatantly obvious that Ukraine is spinning the propaganda machine (and more effectively than Russia when it comes to the international audience, from what I can see), and the US doesn't seem to have any qualms with helping out. Being aware of that that doesn't change the underlying situation though. You can both know that the US is participating in propaganda efforts and also be against Russia's invasion.
      - 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
        i have a problem with one news headline breaking news about "russia massacre in ukraine" where ukraine is the oppressed/underdog and that same news channel half an hour later celebrates how ukranian fighters destroyed X russian tanks and all. if ukraine is fighting tooth and nail against russia(with or without help) they are equals so non-participants should abstain from taking sides. otherwise they are essentially joining the fight
        stoltzmann 4y ago
        There is a significant difference between Russian soldiers killing civilian population, and Ukrainian soldiers destroying enemy tanks that are invading their country. One is a despicable war crime, and the other one is a heroic act of defence.
        fsloth 4y ago
        This is the only objectively correct stance. No ifs. No buts. This is a surprisingly clear cut war for modern times with one party (Russia) being the illegal aggressor and Ukraine being the heroic rightful underdog defender. Every tank Ukrainians blow up is to defend their families for rape, murder and torture. Nobody forced the Russians to invade. Any claim to such end is a deluded fabrication. Pacifism is simply not a morally viable stance when a country is invaded by such a brutal force. We should not cheer the loss of life. But we should support 100% Ukrainian heroism and their efforts to defend their country. Propaganda is one of the theaters of modern war. Ukrainians seem to be quite adept at it. But this does not make their position any more suspect.
    - 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
      thank you. i am not sympathizing with anyone for that matter. i am pointing out what i observe.... you know when america invaded iraq for "WMDs" and they turned out to be nothing and literally nothing happened? "strong anger" does not equate to waging a war against america like its being done against russia. let me ask you, you and me are neither americans nor russians. did the world care when america invaded afghanistan, iraq, libya, syria and razed those nations to the ground? but god forbid russia does the same to ukraine. then its a matter of world peace. last i knew in afghanistan there were many countries whose soldiers fought along americans so all those countries were equally complicit in the crime against citizens of those nations. why?
      - phatfish 4y ago
        Do you really need to ask why? Because Ukraine is on the doorstep of Europe, that's why Europeans care more, and by proxy the US. As for Iraq, yes people did care, there were large protests in London and Tony Blair is still hated by the general public in the UK. I don't know the real feeling in the US. The UK government didn't listen because Tony wanted his ego boost on the world stage. The only NATO backed war of that era which had any grounds was in Afghanistan, Bin Laden attacked the US, and the US had to do something. It was executed terribly in the beginning (from what I understand the Afghans wanted to help get rid of Bin Laden) but in the end there was justification. Iraq was illegal and only gave Russia cover for its actions against it's neighbours rich up until the Ukraine invasion.
        herbst 4y ago
        > Because Ukraine is on the doorstep of Europe, that's why Europeans care more, and by proxy the US. But only since Russia started invading. When news about Ukraine were still all about their corrupt government, breaking human rights, their horrible prisons and more like that nobody thought Ukraine to to 'close' or anything. It's obvious the whole perception of Ukraine just suddenly changed because Russia is the bad guy.
        SyzygistSix 4y ago
  - bergie 4y ago
    Now, your comment format follows a pretty typical pattern utilized by paid Russian trolls, so I'm likely wasting my time here. But anyway: There is a slight difference between de-platforming Russian propaganda channels in the West, and Russia jailing anybody speaking about the war in any other terms than those approved by Kremlin.
    - aa-jv 4y ago
      - throw-ru-938 4y ago
        The Assange affair is certainly disgusting, but does the US have widespread political persecution the way Russia does?
        aa-jv 4y ago
        Shall we really rattle off a list of political persecution in the USA? Because, honestly, you can't be so ignorant .. YES: The WEST DOES have political persecution the way Russia does. There is, literally, NO DIFFERENCE. Of course, we don't have evidence of a thousand Russian secret torture sites, like we do for the CIA (thanks Julian, thanks Edward), so there is some validity to the position that in fact the Wests' oppression apparatus is factually worse than Russia's, since those torture sites are spread across the globe, repressing, literally, dozens of other lesser sovereign states deemed unworthy by America's own utterly fascist military junta ..
        RandomLensman 4y ago
        This is about picking a side. Luckily, people are free to move to the side they prefer (somehow Russia does not seem as popular as the "West"...). If you prefer the Russian system - move there. If you are totally indifferent, maybe make a coin toss.
        4y ago
  - pigeonhole123 4y ago
    I've never seen or heard anyone complain about Russia banning American companies.
    - 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
      you sure? https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/4/22960739/russia-internet-block-facebook-meta-roskomnadzor-ukraine https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/4/22960739/russia-internet-b... "Russia says it's blocking Facebook in alarming new censorship push" blocking facebook is censorship but blocking RT is defending free speech? nice
      - pigeonhole123 4y ago
        I had never heard of RT until now, apparently it's a Putin-controlled TV network. We're supposed to be "nice" with Russia? What a joke. Edit: for the record I don't like the government blocking anything, but trying to point out the "hypocrisy" of the West like this isn't really very convincing to me. Looking after your own interests is not hypocrisy. Trolls need better ammo than this for the HN audience I think. You have to convince us that invading other countries and torturing PWOs is okay.
        herbst 4y ago
        Before Corona made RT looking really weird and one sided they often provided a non westernized view to world events. Just as al jazeera. IMO that's a relevant role when more and more western media is controlled by the same few sources. No solution, but it's all about having perspectives to get a real picture.
      - JKCalhoun 4y ago
        Is the implication that Facebook is also a propaganda outlet? That is sort of funny: RT and Facebook considered similar entities
        CRConrad 4y ago
        > That is sort of funny: RT and Facebook considered similar entities Well... If nothing else, both are huge spreaders of Russian propaganda. But yeah, you're right, it is funny: Maybe both should be banned in the West.
  - rocqua 4y ago
    The blocking of RT across the EU was indeed a stupid move. Not just 'wrong' but also ineffective. It gives the impression that we are afraid of Russian news. Which I think generally we need not be. What seems scarier is Russian-influenced domestic news. Banning RT won't fix the scarier issue.
    - herbst 4y ago
      Also for people who like to mix up their daily propaganda consumption banning RT put it back on the list of sites to check. I am sure their reads skyrocket since the ban.
    - secondcoming 4y ago
      The RT website and live stream are sill available to at least me in the UK.
  - herbst 4y ago
    I am totally with you. There is so much propaganda in this war it's borderline impossible to get anything but a cloudy view on things. Until recently Ukraine was only in media for their gov breaking human rights and stuff like this, and now it's suddenly the long lost brother we all love so much. Sure RT was full of bullshit, but so are many local papers, Facebook and everything else. People taking clear sides when all they know is very filtered propaganda is sadening at least.
    - wiseowise 4y ago
      > Until recently Ukraine was only in media for their gov breaking human rights and stuff like this, and now it's suddenly the long lost brother we all love so much. Citation needed.
      - herbst 4y ago
        Kinda broad statement for a direct citation. However feel free to browse the Wikipedia article about the Ukraine many if not most of their recent crimes are listed there.
        wiseowise 4y ago
        Surely you can link at least one.
        herbst 4y ago
        Ok I guess? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Ukraine#Situation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Ukraine#Situ...
        darkteflon 4y ago
        You’re referring to transgressions under Yanukovych? That’s not a great example, since he’s famously a Russian puppet, removed from office in the Maidan Revolution.
  - fsloth 4y ago
    Luckily this particular war is quite simple to understand morally. The invasion of Ukraine is an illegal genocidal war. That puts all the blame on this particular conflict 100% on Moscow, and the treatment of the civilian populations underlines the lack of decency, morals and respect for human life in the Russian institutions. The genocidal illegal nature of the war immediately bins Russian state to the level of regimes like North-Korea, Pol-Pots cambodia or Nazi-Germany. You simply to do not allow propaganda from such entities to broadcast freely when they are obviously state entities. Free speech from individuals is different.
  - wiseowise 4y ago
    > They’re as bad (in my opinion) as others, therefore it give them right to do evil things Are you even trying? You do understand that you aren’t talking to three years old? Anyone with half a brain will understand why this rhetoric is wrong.
  - golergka 4y ago
    > to me, "russian propaganda" is the same as "american propaganda" which demonizes the other and calls their version as the "ultimate truth". This only means that you're misinformed and haven't really followed the situation.
    - JKCalhoun 4y ago
      A coworker once made the (perhaps tired) comment, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" and I had to ask, "Is this man's freedom fighter targeting civilians?" I dislike bankrupt moral equivalency arguments.
  - CRConrad 4y ago
    > i am not an american, nor russian. i come from a third world country far from this drama. to me, "russian propaganda" is the same as "american propaganda" which demonizes the other and calls their version as the "ultimate truth". Yeah, third world countries far away have their own perspective, and it's usually at least as weird as the other two. Well, in many it's of course just a copy of he Russian propaganda; don't know about yours. > don't americans/west see their media/actions as what it is, propaganda aganinst russia? No. Because it isn't. Because we have free speech, with media of different persuasions all allowed to spread their own versions of the truth. To people from dictatorships -- like Russia, or many places in the third world -- this seems impossible, because they're not used to it. So when they -- you, apparently -- see that most media in the West on the whole agree on the basic facts, the "obvious" conclusion to them (you) becomes that "This must be just their side's propaganda!". Please try, in Occam's spirit, to consider the simpler explanation: The reason they all seem to more or less agree is that they've all done their own research, and what they're reporting is the truth they've found. You hear the same from them all, because the truth is the same for everyone. > blocking RT across america/EU is seen as protecting free speech but god forbid if russia reciprocates with banning american companies? then its an action against free speech, again? Yes, because what the West is blocking is a state-owned and -controlled Russian propaganda channel, and what Russia is blocking are free independent media. (Well, except for the VoA perhaps.)
  - kasey_junk 4y ago
    RT is not blocked in the US. I read it this morning.
  - saeranv 4y ago
    I'm always frustrated to see the pervasivness of this type of political interpretation, which constructs a false equivalence between two parties and therefore places the blame on both. I think this kind of view is the default interpretation for a majority of people, since it is a tempting conclusion to draw for people who aren't well versed in the actual details they're evaluating: to the ignorant, it does look like both sides are just slinging mud at eachother, and it's inherent cynicism seems "realistic". I think to solve this, we need to educate people on the idea of "false equivalance" (that just because two parties are engaged in conflict, does not mean they are equally to blame) and to force them to state the details of what exactly both parties are doing in order to hopefully push them to recognize there is a meaningful difference between actions.
alkonaut 4y ago
Russia has argued that having NATO on its borders is a threat. Talk about missiles within range of Moscow and so on. Obviously these comments make no sense. But Russian domestic politics is always using a narrative of being a victim and having risk of being invaded. The Second World War doesn’t exist in Russian storytelling. The great patriotic war on the other hand, conveniently started in the 40s. The Finnish border isn’t that much closer to any important parts of Russia than the Baltic states already were. The strategic difference is perhaps mostly in how difficult it might be for Russia to attempt what they did to Ukraine on a Baltic state. The scenario is a swift invasion and an annexation being fait accompli and a threat of Nuclear use if any NATO countries come to their defense under Article 5. That would have been a sticky situation for NATO in the past (at least we thought so until we saw their military performance lately) but will be less so with Finland in the alliance.
- Archelaos 4y ago
  NATO is a devensive alliance. It is no threat for a peaceful Russia at all. All else is propaganda. A really democratic Russia may even join NATO some day. (As Western Germany did ten years after the Nazis.)
  - korantu 4y ago
    Putin actually did not mind joining NATO. [0]. It would make a lot of sense. Mind you, this is after Ugoslavia bombings by NATO. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-s...
  - mcv 4y ago
    There was actually some talk of Russia joining NATO 20 years ago. But then Putin wanted Russia to be fast-tracked without meeting the requirements while "unimportant countries" would be ignored, and I guess at that moment it became clear he didn't really get what NATO was about.
  - desproges 4y ago
simonh 4y ago
It's really about the extent of the border and it's proximity to the Russian heartland. Adding Finland doubles NATO's border with Russia and brackets St. Petersburg.
throw-ru-938 4y ago
The Norwegian border may look remote on a map, but it's close to Murmansk which is an extremely important seaport. (Not claiming Norway is a legitimate threat to Russia, just pointing out it's not that remote.)

NATO has been on Russian borders for almost 2 decades (and way longer if you include Norway, but that border is arguably too remote to really count). So what plan, exactly?

golergka 4y ago

> So what plan, exactly? That's a question on everyone's mind about this whole invasion. I guess I should have said “idiotic justification as portrayed by Russian propaganda” instead of “plan”.

2Gkashmiri 4y ago
i am not an american, nor russian. i come from a third world country far from this drama. to me, "russian propaganda" is the same as "american propaganda" which demonizes the other and calls their version as the "ultimate truth". don't americans/west see their media/actions as what it is, propaganda aganinst russia? blocking RT across america/EU is seen as protecting free speech but god forbid if russia reciprocates with banning american companies? then its an action against free speech, again?
- spaniard89277 4y ago
  I can see it (am spaniard), and there's definitely propaganda. But ultimately it was Russia who invaded Ucraine and the reasons provided are very vague, at best. The Speech Putin did had some etnonationalism BS and claims of defending the land agains the threat of NATO. In most bordering NATO countries what you have is SAMs (anti-air missiles), and honestly pretty much any NATO country could claim that they feel threatened by Russian nukes. And there's apprently plenty of gas just about the Dombass region and to the west of Crimea, such a coincidence. So yeah, propaganda all around, but if you cut through it there isn't much left for russian sympathy.
  - jhugo 4y ago
    Right, exactly. It's blatantly obvious that Ukraine is spinning the propaganda machine (and more effectively than Russia when it comes to the international audience, from what I can see), and the US doesn't seem to have any qualms with helping out. Being aware of that that doesn't change the underlying situation though. You can both know that the US is participating in propaganda efforts and also be against Russia's invasion.
    - 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
      i have a problem with one news headline breaking news about "russia massacre in ukraine" where ukraine is the oppressed/underdog and that same news channel half an hour later celebrates how ukranian fighters destroyed X russian tanks and all. if ukraine is fighting tooth and nail against russia(with or without help) they are equals so non-participants should abstain from taking sides. otherwise they are essentially joining the fight
      - stoltzmann 4y ago
        There is a significant difference between Russian soldiers killing civilian population, and Ukrainian soldiers destroying enemy tanks that are invading their country. One is a despicable war crime, and the other one is a heroic act of defence.
        fsloth 4y ago
        This is the only objectively correct stance. No ifs. No buts. This is a surprisingly clear cut war for modern times with one party (Russia) being the illegal aggressor and Ukraine being the heroic rightful underdog defender. Every tank Ukrainians blow up is to defend their families for rape, murder and torture. Nobody forced the Russians to invade. Any claim to such end is a deluded fabrication. Pacifism is simply not a morally viable stance when a country is invaded by such a brutal force. We should not cheer the loss of life. But we should support 100% Ukrainian heroism and their efforts to defend their country. Propaganda is one of the theaters of modern war. Ukrainians seem to be quite adept at it. But this does not make their position any more suspect.
  - 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
    thank you. i am not sympathizing with anyone for that matter. i am pointing out what i observe.... you know when america invaded iraq for "WMDs" and they turned out to be nothing and literally nothing happened? "strong anger" does not equate to waging a war against america like its being done against russia. let me ask you, you and me are neither americans nor russians. did the world care when america invaded afghanistan, iraq, libya, syria and razed those nations to the ground? but god forbid russia does the same to ukraine. then its a matter of world peace. last i knew in afghanistan there were many countries whose soldiers fought along americans so all those countries were equally complicit in the crime against citizens of those nations. why?
    - phatfish 4y ago
      Do you really need to ask why? Because Ukraine is on the doorstep of Europe, that's why Europeans care more, and by proxy the US. As for Iraq, yes people did care, there were large protests in London and Tony Blair is still hated by the general public in the UK. I don't know the real feeling in the US. The UK government didn't listen because Tony wanted his ego boost on the world stage. The only NATO backed war of that era which had any grounds was in Afghanistan, Bin Laden attacked the US, and the US had to do something. It was executed terribly in the beginning (from what I understand the Afghans wanted to help get rid of Bin Laden) but in the end there was justification. Iraq was illegal and only gave Russia cover for its actions against it's neighbours rich up until the Ukraine invasion.
      - herbst 4y ago
        > Because Ukraine is on the doorstep of Europe, that's why Europeans care more, and by proxy the US. But only since Russia started invading. When news about Ukraine were still all about their corrupt government, breaking human rights, their horrible prisons and more like that nobody thought Ukraine to to 'close' or anything. It's obvious the whole perception of Ukraine just suddenly changed because Russia is the bad guy.
        SyzygistSix 4y ago
- bergie 4y ago
  Now, your comment format follows a pretty typical pattern utilized by paid Russian trolls, so I'm likely wasting my time here. But anyway: There is a slight difference between de-platforming Russian propaganda channels in the West, and Russia jailing anybody speaking about the war in any other terms than those approved by Kremlin.
  - aa-jv 4y ago
    - throw-ru-938 4y ago
      The Assange affair is certainly disgusting, but does the US have widespread political persecution the way Russia does?
      - aa-jv 4y ago
        Shall we really rattle off a list of political persecution in the USA? Because, honestly, you can't be so ignorant .. YES: The WEST DOES have political persecution the way Russia does. There is, literally, NO DIFFERENCE. Of course, we don't have evidence of a thousand Russian secret torture sites, like we do for the CIA (thanks Julian, thanks Edward), so there is some validity to the position that in fact the Wests' oppression apparatus is factually worse than Russia's, since those torture sites are spread across the globe, repressing, literally, dozens of other lesser sovereign states deemed unworthy by America's own utterly fascist military junta ..
        RandomLensman 4y ago
        This is about picking a side. Luckily, people are free to move to the side they prefer (somehow Russia does not seem as popular as the "West"...). If you prefer the Russian system - move there. If you are totally indifferent, maybe make a coin toss.
        4y ago
- pigeonhole123 4y ago
  I've never seen or heard anyone complain about Russia banning American companies.
  - 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
    you sure? https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/4/22960739/russia-internet-block-facebook-meta-roskomnadzor-ukraine https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/4/22960739/russia-internet-b... "Russia says it's blocking Facebook in alarming new censorship push" blocking facebook is censorship but blocking RT is defending free speech? nice
    - pigeonhole123 4y ago
      I had never heard of RT until now, apparently it's a Putin-controlled TV network. We're supposed to be "nice" with Russia? What a joke. Edit: for the record I don't like the government blocking anything, but trying to point out the "hypocrisy" of the West like this isn't really very convincing to me. Looking after your own interests is not hypocrisy. Trolls need better ammo than this for the HN audience I think. You have to convince us that invading other countries and torturing PWOs is okay.
      - herbst 4y ago
        Before Corona made RT looking really weird and one sided they often provided a non westernized view to world events. Just as al jazeera. IMO that's a relevant role when more and more western media is controlled by the same few sources. No solution, but it's all about having perspectives to get a real picture.
    - JKCalhoun 4y ago
      Is the implication that Facebook is also a propaganda outlet? That is sort of funny: RT and Facebook considered similar entities
      - CRConrad 4y ago
        > That is sort of funny: RT and Facebook considered similar entities Well... If nothing else, both are huge spreaders of Russian propaganda. But yeah, you're right, it is funny: Maybe both should be banned in the West.
- rocqua 4y ago
  The blocking of RT across the EU was indeed a stupid move. Not just 'wrong' but also ineffective. It gives the impression that we are afraid of Russian news. Which I think generally we need not be. What seems scarier is Russian-influenced domestic news. Banning RT won't fix the scarier issue.
  - herbst 4y ago
    Also for people who like to mix up their daily propaganda consumption banning RT put it back on the list of sites to check. I am sure their reads skyrocket since the ban.
  - secondcoming 4y ago
    The RT website and live stream are sill available to at least me in the UK.
- herbst 4y ago
  I am totally with you. There is so much propaganda in this war it's borderline impossible to get anything but a cloudy view on things. Until recently Ukraine was only in media for their gov breaking human rights and stuff like this, and now it's suddenly the long lost brother we all love so much. Sure RT was full of bullshit, but so are many local papers, Facebook and everything else. People taking clear sides when all they know is very filtered propaganda is sadening at least.
  - wiseowise 4y ago
    > Until recently Ukraine was only in media for their gov breaking human rights and stuff like this, and now it's suddenly the long lost brother we all love so much. Citation needed.
    - herbst 4y ago
      Kinda broad statement for a direct citation. However feel free to browse the Wikipedia article about the Ukraine many if not most of their recent crimes are listed there.
      - wiseowise 4y ago
        Surely you can link at least one.
        herbst 4y ago
        Ok I guess? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Ukraine#Situation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Ukraine#Situ...
        darkteflon 4y ago
        You’re referring to transgressions under Yanukovych? That’s not a great example, since he’s famously a Russian puppet, removed from office in the Maidan Revolution.
- fsloth 4y ago
  Luckily this particular war is quite simple to understand morally. The invasion of Ukraine is an illegal genocidal war. That puts all the blame on this particular conflict 100% on Moscow, and the treatment of the civilian populations underlines the lack of decency, morals and respect for human life in the Russian institutions. The genocidal illegal nature of the war immediately bins Russian state to the level of regimes like North-Korea, Pol-Pots cambodia or Nazi-Germany. You simply to do not allow propaganda from such entities to broadcast freely when they are obviously state entities. Free speech from individuals is different.
- wiseowise 4y ago
  > They’re as bad (in my opinion) as others, therefore it give them right to do evil things Are you even trying? You do understand that you aren’t talking to three years old? Anyone with half a brain will understand why this rhetoric is wrong.
- golergka 4y ago
  > to me, "russian propaganda" is the same as "american propaganda" which demonizes the other and calls their version as the "ultimate truth". This only means that you're misinformed and haven't really followed the situation.
  - JKCalhoun 4y ago
    A coworker once made the (perhaps tired) comment, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" and I had to ask, "Is this man's freedom fighter targeting civilians?" I dislike bankrupt moral equivalency arguments.
- CRConrad 4y ago
  > i am not an american, nor russian. i come from a third world country far from this drama. to me, "russian propaganda" is the same as "american propaganda" which demonizes the other and calls their version as the "ultimate truth". Yeah, third world countries far away have their own perspective, and it's usually at least as weird as the other two. Well, in many it's of course just a copy of he Russian propaganda; don't know about yours. > don't americans/west see their media/actions as what it is, propaganda aganinst russia? No. Because it isn't. Because we have free speech, with media of different persuasions all allowed to spread their own versions of the truth. To people from dictatorships -- like Russia, or many places in the third world -- this seems impossible, because they're not used to it. So when they -- you, apparently -- see that most media in the West on the whole agree on the basic facts, the "obvious" conclusion to them (you) becomes that "This must be just their side's propaganda!". Please try, in Occam's spirit, to consider the simpler explanation: The reason they all seem to more or less agree is that they've all done their own research, and what they're reporting is the truth they've found. You hear the same from them all, because the truth is the same for everyone. > blocking RT across america/EU is seen as protecting free speech but god forbid if russia reciprocates with banning american companies? then its an action against free speech, again? Yes, because what the West is blocking is a state-owned and -controlled Russian propaganda channel, and what Russia is blocking are free independent media. (Well, except for the VoA perhaps.)
- kasey_junk 4y ago
  RT is not blocked in the US. I read it this morning.
- saeranv 4y ago
  I'm always frustrated to see the pervasivness of this type of political interpretation, which constructs a false equivalence between two parties and therefore places the blame on both. I think this kind of view is the default interpretation for a majority of people, since it is a tempting conclusion to draw for people who aren't well versed in the actual details they're evaluating: to the ignorant, it does look like both sides are just slinging mud at eachother, and it's inherent cynicism seems "realistic". I think to solve this, we need to educate people on the idea of "false equivalance" (that just because two parties are engaged in conflict, does not mean they are equally to blame) and to force them to state the details of what exactly both parties are doing in order to hopefully push them to recognize there is a meaningful difference between actions.

alkonaut 4y ago

Russia has argued that having NATO on its borders is a threat. Talk about missiles within range of Moscow and so on. Obviously these comments make no sense. But Russian domestic politics is always using a narrative of being a victim and having risk of being invaded. The Second World War doesn’t exist in Russian storytelling. The great patriotic war on the other hand, conveniently started in the 40s. The Finnish border isn’t that much closer to any important parts of Russia than the Baltic states already were. The strategic difference is perhaps mostly in how difficult it might be for Russia to attempt what they did to Ukraine on a Baltic state. The scenario is a swift invasion and an annexation being fait accompli and a threat of Nuclear use if any NATO countries come to their defense under Article 5. That would have been a sticky situation for NATO in the past (at least we thought so until we saw their military performance lately) but will be less so with Finland in the alliance.

Archelaos 4y ago
NATO is a devensive alliance. It is no threat for a peaceful Russia at all. All else is propaganda. A really democratic Russia may even join NATO some day. (As Western Germany did ten years after the Nazis.)
- korantu 4y ago
  Putin actually did not mind joining NATO. [0]. It would make a lot of sense. Mind you, this is after Ugoslavia bombings by NATO. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-s...
- mcv 4y ago
  There was actually some talk of Russia joining NATO 20 years ago. But then Putin wanted Russia to be fast-tracked without meeting the requirements while "unimportant countries" would be ignored, and I guess at that moment it became clear he didn't really get what NATO was about.
- desproges 4y ago

simonh 4y ago

It's really about the extent of the border and it's proximity to the Russian heartland. Adding Finland doubles NATO's border with Russia and brackets St. Petersburg.

throw-ru-938 4y ago

The Norwegian border may look remote on a map, but it's close to Murmansk which is an extremely important seaport. (Not claiming Norway is a legitimate threat to Russia, just pointing out it's not that remote.)