6 ms·

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

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.
  - jhugo 4y ago
    I mean, they are destroying Russian tanks that are invading their country... you can't successfully paint them as equals when Russia started the fight by sending soldiers into Ukraine sovereign territory.
  - krisoft 4y ago
    > if ukraine is fighting tooth and nail against russia(with or without help) they are equals Laughable. When an armed robber enters your house and tries to kill you and you hit them back that doesn't make you and the robber equals. The land they are standing on is Ukrainian, the russian troops standing there have no business being there.
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

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.
- jhugo 4y ago
  I mean, they are destroying Russian tanks that are invading their country... you can't successfully paint them as equals when Russia started the fight by sending soldiers into Ukraine sovereign territory.
- krisoft 4y ago
  > if ukraine is fighting tooth and nail against russia(with or without help) they are equals Laughable. When an armed robber enters your house and tries to kill you and you hit them back that doesn't make you and the robber equals. The land they are standing on is Ukrainian, the russian troops standing there have no business being there.

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