4 ms·

The tone of the article is a little hard to take seriously given that the legacy media are mostly now admitting that a Ukrainian surrender is necessary and that

The tone of the article is a little hard to take seriously given that the legacy media are mostly now admitting that a Ukrainian surrender is necessary and that all Russian territorial objectives are likely to be met. The more interesting question is if having the US as a credible security partner has a future.

vba616 4y ago
If the US is not a "credible security partner" then what the media thinks about a Ukrainian surrender is utterly irrelevant. Even if is is a credible security partner, the same is true. It's...I don't know what to call it except intriguing, the way you flip from a picture of the US as a totalitarian monolith with tentacles controlling everything, to the US as an utterly impotent former empire in shambles, unable to even be a "partner", within two sentences. It's kind of an echo of the way Russia has been portrayed in the last few years.
- halffaday 4y ago
  It's...I don't know what to call it except intriguing, the way you conclude anything I wrote means the US is a totalitarian monolith.
  - vba616 4y ago
    It's only two sentences, so I assumed neither of them were fluff...I interpreted "the legacy media" being mentioned adjacent to your personifying the US as someone carrying out foreign policy as implying they are closely related. If you didn't mean it that way, ok, but I think it's a common view and common to express it like this. If the media is an arm of the establishment, the rulers of the country, with a singular purpose of supporting it regardless of policy changes, that is what I'd call a totalitarian monolith. Now if you don't view things that way, fine, but it seems like maybe half of the politically aware US public is more or less on board with that worldview, except that they identify the "monolith" with the left. Literally every day recently, I hear, on the radio that is always playing in a convenience store I go to, an ad for a famous person's new show on Newsmax, that is somehow rebelling against (I forget the exact phrase) major media outlets. I guess the phrase "mainstream media" is tired, but the concept seems to remain. The baseline here is the assumption that there is no free press, that there is no diversity of opinion, and I see that sort of claim made everywhere, every day. By, you know, the brave dissenters. I wonder if it's so ubiquitous that you have stopped seeing it as a background?
Jataman606 4y ago
> that all Russian territorial objectives are likely to be met Their objective was to overthrow Ukrainian goverment and take half a country. So no, their objectives definietly will not be met.
- vba616 4y ago
  Their territorial objectives have apparently been redefined to encompass the areas that they already de facto possessed since 2014. Isn't that true? The only obvious thing accomplished lately is all the death and destruction. It can't have been planned this way.

vba616 4y ago

If the US is not a "credible security partner" then what the media thinks about a Ukrainian surrender is utterly irrelevant. Even if is is a credible security partner, the same is true. It's...I don't know what to call it except intriguing, the way you flip from a picture of the US as a totalitarian monolith with tentacles controlling everything, to the US as an utterly impotent former empire in shambles, unable to even be a "partner", within two sentences. It's kind of an echo of the way Russia has been portrayed in the last few years.

halffaday 4y ago
It's...I don't know what to call it except intriguing, the way you conclude anything I wrote means the US is a totalitarian monolith.
- vba616 4y ago
  It's only two sentences, so I assumed neither of them were fluff...I interpreted "the legacy media" being mentioned adjacent to your personifying the US as someone carrying out foreign policy as implying they are closely related. If you didn't mean it that way, ok, but I think it's a common view and common to express it like this. If the media is an arm of the establishment, the rulers of the country, with a singular purpose of supporting it regardless of policy changes, that is what I'd call a totalitarian monolith. Now if you don't view things that way, fine, but it seems like maybe half of the politically aware US public is more or less on board with that worldview, except that they identify the "monolith" with the left. Literally every day recently, I hear, on the radio that is always playing in a convenience store I go to, an ad for a famous person's new show on Newsmax, that is somehow rebelling against (I forget the exact phrase) major media outlets. I guess the phrase "mainstream media" is tired, but the concept seems to remain. The baseline here is the assumption that there is no free press, that there is no diversity of opinion, and I see that sort of claim made everywhere, every day. By, you know, the brave dissenters. I wonder if it's so ubiquitous that you have stopped seeing it as a background?

Jataman606 4y ago

> that all Russian territorial objectives are likely to be met Their objective was to overthrow Ukrainian goverment and take half a country. So no, their objectives definietly will not be met.

vba616 4y ago
Their territorial objectives have apparently been redefined to encompass the areas that they already de facto possessed since 2014. Isn't that true? The only obvious thing accomplished lately is all the death and destruction. It can't have been planned this way.