4 ms·

As I understand it, a ton of Russians, especially older ones, just rely on TV and print media for news, and those are much more tightly controlled by the Kremli

As I understand it, a ton of Russians, especially older ones, just rely on TV and print media for news, and those are much more tightly controlled by the Kremlin. > Just like US citizens during the invasion of Iraq, most of them barely knew what was happening and simply didnt care to know. They were just comfortable in their assurance that USA was #1. While the WMD aspect of the invasion of Iraq was bullshit, the rest of it didn't seem to contain nearly as much propaganda -- as in, just blatantly lying -- as what Russia's doing here. I don't think the US lied about US soldier casualties, for instance, acting like they were taking a small fraction of the actual injuries and deaths. Not to mention the war crimes seem enormously more common and severe with Russia's invasion, and those are all getting covered up by the Russian media within their country (e.g. "Azov/Ukraine did Bucha"). Basically any war will involve some amount of propaganda and atrocities, but some people are acting like the way Russia and the US prosecute war are the same, when that appears to be clearly wrong.

n4bz0r 4y ago
Providing some additional context. There is no statistics to back up the numbers and it's impossible to make one at the moment. It's rather how informed people in Russia feel plus some anecdata. > As I understand it, a ton of Russians, especially older ones, just rely on TV and print media for news, and those are much more tightly controlled by the Kremlin. All the news sources that are still not blocked either have a hand in their asses or are about to get blocked. They are completely controled by the Kremlin. Much more tightly is an understatement here. Unfortunately, so is 'a ton'. I'll try to elaborate. Moscow, St. Petersburg, and the cities around them, have relatively high percentage of well-educated people with sufficient technical competency and mindfulness to avoid the censorship. I'd say that would be at least a good half of the population of these cities, which amounts (very roughly) to 10M. These people would try to find some facts, and form something resembling a picture of what's really happening. Not too bad, really, but the thing is, I'd be surprised if there is another 20M across the rest of the country (the population is approx. 145M as of 2022). The farther you go from the big cities the faster the freethinkers' (tongue-in-cheek term) percentage declines. When the government says that 90% of the population 'supports' the war, I'm afraid it's not that far from truth. What 'supports' means, though? As it seems, in reality, it means that the people aren't really bothered by the war all that much because they don't consider the country to be (much of?) an agressor. In small cities, people live in poverty and the only thing that's used to hold them together is the TV which gives the hope that some day life is going to get better. But there, of course, are a few hurdles to overcome. The current hurdle is to 'win against Ukraine'. Based on numerous interviews and personal interactions, that's what common folks really think. I believe that they (most of them anyway) are not bad people, but merely simple and gullible. And when the president says that zombie-nazis were about to attack motherland, well, of course they praise the guy who sent the rockets their way thus saving the day. That's the gist of the propaganda, by the way. As for the older people (even well-educated ones), can confirm. First of all, they are stubborn and know better. And they just can't believe that TV isn't a good source of information on the matter. My older relatives are like that and I don't really know how to convince them to think otherwise. As far as I'm concerned, no one has figured that out yet. For every bit of evidence TV has a piece of counter-evidence. You try counter that. I've taught them how to read independent news, but they don't trust them. edit: brainfart with understatement/overstatement in the beginning of the post
- BlueTemplar 4y ago
  Well, at least, if it comes to a revolution, then for worse or for better, the "rest of the country" won't matter much either.
cmehdy 4y ago
I'm sorry what? From my European perspective there's very little difference between the magnitude of terrifying things done by either the US then or Russia now... except maybe that Russia has less reach and power in the bigger scheme of things. Abduction of people in allied countries to be brought to black sites, torture of inmates at Guantanamo (construction starting 2002), puerile attempts by officials at "downranking" the amount and definitions of torture inflicted upon people, varying degrees of war crimes committed while the highest instances of the world's powers debate vague points or outright lie about the very foundation of why they militarily attack another country, and this continued despite very public outrage at a few strikingly depressing "leaks" (smiling soldiers torturing inmates) or testimonies, and violence inflicted upon specific targets while keeping constant pressure on third parties to remain by the sidelines. https://www.justsecurity.org/57301/policy-legal-implications-european-courts-ruling-cia-black-sites/ https://www.justsecurity.org/57301/policy-legal-implications... > Both of Thursday’s Al Nashiri and Zubaydah judgments “are striking for their frank and clear declaration that the CIA operated black sites in Lithuania and Romania at which torture took place, with the knowing acquiescence of the host governments,” notes Just Security’s Oona Hathaway. “The Court, relying in significant part on the 2014 US Senate Committee Report, dismissed Romania’s and Lithuania’s claims that, among other things, (a) the applicants lacked credible sources of evidence; (b) the black sites did not exist in their countries, and (c) if the sites did exist in their countries, the government did not agree to them and did not know that torture was taking place at them,” Hathaway said. https://web.archive.org/web/20210525025654/https://www.wired.com/2015/07/torture-bad-psychologists-helped-us-redefine/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210525025654/https://www.wired... > The first of those existing rules came from Department of Justice, which in 2002 wrote a series of memos that gave a new, very narrow definition of torture. (The next year, lawyers at the DOD wrote a report that reiterated these rules.) To qualify as physical torture, the memo said that an act of interrogation would have to cause serious physical injury, "such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death." https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2004/05/iraq-m12.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2004/05/iraq-m12.html > A May 11 article in the Los Angeles Times exposed other methods of torture used by US forces: deliberately inflicting massive and severe burns, the use of electric shocks, and threatening detainees’ female relatives with rape. The Times article also revealed that the ICRC considers that between 70 and 90 percent of Iraqis seized and held by US forces are wrongly detained. [...] > After the bombing ended, US Special Forces and Dostum’s troops herded 3,000 surviving prisoners into sealed metal containers and drove them for 20 hours to Sheberghan prison. Most of the prisoners suffocated along the way. When the convoy arrived at its destination, the containers were emptied and the prisoners who had survived the journey were shot. Their remains were buried in a mass grave. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse#/Convictions_of_soldiers https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_... > Eleven soldiers were convicted of various charges relating to the incidents, with all of the convictions including the charge of dereliction of duty. Most soldiers only received minor sentences. Three other soldiers were either cleared of charges or were not charged. No one was convicted for the murders of the detainees. --- And with all of these things, two full decades after that and with the full "freedom" of access to the internet that one has in Europe or North America, a lot of people still say with a straight face that those situations don't compare? Talk about successful propaganda. I'm sure Russia is dreaming to continue achieving similarly too.
BlueTemplar 4y ago
I'm not as sure about the 2nd Iraq war, but there's no question that the 1rst one (and the embargo) was even more destructive than what is happening now in Ukraine. (Or maybe not any more, the Russians have been "catching up" fast..?) OTOH there's that infamous quote about half a million dead children (slightly less in practice ?) having been "worth it", while Putin's regime prefers to deny/lie in those cases ?

n4bz0r 4y ago

Providing some additional context. There is no statistics to back up the numbers and it's impossible to make one at the moment. It's rather how informed people in Russia feel plus some anecdata. > As I understand it, a ton of Russians, especially older ones, just rely on TV and print media for news, and those are much more tightly controlled by the Kremlin. All the news sources that are still not blocked either have a hand in their asses or are about to get blocked. They are completely controled by the Kremlin. Much more tightly is an understatement here. Unfortunately, so is 'a ton'. I'll try to elaborate. Moscow, St. Petersburg, and the cities around them, have relatively high percentage of well-educated people with sufficient technical competency and mindfulness to avoid the censorship. I'd say that would be at least a good half of the population of these cities, which amounts (very roughly) to 10M. These people would try to find some facts, and form something resembling a picture of what's really happening. Not too bad, really, but the thing is, I'd be surprised if there is another 20M across the rest of the country (the population is approx. 145M as of 2022). The farther you go from the big cities the faster the freethinkers' (tongue-in-cheek term) percentage declines. When the government says that 90% of the population 'supports' the war, I'm afraid it's not that far from truth. What 'supports' means, though? As it seems, in reality, it means that the people aren't really bothered by the war all that much because they don't consider the country to be (much of?) an agressor. In small cities, people live in poverty and the only thing that's used to hold them together is the TV which gives the hope that some day life is going to get better. But there, of course, are a few hurdles to overcome. The current hurdle is to 'win against Ukraine'. Based on numerous interviews and personal interactions, that's what common folks really think. I believe that they (most of them anyway) are not bad people, but merely simple and gullible. And when the president says that zombie-nazis were about to attack motherland, well, of course they praise the guy who sent the rockets their way thus saving the day. That's the gist of the propaganda, by the way. As for the older people (even well-educated ones), can confirm. First of all, they are stubborn and know better. And they just can't believe that TV isn't a good source of information on the matter. My older relatives are like that and I don't really know how to convince them to think otherwise. As far as I'm concerned, no one has figured that out yet. For every bit of evidence TV has a piece of counter-evidence. You try counter that. I've taught them how to read independent news, but they don't trust them. edit: brainfart with understatement/overstatement in the beginning of the post

BlueTemplar 4y ago
Well, at least, if it comes to a revolution, then for worse or for better, the "rest of the country" won't matter much either.

cmehdy 4y ago

I'm sorry what? From my European perspective there's very little difference between the magnitude of terrifying things done by either the US then or Russia now... except maybe that Russia has less reach and power in the bigger scheme of things. Abduction of people in allied countries to be brought to black sites, torture of inmates at Guantanamo (construction starting 2002), puerile attempts by officials at "downranking" the amount and definitions of torture inflicted upon people, varying degrees of war crimes committed while the highest instances of the world's powers debate vague points or outright lie about the very foundation of why they militarily attack another country, and this continued despite very public outrage at a few strikingly depressing "leaks" (smiling soldiers torturing inmates) or testimonies, and violence inflicted upon specific targets while keeping constant pressure on third parties to remain by the sidelines. https://www.justsecurity.org/57301/policy-legal-implications-european-courts-ruling-cia-black-sites/ https://www.justsecurity.org/57301/policy-legal-implications... > Both of Thursday’s Al Nashiri and Zubaydah judgments “are striking for their frank and clear declaration that the CIA operated black sites in Lithuania and Romania at which torture took place, with the knowing acquiescence of the host governments,” notes Just Security’s Oona Hathaway. “The Court, relying in significant part on the 2014 US Senate Committee Report, dismissed Romania’s and Lithuania’s claims that, among other things, (a) the applicants lacked credible sources of evidence; (b) the black sites did not exist in their countries, and (c) if the sites did exist in their countries, the government did not agree to them and did not know that torture was taking place at them,” Hathaway said. https://web.archive.org/web/20210525025654/https://www.wired.com/2015/07/torture-bad-psychologists-helped-us-redefine/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210525025654/https://www.wired... > The first of those existing rules came from Department of Justice, which in 2002 wrote a series of memos that gave a new, very narrow definition of torture. (The next year, lawyers at the DOD wrote a report that reiterated these rules.) To qualify as physical torture, the memo said that an act of interrogation would have to cause serious physical injury, "such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death." https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2004/05/iraq-m12.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2004/05/iraq-m12.html > A May 11 article in the Los Angeles Times exposed other methods of torture used by US forces: deliberately inflicting massive and severe burns, the use of electric shocks, and threatening detainees’ female relatives with rape. The Times article also revealed that the ICRC considers that between 70 and 90 percent of Iraqis seized and held by US forces are wrongly detained. [...] > After the bombing ended, US Special Forces and Dostum’s troops herded 3,000 surviving prisoners into sealed metal containers and drove them for 20 hours to Sheberghan prison. Most of the prisoners suffocated along the way. When the convoy arrived at its destination, the containers were emptied and the prisoners who had survived the journey were shot. Their remains were buried in a mass grave. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse#/Convictions_of_soldiers https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_... > Eleven soldiers were convicted of various charges relating to the incidents, with all of the convictions including the charge of dereliction of duty. Most soldiers only received minor sentences. Three other soldiers were either cleared of charges or were not charged. No one was convicted for the murders of the detainees. --- And with all of these things, two full decades after that and with the full "freedom" of access to the internet that one has in Europe or North America, a lot of people still say with a straight face that those situations don't compare? Talk about successful propaganda. I'm sure Russia is dreaming to continue achieving similarly too.

BlueTemplar 4y ago

I'm not as sure about the 2nd Iraq war, but there's no question that the 1rst one (and the embargo) was even more destructive than what is happening now in Ukraine. (Or maybe not any more, the Russians have been "catching up" fast..?) OTOH there's that infamous quote about half a million dead children (slightly less in practice ?) having been "worth it", while Putin's regime prefers to deny/lie in those cases ?