5 ms·

What has you convinced you’re not falling for propaganda on Ukraine — that it’s him who is wrong?

thefounder 4y ago
Well, one year long invadion should give you a hint. Detaining people for calling it war instead of "special operation" is another one. Calling other neighbours "fake/artificial" countries is another bad sign that Russia's intentions are not good.
- nerdbert 4y ago
  People were not detained in the USA for using the wrong nomenclature to describe the Iraq invasion, and yet that was also an unspeakably cruel, venal war of cynical aggression knowingly perpetrated on laughably false pretenses. To this day roughly half of Americans think it was the right move - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/19/iraq-war-continues-to-divide-u-s-public-15-years-after-it-began/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/19/iraq-war-co... So I don't think factors like that are so good at separating "good" invasions from "bad" ones.
  - freeone3000 4y ago
    Maybe the invasion of Iraq was also bad!
  - mlyle 4y ago
    The thing is, there's vanishingly few "good invasions". Even fewer when you're intent on annexing territory and capturing resources and large numbers of people. The logic error you've committed above: Stifling dissent about the war with authoritarian measures may not be a necessary condition for an invasion to be bad, but it still can be a hint that the invasion is bad. Rejecting the territorial integrity of the country invaded, similarly, can be a pretty good hint.
    - FpUser 4y ago
      >"Even fewer when you're intent on annexing territory and capturing resources and large numbers of people." As ugly as it sounds I would actually prefer that the US had annexed countries it had invaded. This way it would at least be responsible and people would leave in more decent place than before. Instead they came in, murdered and otherwise fucked people and then left without much remorse and repercussion.
  - aeternum 4y ago
    People were detained for using the wrong nomenclature around communism though. Or are we brushing the whole McCarthyism era under the rug?
    - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      Yes, and? When McCarthy did it, it didn't show how strong McCarthy was; it showed how weak he was. When Putin does it, it doesn't show how strong Putin is, either.
      - aeternum 4y ago
        To see Putin as a weak evildoer is falling for US propaganda. The truth is more nuanced. Strong powers take advantage of weak powers and the US is no exception. We do it by expanding NATO territory. There are also arguments to be made that the US pushed Putin into the war. As it is a strategic move to have russia use up its arms fighting a neighbor rather than the US. The war also greatly increased US natgas exports to Europe. It's pretty immoral / weak to for the world's superpower to push neighboring countries into war for these reasons.
        AnimalMuppet 4y ago
        1. NATO expansion isn't driven by US imperialism. We aren't conquering countries and forcing them to join; they are asking to join - and not because we're tying a big aid package to NATO membership. They're joining because they're worried about Russian imperialism. 2. You say it's accepting propaganda to see Putin as weak. But you see him as being pushed into war by the US. That's not something that happens to someone who is strong. 3. "As it is a strategic move to have russia use up its arms fighting a neighbor rather than the US." Absolutely. More: It's to NATO's advantage to have Russia use up its arms fighting a non-NATO-member.
        aeternum 4y ago
        Sure, Putin is not a good leader for Russia, he's power-hungry and does not seem to have the best interests of the Russian people in mind. However by those same metrics you should consider US leadership as also being a weak evildoer. Is it good or evil to push other countries into war knowing that thousands will die? Is it good or evil to profit off the resulting energy crisis? Is it even smart to risk a global nuclear war to destroy outdated arms and decades old tanks? Is it good or evil to trigger economic collapse via sanctions causing starvation both inside the country and to export nations? Don't we consider Mao and Stalin some of the most evil people that ever lived for doing the same? Starvation is a terrible way to die yet it isn't even seen as collateral damage. Putin will die anyway in the next couple decades. It made no sense to poke the bear and trigger all this. It ultimately just strengthens China and increases the amount of global suffering.
  - plorkyeran 4y ago
    I don't understand how this is supposed to be a gotcha. Are you assuming that everyone opposed to Russia's invasion of Ukraine think the USA invasion of Iraq was good? I think in both cases it's very easy to identify which side is in the wrong, and it's the one invading another country.
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  Well, I think mislabeling as a “one year long invasion” what is a decade long war with Ukraine intentionally shelling urban centers in violation of a negotiated peace speaks to having been taken in by propaganda.
actinium226 4y ago
Not sure if this is a troll or a bot but I'll take the question seriously and answer it seriously. After all, this did occur to me at the time. What convinced me that I'm not falling for Western propaganda? What it came down to was the following argument, and it has to be an argument and not a soundbite because in order to get beneath the propaganda we have to go deep. - Many of Russia's claims against Ukraine are either true or have real elements of truth to them. Yes the founder of Azov is an avowed nationalist*. Yes, there have been laws passed in Ukraine that required greater use of Ukrainian language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_Ukraine#2016_Ukrainian_language_quotas_in_radio_broadcasting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_Ukraine#201.... Yes, the parliament of Ukraine considered giving Hero status to Stepan Bandera, who is a controversial figure because (among other things) he did work with the Nazis in WWII. Yes, there was fighting in Donbas, and while I don't know about Ukraine intentionally shelling civilians, I can imagine that at least there were civilians killed as a result of Ukrainian fire in that area since 2014. - None of these arguments rise to the level of necessitating military intervention. - Russia did not take steps to de-escalate the conflict. There were so many things Russia could have done if it was genuinely interested in peace and friendly relations with a sovereign Ukraine. If you're worried about persecution of Russians in Ukraine, make it easy for them to get to Russia. If you're concerned about fighting, use your status as a UNSC member to call for a peacekeeping mission. Russia did none of these things. I could go on, but the main argument is that when you look past the emotionally charged arguments, the substance and the necessity of military action just aren't there. Bandera's quite a character, but put his history aside for a moment and ask yourself what's his relevance to the current conflict: Yushchenko awarded him hero status in 2010. Yanukovich cancelled this a couple months later. In 2019 Ukraine's parliament took up the issue and decided against giving him an award. And Russia wants to send in soldiers for that? Because they considered him for an award and rejected the idea? * He (Andriy Biletsky) is quoted as having said something about "lead the white races .. against Semite-led untermenschen" but the Guardian article that makes the claim provides no citation.*
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  > while I don't know about Ukraine intentionally shelling civilians, I can imagine that at least there were civilians killed as a result of Ukrainian fire in that area since 2014 Ukraine has intentionally shelled urban centers for a decade — and you think Russia is wrong to protect ethnic Russians from that? > Russia did not take steps to de-escalate the conflict. There were so many things Russia could have done if it was genuinely interested in peace and friendly relations with a sovereign Ukraine. Do you mean like asking France and Germany to negotiate a peace that protects the people of Donbas while remaining part of Ukraine? Russia did that in 2014 — and it was cynically exploited to arm Ukraine for this conflict by NATO, who refused to protect the people in Donbas from Ukrainian shelling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjwSNiCSpnw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjwSNiCSpnw What should Russia have done to protect the ethnic Russians in Donbas — having tried to negotiate a peace only for Ukraine to shell their cities for another decade? > I could go on, but the main argument is that when you look past the emotionally charged arguments You’re the one making emotional strawmen about Banderites rather than focusing on the stated Russian objective of protecting Donbas after a decade of diplomacy failed. Is that because you learned about the Russian “position” from NATO propaganda rather than directly from RT? This is the Russian position, according to RT: > Russia sent troops into Ukraine on February 24, 2022, citing Kiev’s failure to implement the Minsk agreements, designed to give Donetsk and Lugansk special status within the Ukrainian state. The protocols, brokered by Germany and France, were first signed in 2014. Former Ukrainian president Pyotr Poroshenko has since admitted that Kiev’s main goal was to use the ceasefire to buy time and “create powerful armed forces.” https://www.rt.com/news/569954-ukraine-us-nato-biden/ https://www.rt.com/news/569954-ukraine-us-nato-biden/
mannerheim 4y ago
The crimes in Bucha were corroborated by not only the testimony of the residents there, but also the security cameras left in homes and businesses and even satellite photography. The Russians left corpses laying out in the streets for weeks as they occupied the town. https://youtu.be/8ek5jt8Ru3o https://youtu.be/8ek5jt8Ru3o
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  I have no idea about Bucha. I do know that US media has lied or propagandized numerous aspects of this war — from the origins to the current status. My question was that broader one: How do you know this isn’t like Iraq (where the media lied about reasons) or Afghanistan (where the media lied about status, until the sudden collapse)?
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > have no idea about Bucha Maybe start with international accounts of war crimes?
    - zmgsabst 4y ago
      Why is that interesting? Both sides have presented evidence of war crimes and I already believe that soldiers do brutal things in conflicts.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > both sides have presented evidence of war crimes Both sides always do. One side, in this case, has international validation. If you’re ignoring evidence and going off headlines, of course you’ll have a shallower view.

Well, one year long invadion should give you a hint. Detaining people for calling it war instead of "special operation" is another one. Calling other neighbours "fake/artificial" countries is another bad sign that Russia's intentions are not good.

nerdbert 4y ago
People were not detained in the USA for using the wrong nomenclature to describe the Iraq invasion, and yet that was also an unspeakably cruel, venal war of cynical aggression knowingly perpetrated on laughably false pretenses. To this day roughly half of Americans think it was the right move - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/19/iraq-war-continues-to-divide-u-s-public-15-years-after-it-began/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/19/iraq-war-co... So I don't think factors like that are so good at separating "good" invasions from "bad" ones.
- freeone3000 4y ago
  Maybe the invasion of Iraq was also bad!
- mlyle 4y ago
  The thing is, there's vanishingly few "good invasions". Even fewer when you're intent on annexing territory and capturing resources and large numbers of people. The logic error you've committed above: Stifling dissent about the war with authoritarian measures may not be a necessary condition for an invasion to be bad, but it still can be a hint that the invasion is bad. Rejecting the territorial integrity of the country invaded, similarly, can be a pretty good hint.
  - FpUser 4y ago
    >"Even fewer when you're intent on annexing territory and capturing resources and large numbers of people." As ugly as it sounds I would actually prefer that the US had annexed countries it had invaded. This way it would at least be responsible and people would leave in more decent place than before. Instead they came in, murdered and otherwise fucked people and then left without much remorse and repercussion.
- aeternum 4y ago
  People were detained for using the wrong nomenclature around communism though. Or are we brushing the whole McCarthyism era under the rug?
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    Yes, and? When McCarthy did it, it didn't show how strong McCarthy was; it showed how weak he was. When Putin does it, it doesn't show how strong Putin is, either.
    - aeternum 4y ago
      To see Putin as a weak evildoer is falling for US propaganda. The truth is more nuanced. Strong powers take advantage of weak powers and the US is no exception. We do it by expanding NATO territory. There are also arguments to be made that the US pushed Putin into the war. As it is a strategic move to have russia use up its arms fighting a neighbor rather than the US. The war also greatly increased US natgas exports to Europe. It's pretty immoral / weak to for the world's superpower to push neighboring countries into war for these reasons.
      - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
        1. NATO expansion isn't driven by US imperialism. We aren't conquering countries and forcing them to join; they are asking to join - and not because we're tying a big aid package to NATO membership. They're joining because they're worried about Russian imperialism. 2. You say it's accepting propaganda to see Putin as weak. But you see him as being pushed into war by the US. That's not something that happens to someone who is strong. 3. "As it is a strategic move to have russia use up its arms fighting a neighbor rather than the US." Absolutely. More: It's to NATO's advantage to have Russia use up its arms fighting a non-NATO-member.
        aeternum 4y ago
        Sure, Putin is not a good leader for Russia, he's power-hungry and does not seem to have the best interests of the Russian people in mind. However by those same metrics you should consider US leadership as also being a weak evildoer. Is it good or evil to push other countries into war knowing that thousands will die? Is it good or evil to profit off the resulting energy crisis? Is it even smart to risk a global nuclear war to destroy outdated arms and decades old tanks? Is it good or evil to trigger economic collapse via sanctions causing starvation both inside the country and to export nations? Don't we consider Mao and Stalin some of the most evil people that ever lived for doing the same? Starvation is a terrible way to die yet it isn't even seen as collateral damage. Putin will die anyway in the next couple decades. It made no sense to poke the bear and trigger all this. It ultimately just strengthens China and increases the amount of global suffering.
- plorkyeran 4y ago
  I don't understand how this is supposed to be a gotcha. Are you assuming that everyone opposed to Russia's invasion of Ukraine think the USA invasion of Iraq was good? I think in both cases it's very easy to identify which side is in the wrong, and it's the one invading another country.
zmgsabst 4y ago
Well, I think mislabeling as a “one year long invasion” what is a decade long war with Ukraine intentionally shelling urban centers in violation of a negotiated peace speaks to having been taken in by propaganda.

actinium226 4y ago

Not sure if this is a troll or a bot but I'll take the question seriously and answer it seriously. After all, this did occur to me at the time. What convinced me that I'm not falling for Western propaganda? What it came down to was the following argument, and it has to be an argument and not a soundbite because in order to get beneath the propaganda we have to go deep. - Many of Russia's claims against Ukraine are either true or have real elements of truth to them. Yes the founder of Azov is an avowed nationalist*. Yes, there have been laws passed in Ukraine that required greater use of Ukrainian language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_Ukraine#2016_Ukrainian_language_quotas_in_radio_broadcasting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_Ukraine#201.... Yes, the parliament of Ukraine considered giving Hero status to Stepan Bandera, who is a controversial figure because (among other things) he did work with the Nazis in WWII. Yes, there was fighting in Donbas, and while I don't know about Ukraine intentionally shelling civilians, I can imagine that at least there were civilians killed as a result of Ukrainian fire in that area since 2014. - None of these arguments rise to the level of necessitating military intervention. - Russia did not take steps to de-escalate the conflict. There were so many things Russia could have done if it was genuinely interested in peace and friendly relations with a sovereign Ukraine. If you're worried about persecution of Russians in Ukraine, make it easy for them to get to Russia. If you're concerned about fighting, use your status as a UNSC member to call for a peacekeeping mission. Russia did none of these things. I could go on, but the main argument is that when you look past the emotionally charged arguments, the substance and the necessity of military action just aren't there. Bandera's quite a character, but put his history aside for a moment and ask yourself what's his relevance to the current conflict: Yushchenko awarded him hero status in 2010. Yanukovich cancelled this a couple months later. In 2019 Ukraine's parliament took up the issue and decided against giving him an award. And Russia wants to send in soldiers for that? Because they considered him for an award and rejected the idea? * He (Andriy Biletsky) is quoted as having said something about "lead the white races .. against Semite-led untermenschen" but the Guardian article that makes the claim provides no citation.*

zmgsabst 4y ago
> while I don't know about Ukraine intentionally shelling civilians, I can imagine that at least there were civilians killed as a result of Ukrainian fire in that area since 2014 Ukraine has intentionally shelled urban centers for a decade — and you think Russia is wrong to protect ethnic Russians from that? > Russia did not take steps to de-escalate the conflict. There were so many things Russia could have done if it was genuinely interested in peace and friendly relations with a sovereign Ukraine. Do you mean like asking France and Germany to negotiate a peace that protects the people of Donbas while remaining part of Ukraine? Russia did that in 2014 — and it was cynically exploited to arm Ukraine for this conflict by NATO, who refused to protect the people in Donbas from Ukrainian shelling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjwSNiCSpnw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjwSNiCSpnw What should Russia have done to protect the ethnic Russians in Donbas — having tried to negotiate a peace only for Ukraine to shell their cities for another decade? > I could go on, but the main argument is that when you look past the emotionally charged arguments You’re the one making emotional strawmen about Banderites rather than focusing on the stated Russian objective of protecting Donbas after a decade of diplomacy failed. Is that because you learned about the Russian “position” from NATO propaganda rather than directly from RT? This is the Russian position, according to RT: > Russia sent troops into Ukraine on February 24, 2022, citing Kiev’s failure to implement the Minsk agreements, designed to give Donetsk and Lugansk special status within the Ukrainian state. The protocols, brokered by Germany and France, were first signed in 2014. Former Ukrainian president Pyotr Poroshenko has since admitted that Kiev’s main goal was to use the ceasefire to buy time and “create powerful armed forces.” https://www.rt.com/news/569954-ukraine-us-nato-biden/ https://www.rt.com/news/569954-ukraine-us-nato-biden/

mannerheim 4y ago

The crimes in Bucha were corroborated by not only the testimony of the residents there, but also the security cameras left in homes and businesses and even satellite photography. The Russians left corpses laying out in the streets for weeks as they occupied the town. https://youtu.be/8ek5jt8Ru3o https://youtu.be/8ek5jt8Ru3o

zmgsabst 4y ago
I have no idea about Bucha. I do know that US media has lied or propagandized numerous aspects of this war — from the origins to the current status. My question was that broader one: How do you know this isn’t like Iraq (where the media lied about reasons) or Afghanistan (where the media lied about status, until the sudden collapse)?
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > have no idea about Bucha Maybe start with international accounts of war crimes?
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    Why is that interesting? Both sides have presented evidence of war crimes and I already believe that soldiers do brutal things in conflicts.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > both sides have presented evidence of war crimes Both sides always do. One side, in this case, has international validation. If you’re ignoring evidence and going off headlines, of course you’ll have a shallower view.