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”.
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?
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.
> 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.
It's worth considering that the former is probably more effective, and certainly makes fewer people upset.
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 ..
> The WEST DOES have political persecution the way Russia does. There is, literally, NO DIFFERENCE.
There is a difference between "the west persecutes" and "the west is just as bad as Russia". I think just because the west does something bad does not immediately put them on the same level as Russia. Yes, both sides claim they are nigh-perfect and the other side is the worst ever. Just because both sides aren't near perfect doesn't mean that therefore both sides are equally bad.
As a side-note. One of the sides has unilaterally invaded another country with intention to annex the last year. Whilst the other countries latest invasion is 20 years old, and now generally admitted to have been a bad and illegal invasion.
> Because, honestly, you can't be so ignorant .. YES: The WEST DOES have political persecution the way Russia does.
With all due respect which is none, I don't think you personally know someone who was persecuted in some way or another. I do know several. (Assuming you're in the US)
> Of course, we don't have evidence of a thousand Russian secret torture sites
Thankfully, an acceptance of blind coffeeshop psychological evaluations from random strangers is not one of them. Also, no irrational war-/blood-lust, nor xenophobia, in spite of a continued association with such clearly inflicted individuals.
There is a difference between his case, leaking state secrets, and jailing journos for a disagreement. I don't agree with how he's been handled but there is zero moral equivalence.
i literally said i come neither from russia nor america so i am basically more "independent" from you if you are an american citizen or the like.
manning/assange anyone? oh they are terrorists right? for giving sensitive information to enemies but russian or chinese defectors are given "protection" because they do the same for america but if russia/china goes after them, well..... you know
> i literally said i come neither from russia nor america
But that is of course exactly what you'd say if you were a Russian troll.
I noticed the clue "Kashmiri" in your name only after my previous reply to a comment of yours. So, if that means your "third world country far away" is India... Yeah, pretty goddamn Russia-aligned. Maybe consider whether your own "neutral" media environment is really that neutral at all?
> 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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
About half of us called bullshit the instant "WMDs" were paraded as the reason to go to war.
And I think the other half have, over time, come to see the whole operation as a regretful waste of time, money, and lives.
So, no, I don't think there are any fans of the U.S. invasion of Iraq still around. Some of us are still incensed by the lies that were trotted out though.
>Some of us are still incensed by the lies that were trotted out though.
this is the only point i'm trying to make. suppose tomorrow biden comes up and wants to invade iran for example. will american public lap it up like they have for the last so many decades, thats there but what about the rest of the world community? how many will arm IRAN against USA when they know USA to be the one who is invading? who will fight alongside USA?
USA or for that matter, "Allies" do not have the moral upper hand in the world, no one has. every nation is the same so why not accept that as a reality and move on?
russia may indeed be the bad guy here. heck, putin might be personally responsible for murder of thousands but so is bush and obama so how does that give usa the right ?
one commenter said "after 9/11 usa had to do something" and they invaded a soverign nation, destroyed it because a single person was responsible? its fine when usa takes revenge but russia cant defend its borders?
i am not a troll, i am not a paid/unpaid actor. i just want to point out that there is propaganda on both sides, thats all
> >Some of us are still incensed by the lies that were trotted out though.
> this is the only point i'm trying to make.
And it's a bad one. Because:
> suppose tomorrow biden comes up and wants to invade iran for example. will american public lap it up like they have for the last so many decades,
The very line you quoted told you that many (most?) of them didn't "lap it up" then either.
You're really not very good at this, are you?
> its fine when usa takes revenge but russia cant defend its borders?
Russia ISN'T "defend[ing] its borders"! Holy shit, how often do people have to explain this so you Putin-Versteher will get it?!? NOBODY WAS ABOUT TO ATTACK RUSSIA.
> i am not a troll
Even if you think you aren't, you're walking and quacking like one. Which in the end means you are one.
I think Putin's reasoning is that Ukraine's very independence amounts to seizing Russian sovereign territory.
What I find remarkable is the rarity of reports of Ukrainian attacks behind Russian lines (i.e. in Russian territory). As far as I can tell, they've blown up two fuel dumps and an arms dump. Given the dependence of Russia on what appear to be thin logistics lines, I'd have expected loads of missile attacks on bridges and rail junctions.
Of course, there's propaganda everywhere; perhaps Ukraine has been attacking Russian supply lines, and we're not being told, because that would serve neither Ukraainian nor Russian interests. I guess we'll have to wait until historians get their hands on the records.
The Neptune anti-ship missiles that sank the Moskva apparently have a range of 280km. They were invented and are made in Ukraine.
The Baykratar TB-2 drone from Turkey apparently has a 4,000km range. Clearly, Ukraine has the ability to strike behind Russian lines.
If Ukraine is really trying to avoid Russian civilian casualties by declining to attack Russian supply lines, that seems foolish, and I don't believe it. I do believe that they have not deliberately attacked Russian population centres.
Russia will not want to publicise successful attacks by Ukraine on Russian military positions in Russia. They are still pretending that Russia is not at war. And Ukraine will not want to tell the world that they have hit Russian civilians, or even targets in Russia; it's advantageous for Ukraine if everyone believes this is 100% a defensive action.
But you can't defend effectively just by sitting there in your trenches; you have to strike enemy supply lines. And Russia's supply lines are vulnerable. So I assume they are being attacked. We're just not being told about it.
> 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.
That isn't true. Many of us worked with Ukrainians before the war, especially in the software industry, such as myself. There was no sudden perceptual change. I observed the fear and anxiety my Ukrainian coworkers experienced directly.
They are European and they did not deserve this invasion and as far as I'm concerned deserve all the help and compassion the rest of us can offer.
"European" is a rather loose term. When I was a kid, Europe stopped at the border with East Germany. Later, a bunch of former soviet countries became "european" countries. Then Ukraine. For a while, Russia was acclaimed as a european country (it's still often described that way in the UK press).
Call me an old fogey, but I'm still doubtful that the former East Germany is really european yet. Being "european" is a question of culture, not of political alliances and borders.
Yes, and I say Ukrainians are European in culture and an inspiration to other Europeans in their bravery. Danes recently celebrated the liberation of their country from Nazis. Thousands of us packed the city square to listen to Zelensky speak to our cultural memory of oppression at the hands of invaders.
My Ukrainian coworkers were easy to work with, easy to communicate with, hardworking and an equal to any of us in ability.
Talk of bravery and historic wrongs always makes me feel uncomfortable.
I've never made the acquaintance of a Ukrainian; I'm sure they're lovely (and familiar). I have worked with Russians; they were also charming (and familiar).
> Talk of bravery and historic wrongs always makes me feel uncomfortable.
I'll ask you to clarify because it sounds, to me, like you are saying something I hope you are not.
> I've never made the acquaintance of a Ukrainian; I'm sure they're lovely (and familiar). I have worked with Russians; they were also charming (and familiar).
I'd be more than happy to embrace Russians living, abiding and supporting their nation with their labor as sisters and brothers when their country stops assaulting sovereign nations. Unfortunately, there is no one else who can stop the invasion but its own people.
I dislike jingoistic nationalism. "Historic wrongs" tends to be associated with things like revanchism and irredentism, which are political forces that lead to wars. Talk of "bravery" in warfare is normally about the glorious deeds of "our side". Nobody talks about the bravery of their enemy.
I've heard stories about despicable actions by Russian troops, which I'm inclined to believe - actions not compatible with any claim of bravery. But it seems to me undeniable that Putin, at least, has acted bravely. Perhaps "courageously" would be a better word, in the Sir Humphrey, Yes, Minister sense.
I do not view bravery as you do. I see it as a choice between a virtuous act that puts you at risk and another which puts you in safety to the detriment of others. Defending your child from harm by sacrificing your own life is brave. Throwing your child at the face of the enemy to spare your own life is an act of cowardice.
I think it is brave of Ukrainians to defend their homeland from an invading nation. It was very easy in the beginning to simply run to the nearest EU country and be taken in with open arms. It is brave of Ukrainians to say, "No, we are not yours, we are our own" and to defend that declaration when tested.
When talk of historic wrongs makes you uncomfortable I wonder what you think of Denmark celebrating its liberation from the Nazis and if talk of the historic wrong of the Nazis also makes you uncomfortable i.e. do you believe the historic wrong of enslaving our nation was wrong or do you believe it a blameless act? One can extrapolate this question to other historic wrongs such as the Holodomor.
I can't reply to your comment, so I'll reply to my own.
Bravery as virtue: virtue is a value judgement; your example about throwing children is rather reductionist, and I can't address it. If you want to argue from analogy, it's helpful to choose an analogy that isn't as extreme as throwing your own child at the enemy, and then running away.
Brave Ukrainians defending their homeland: I think most people will defend their homeland against an invader, if they have the capacity. It's normal for invaders to destroy culture, families, and cities. I'm impressed by the Ukrainian resistance; I wasn't expecting it. It's hard to deny that their resistance is brave. My surprise is mainly because I didn't think they had the capacity; after all, they gave no resistance to the invasion of Crimea.
Historic wrongs, and Denmark: I only know a little of Danish history. I am familiar with some of what happened in WWII. I think it's a terrible mistake for someone from country A to get tangled up in the "historic wrongs" committed against country B by country C. More generally, as a peace-lover, my preference is to put the past in the past, and respect current boundaries. If someone is violating current boundaries, I'm against them; but nobody is violating, nor even threatening Denmark's boundaries.
Please bear in mind that Mr. Putin's rationalisation of his invasion of Ukraine is explicitly based on "historic wrongs", specifically what he considers mistakes made by the bolsheviks in setting up the state of Ukraine. If historic wrongs is an OK inspiration for Danish nationalists, then why not for Russian nationalists? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
So I think Putin's invasion is a clear example of why making a stand on "historic wrongs" is likely to lead to misery and destruction.
I am not denying any of this. I only have a minimal idea of how the situation is or was in the Ukraine, and don't claim to know. I hope the best for all of them.
I just struggle with the idea of sending weapons to a country that has a well recorded near history of human right violations. In my opinion the public voice is less about the actual people but about political fears.
> 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.
But you do realize that a large part of these problems stem from the corruption and the main source of that in Ukraine was (is?) ungodly amounts of money coming in from Putins regime to bribe the shit out of everyone (mainly in the form of selling gas/oil to some local oligarch way under market price and which they then sell at market price). This whole conflict started when the Ukraine people decided to say fuck this and kicked out Putins friend out from power and Russia retaliated by taking over Crimea and give money/weapons to the seperatist in Donetsk and Luhansk.
True. Before there was little common ground but now the populations of countries like the US, Baltics, and Poland have significant common ground and feel much closer to the Ukrainian people because of the common value of freedom and sovereignty, both of which are held very dear. There is nothing strange or hypocritical about that.
I believe you raise some good questions and I have contemplated many of those myself. I do believe what we are seeing in Ukraine is different though qualitatively and quantitatively. I will give my reasons below.
1. Ukraine is in Europe, now that should not make a difference, but it does. Historically conflicts in Europe (in contrast to other parts of the world) have a much higher tendency to escalate into world-wide conflicts.
2. Ukraine, in contrast to Iraq, Libya and Syria is a reasonably functioning democracy (although with many issues).
3. The rhetoric out of Russia (and this is from Russian TV channels etc. not western propaganda) towards annihilation of Ukrainians is quite different to any of the things being said from the west in the other wars. There is also no evidence that in any of the other conflicts the US or its allies were using rapes as a systematic weapon against the civil population.
I also take issue with a couple of your points, you mention Afghanistan and Syria as being razed by America and its allies, you conveniently forgot the role of Russia in the destruction of those countries (Aleppo was destroyed by Russian mercenaries and Syrian troops for example). You also didn't mention Georgia, or Chechnya, were essentially nobody said anything either although it was Russia who invaded. In fact I believe most of the west was hoping for a quick win for the Russians in Ukraine as well, so they could just go back to "normal".
You say:
> does not equate to waging a war against america like its being done against russia.
That is a very weird interpretation of what is going on, no matter if you believe that there is propaganda on both sides, lets not forget Russia invaded Ukraine. It is Russian soldiers fighting Ukrainian soldiers, so far no "Western" soldiers are involved so how is anyone waging war against Russia?
Finally, I find this sort of argument highly suspect. You argue that Iraq, Libya, Syria were unjust and lament the fact that there was not enough being done, but now you argue we should ignore Ukraine because it's Russia who is doing it? Is your argument, as long as the people I like do it it is ok? Were you not the one who were complaining about exactly this earlier?
I care more because I understand it's happening in european soil, just on EU borders and Ukranians feel as Europeans as Romanians are.
So yes there's a gregarian component to it, yet it also have a huge impact for us. Russia did this because they know we're dependent on their energy and there's little the EU can do without stomaching huge economic losses.
It's not about peace, It's about interests,a power struggle. Russia also invaded Georgia, and Azerbaijan had a war with Armenia yet the EU did almost nothing about it.
I'd really like to have a paceful relationship with Russia, as it's on our best interests, but it seems they don't think the same about us.
If I go down the street in Baramulla or Bijbehara (assuming no forces around) and ask what people think about Pak getting involved or not involved in Yemen what do you think they would say? Or about what Saudi Arabia doing? More to the point, do they think BD were traitors for leaving Pak in 1971? Or Muslims can never commit war crimes against other Muslims? Afghans never occupied Kashmir?
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.
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.
> There is so much propaganda in this war it's borderline impossible to get anything but a cloudy view on things.
No, this is incorrect. You can definitely get a pretty good picture. Saying that “you can only get a cloudy view” is a common Russian propaganda tactic aiming to neutralize the target.
> 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.
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.
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.
> Yanukovych? That’s not a great example, since he’s famously a Russian puppet, removed from office in the Maidan Revolution.
Coup! Coup! Remember, never call it the "Maidan Revolution", it was a coup! Oh, wait, sorry, you're not trying to prove you're a Russian troll, are you? ;-)
But honestly, I've found that's the easiest heuristic, at least on Twitter: Whenever someone talks about the 2014 "coup" (or "Putsch") in Ukraine, they're a Putler RToll (<-- tpyoed that at first, noticed how fitting it was, so capitalised it).
Things didn't really get better since then tho (judging blindly from Wikipedia). I don't know anything about their political figures but whatever started to get downhill 2010 didn't stop under whoever is leading now.
While it is not 1:1 with regards to human rights there was a pivot in the media away from Ukraine's "Problem with far right violence"[1] after the war started[2] into "Azov battalion is only 10% Nazi so there are no Nazis in Ukraine"
Calling all citizens to a crazy war to die in pride for their lands and forbidding men to leave to country also is a very nationalist move for a non nationalist country IMO
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.
> 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.
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 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.
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.
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”.