whYNOT

Let's get straight just which war propaganda has been most broadcast to more people and more egregiously devious, by a long way: the western media.
There is not a semblance of equivalence.
"That's Russian propaganda!" The smear used to silence opposition and to conceal the West's own propaganda-for-war-machine, working flat-out.
If one maintained that diplomacy, a truce and peace treaties with concessions, were and are the only solution - "appeasement, you are pro-Putin. No peace! We will beat and humiliate him with (Ukraine's) warfare".
Or: tell anyone that the oil shortages, food prices, falling economies, inflation, probable 3rd World hunger, etc. were due not to Putin, but directly caused by our rulers' unthinking imposition of total sanctions (which could have been held in reserve, or incrementally imposed - 'the stick' - with some 'carrots' - to get Putin negotiating, early as March) - that's "Russian propaganda".
(The adolescent's causation - we block and contain Russia's exports to try to kill its economy, then moan and complain that - hell - the world is suffering shortages ... and who's to blame: Russia's invasion!).
I and anyone could go on at length about the blunders and self-sacrifices by the West's leaders that are being justified and sanitized for public consumption: Western propaganda.
You only have to see recently the accounts (begrudgingly and belatedly admitted in western media) of Ukraine's v. Russia's retreats/advances in the field, to know the indoctrinated unreality a large part of the West lives in, when all of a sudden reports of glorious victories are less heard (but still dreamed of). Anyone who knew anything, could and did tell us, mostly unpublished in the msm, from the beginning that Russia was not going to lose this war (in the East). Not an expert, I knew that. Unacceptable!
The latest further arming of Ukraine with more extreme-range weapons at this stage is clearly suicidal. It only prolongs the war and the Russians will advance their lines deeper for a wider buffer zone. But to state any of that -  Russian propaganda!

A misrepresentation. If anyone thinks propaganda isn't playing a major role in starting and sustaining this war, then they're well under the sway of that very "propaganda".
To illustrate propaganda in operation, there is no better way than to place contesting articles up for examination, pro and anti, one side or the other's relating of facts and events, narrative and agendas. One doesn't see it until one appreciates the clear contrasts (especially from the prevailing and dominant western news reports).
So, I went to and have put up RT stories where one would expect the most extreme differences from western propaganda.
My "thoughts", right. While I try to be careful to not suggest how others ~are supposed~ to think about and take away from the articles. Would it be better to tell Objectivists what to think and what judgments to make?
Always you return to the "source", a "name" which will somehow, by association, guarantee or degrade the credibility of some individual writer's account, opinions, article, or essay. I've insisted to you before how non-objective that is; authoritarian and intrinsicist. As if the entire "source" (website, magazine, newspaper and broadcaster) automatically lends an account truthfulness and moral respectability - or - e.g. with anything from Russia Today - must be a pack of lies and immorality.
Propaganda's effectiveness has been exacerbated by and depends on the public's dogmatism: the Word of Authority. Simply accepted on mindless faith. 

Right, about as socialist as they come. Which means do not read - ever!
You might never recover.
Something I've tried to get across, the cover doesn't represent the contents.
I advise, read and consider a range of journalists' broader knowledge and deeper understanding in isolation from where you find it, and "who" they are. Within the context of this war and about the actors involved, as these do, at minimum: they are not espousing "socialism" here, but offer a contrarian view based on facts and evidence.
Facts and evidence which one can learn from (and triple-check).
 

https://mronline.org/2022/04/19/one-less-traitor/
https://mronline.org/2022/07/22/how-corrupt-is-ukrainian-president-volodymyr-zelensky/
https://mronline.org/2022/07/20/russias-campaign-in-ukraine-nearing-an-inflection-point/

Those conflicting sources are rife. In almost all the mainstream media you get to see, I can be certain. Is it too difficult to entertain other conflicting sources?
Something you don't admit to, that there exists, and has for a long while, an indoctrinating and largely Leftist, western reportage - which is for its adherents, generally accepted as Gospel. Sure, no one likes to acknowledge that their minds have been easily influenced.
You don't approve of (Russian) government sources - despite many international broadcasters being Gvt. owned - fine and good;
it should be simple for you to counter and contrast an (e.g.) Russia Today's report with some from western media.
Why haven't you?
Instead of negatively hiding behind "prove it" - be proactive, offer some contrary accounts (and definite opinions). I welcome any.
I have seen nothing from you showing and linking to ¬msm¬ reports - perhaps too - critically questioning their factual evidence and clear bias.  
The belief that one side in this conflict alone is evidently, factually honest and the other side deceives all the time, aligns with the a priori belief that moral purity exists on one side - with only evil on the other. Both run against reality and reason, premised upon 'revealed' knowledge - faith.
In all, I have simply been the messenger, indicating that there are other facts (or 'non-facts') and other viewpoints available "out there", ones suppressed in the West, not heard of. These ought to be welcomed by rigorous thinkers.
Discussions and speeches I put up have not attracted any analysis or debate here. E.g. What merit are Mearsheimer's opinions of NATO and the Russian objections? Not a reply.   
In closing, I am under no obligation to "prove" anything that comes from media sources. Because - I was not there on the spot, to personally witness events. As nobody here is, therefore we have to painstakingly draw deductions from ¬all¬ we hear.
But I take the view that Objectivists are independent thinkers who aren't timid about uncovering reality without fear or favor.
 
 

d_w, the best place for this discussion IS because this is an Objectivist forum. This war and its global response demands objectivity, from many more outspoken individuals. Not that it is "essential to Objectivism", but that Objectivism is essential and fundamental to (identifying, explaining, judging, resolving) it. In short: O'ism's applicability. None other, and I've read and heard many erudite intellectuals on this war, has the unified principles and methodology.
(I appreciate that opinions can be freely thrashed out here whereas, in other places one might be deplatformed and the site banned for daring to question the controlled, moral agenda).
"'Tis not unreasonable to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger". David Hume
This anti-philosophy is what mankind has absorbed and we are up against.

No, I have never denounced Tony. Where do you get this? 

The social and legal persecution of Russian-speakers and ethnic Russians in Ukraine is a well-documented fact.
The civil war over Donbas can be researched, while not much was publicized back then (or now).
I don't see "a genocide" of the locals as Putin stated, and as little do I accept the "genocidal" motive of Russia's assault on Ukrainians. Not the slightest evidence for this, mere scare-mongering. The opposite, trying to avoid civilian casualties, is closer to true.
However, civilians were certainly killed in the Donbas by Kyiv's indiscriminate shelling of civilian areas**, totaling combatant and non-combatant deaths above 22,000.
If AI, the UN, and any organizations voiced concerns about that long civil war, I have not seen where they actively did a single thing to end it. That should raise suspicion by itself. Maybe, I speculate, they were told to butt out.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi0mpSYhoz5AhXEolwKHUdtDuYQFnoECBoQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCasualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War&usg=AOvVaw2vgfH37WVebSyjea27Kdhz
**exactly as Kyiv is once again doing recently.
 

Another quibbler. This link was in a reply to the "murdering" of Easterners.
For many, it is not the veracity of facts that matters, it's the dislike of facts. 

Man, you gotta do your own digging and putting the pieces together. If you can source facts and form conclusions conflicting with my findings so far, I will be glad to hear and debate. I suggest stay with what's crucial and important. You already made one wrongful accusation, which I verified from Wiki concerning Putin's presence at Minsk . I can't be bothered to validate every trivial detail.

Interesting parallel. When once, a certain world leader was hero-worshipped by the western media and politicians, and consequently by the western people - for as long as he was 'useful' and after. Who also committed his army and citizens and great losses of life to a (in a sense) "proxy war" on the West's behalf. Again, irrelevant *where* it is published. Anyhow, the observations of a western journalist, btw.
 
https://www.rt.com/russia/558778-us-campaign-stalin-regime/

The Western propaganda machine that succeeded from the start and has been favoring one direction 99:1, has convinced nearly all people. Objectivists too, I am sorry to see.  I don't expect them to run with the "me too" herd. Unheard, anything else, since RT was banned and very little from other media conflicts the mainstream narrative. The "other side" is publicized everywhere and I don't need to repeat it.
1.  RT produces mainly simple stories putting forward facts and statements, not always favorable to Russia, that you can verify elswhere.
2. The discussion above is of opinions by three Americans, experts in their fields, one ex-Pentagon, hardly "Putinists" - did you notice? I think the arguments have objective merit. They would not get any airing on MSM. Try considering the words and ideas independently without prejudice. Break down their arguments and facts, if you can. Or reject anything from RT out of hand, with prejudiced evasion.
This tiny amount published against a deluge of western indoctrination, and which upsets your fixed mindset, exposes what I've known:  that finding the truth behind and rational solutions to the war is unimportant to many -  not disturbing anyone's pre-existing bias and "moral feelings" is.  
You also similarly "judge the book by the cover", simple laziness.
 
 

The authoritarianism by every western leader in response to the conflict, acting in dictatorial unison, without their citizens' informed consent or mandate while at their final cost, has been breathtaking. Yes.
But explains the absolute necessity of the "propaganda machine" to keep an unprotesting public on board.

I was deeply saddened to hear of the recent death of libertarian author and lecturer George H. Smith.  The world is definitely worse off for his absence.  From a personal standpoint, his passing has left a painful stain on some of my fondest memories from my early years in California, because he was an important part of those years. The best way I can think of to deal with my sadness is to recount some of my memories of George—positive and negative--in writing.
I first met George at a taping for one of Nathaniel Branden’s monthly “Seminar” recordings around 1970. The informal question-and-answer session was held at Branden’s hilltop home in Bel Air near Los Angeles.  I had only recently moved to California after graduating from The University of Tennessee in Knoxville.  I had been a devoted follower of both Ayn Rand and Branden for many years, and decided to move to L.A. in large part to derive what guidance I could from Branden, who had opened a psychotherapy practice in Beverly Hills following their celebrated parting of the ways.
At the time I had no friends—Objectivist or otherwise—in California, and George impressed me as not only highly intelligent but also a kindred spirit.   Nash Publishing had recently published an anthology of essays titled The University Under Seige, offering the perspective of myself and several other students who had been witness to the campus unrest of the late 1960s.  George had only recently signed a contract with Nash to write Atheism—The Case Against God, his now classic and brilliant defense of the atheist position, and he asked me a few questions about my experience as a published author.
We became friends, and I often visited him and his wife at the time—the lovely Diane Hunter—over the next few years.  I also attended several events at The Forum for Philosophical Studies, a lecture organization he founded in Hollywood.   At that point, George impressed me as having an excellent grasp of the Objectivist philosophy, and I had the sense that I could learn from our discussions.  I remember seeing him present his essay on “Objectivism as a Religion” to a group of avid listeners in a home near Santa Monica, and I became convinced that his view of the break between Rand and Branden was on the mark.   I went on to attend a series of lectures--“The Fundamentals of Reasoning”—which he gave at his Hollywood apartment, and to this day I am aware of the enormous benefit I derived from what he had to say.  
One seemingly minor example of a lesson I learned from George was the importance of a single principle—persistence.  Even today, I often invoke that concept when working through some challenging problem.  And it was George who planted the idea if my head that few things were as important to long-term success.  When I think of the vital importance of persistence, I think of George.
Once the lectures were over, George often invited me (and others) to stay and spend some time socializing and watching TV.  As I recall, by this time he had separated from Diane Hunter and was living with Wendy McElroy.  We often watched a couple of highly irreverent television comedies—“Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman” and “Fernwood Tonight.”  In the years that followed I occasionally attended parties at George’s home. 
To repeat, George was very much an important part of my experience of California in the 1970s, and those memories mean a great deal to me.  Through him I eventually met such well-known libertarian icons as the late Roy Childs and Jeff Riggenbach.   I never agreed with George’s staunch position in favor of anarcho-capitalism, and I think this may have prevented our relationship from developing into a closer friendship.   He did not seem to enjoy extended discussions with people who did not see the world as he did. But we were friends, nonetheless.
The last time I remember seeing George in Los Angeles was in 1989, at a gathering to celebrate the release of Branden’s autobiography, Judgment Day.  At that same occasion, I informed George that I had, along with a colleague, started my own educational organization, The Forum for the New Intellectual.  He seemed mildly curious, but never attended during the several years it was in existence.
George and I fell out of touch for roughly two decades, until we happened to cross paths again on an Objectivist website.  In the meantime, I had pursued a career in psychology, and George had won considerable prominence as a libertarian writer, teacher and scholar.  Following our rendezvous in the cyber world, we began comparing notes and had several cordial exchanges, often of a very friendly nature.  Although I was delighted to have renewed our acquaintance, I was also shocked and disappointed by a number of things George said.   It was clear that he no longer considered himself an Objectivist, even to the point of being disdainful of those such as myself who strongly advocated for Ayn Rand’s ideas.  Incredibly, he even went so far as to distance himself from many of his own pro-Objectivist arguments in his book, Atheism: The Case Against God.   He no longer considered it important that libertarians have a rational philosophical foundation for their beliefs.
Then inevitably the topic of anarcho-capitalism raised its obstinate head.  I made my opposition to that (IMO) destructive, rationalistic viewpoint very clear, and he was decidedly unhappy that I would undermine a position that had been the centerpiece of his intellectual career.  At some point, a rancorous online debate ensued.  It went on for days and it did not end well.  George decided to engage in what I considered to be a personal attack on my integrity, and that was the end of it. George displayed a bitterness toward me that cut very deeply.  My background in psychology helped me to see where his anger was coming from, but that did little to attenuate my pain and disillusion. That was 2012.  We never had any sort of verbal interaction again.
And now—ten years later--I have learned of George’s tragic passing, and all the wonderful memories from the 1970s have come back in an avalanche—all the warmth, all the laughter, all the joy, all the hopes for the future, all the dreams of a better world.  No matter our differences, George and I shared many of those hopes and dreams, and he helped me learn how to live and work for that world and that future.
Farewell, old friend.  No matter how virulent and outraged and vicious the waves—the loud, turbulent water that has long since passed under the bridge separating us--I will miss you.
Dennis Hardin
 

Those who took their lives here, were often but not only, some actors, performers and musicians (some known personally) who had lost their incomes, social/family pursuits and more than anything, to alone creative types - their work.
Not directly as result of Covid, but the evil of the inessential and inhumane, universal lockdowns.

Much in that. How else does one break out of the spin of media deception, the One public Narrative, but with one's induction-deduction?
A blizzard of distracting, media fed 'factoids' bring about good ol' O'ist nitpicking over minutiae.
Also some grasp of human nature is invaluable...  

Even on the Russian side, there was open admission that Ukraine put up more resolute and capable resistance than expected. But I've not heard they thought it would fall like a house of cards! If the West thought so, I wonder if they weren't dissembling, seeing as Britain and the US had been supplying and training Ukranians since 2015 (the UK, anyway) and should have known better how effective the Army was.
This reduces to how much Russia wanted or still wants to take Kyiv. And what costs would be acceptable. Frankly, I can't see why they'd try: superficially, of course to change the government, but that does not make sense. At great losses, civilian casualties and substantial damage to the city, the troops finally get to the Government buildings to find - everybody's left. Relocated secretly much earlier to a more secure part of the country. So what's the point? And as for the country's occupation...
I think you were aware of the crazy self-contradiction which we all were hearing simultaneously in the media, after Russia's retreat-redeployment or 'defeat' at Kyiv. (I still believe the attack was part "probe" to test out resistance and part diversionary-tactic). 
1. Russia is done for, taking too many losses, under-equipped, low morale - etc.etc.
Ukraine has victory in its sights!
2. Russia will now go after Poland, etc. etc. next, in its "expansionism".
Done for, or an army of Supermen? You can't have it both ways: a weak Army that couldn't defeat one city, is badly beaten--and now a powerhouse ready and able to conquer Europe?!
Most visibly now, neither was and is true. It had big losses, but is still strongly functioning.
Into Europe, a fantasy bridge too far, that couldn't possibly been even considered by Putin and his generals I think. It will become clearer as things unfold.
The point of the split "narrative" was almost certainly : 1. to build up Ukrainian morale with its apparent successes--and keep on going with its proxy war  2. to scare Europe into submission and sending support -- and gain new NATO members.
A military analyst wrote the other day, re: the fighting in the East and South that Russia's traditional battle style has been "a slow grinding down" of opposition, nothing flashy.
 

I count two. One I believe I've validated, the other still pending and more likely true than not. If you're going to fact-check me, you'll need more than 5 minutes search - and must provide your counter-sources, as I do.
And I notice you neglected to mention your accusation against me about "the leader of Russia" involved at Minsk as I reported.
But where do you find your info - or - opposing info? Weren't RT and Sputnik banned in Europe (for that very reason - we can't have independent minds questioning authority and the settled feelings and 'science' about the war in Ukraine, can we?).
I think I search through and collate more dissenting facts and opinions than you have demonstrated.
Your narrative runs very close to the "accepted narrative" which blankets Google and blocks the majority of dissenting voices.
On an Objectivist forum, only one's utmost candor matters. That means you are bound by your integrity to report on anything you might find, even and especially when conflicting with your stance.
There is no way possible you cannot uncover contradictions to "the narrative" about Ukraine and Russia and NATO. There are too many deceits and cover-ups floating around. Before even assessing their morality (sacrificial-altruism, predominating).

One thing common to both the G.W. Bush and Putin aggressions was that they first amassed their armed forces obviously near the borders of the target country. In the Bush case, it surely seemed from here that there were two reasons: (i) to intimidate Sadaam into allowing nuclear inspectors in with full access to any site the outside inspectors requested and (ii) to suck Sadaam's forces into striking US forces first, thereby relieving Bush of being plainly the aggressor. Saddam caved on full inspections, but contrary his prior demand for that, Bush did not sieze the peaceful and nuclear-safety handle, but instead invaded, after failing to draw the Iraqi forces into attacking American forces first. His advisors had been aiming to topple Saddam all along, and one of the reasons was because of his percieved threat to Israel (and his being idolized by Palestinian youth.) Advisors to G.W.'s father in the Gulf War had advised leaving Saddam on the throne to bar a Persian sweep to the Mediterranean. To the mind of G.W.'s wife, the US invasion had won a humanitarian cause. She remarked in an interview (in sweet-voiced vicious sarcasm): "I can't imagine why they (25% of Americans from the start) oppose this war unless they support Saddam (who had gassed segments of his own population, etc.)" My picture of Putin's invasion and likely real motives (likely with overdetermination of reasons, of course, and likely some lies, of course) are more foggy. But I wouldn't be surprised but what amassing his army near the border also served to give a chance for Ukraine troops to strike first, but also, get some sort of concessions from Ukraine without having to carry out the conquest (Hitler succeeded like that in Austria).
(This is distracting me from work too much. I'm going to leave off here. Best wishes, all.)

No one can say what Putin believes , as we can not say what someone believes unless they tell us and even then a question of veracity can still linger. 
I’d wager Putin/Russia’s motivations for the current military aggression is aligned with their strategic and tactical territorial control. My feelings about Putin’s internal motivations tend toward a strong nationalism , but that this may not extend to a sincere desire to ensure every single ethnic Russian actually enjoys whatever rights or privileges that may entail. I have the sense that in his calculations some of ‘them’ are expendable for a broader cause. Just like Bush and his cronies and all such hawkish, neocon types. And I further assume both such groups have little regard for the civilian populations subject to their actions , unless somehow that a seeming regard can be used to their benefit.
As an American , I say fuck the Ukraine government and fuck the Russian government, and fuck Bush and any American regime that would perpetrate situations a la the invasion of Iraq.
To me it seems like deja vu all over again , we the US armed al Queda in Afghanistan to out the Ruskies and now in Ukraine we have a strengthened 2.0  version incorporating a color revolution , intensified arms and training support and for whatever reason have let this escalate to open conversations of nuclear exchange. Wtf

Right, I'm (er) "safe" down here: Should I give a damn about others? Think about that a moment.
What would you personally give to save the world?
"tis not unreasonable for me to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger" (Hume, the skeptic-nihilist)
EC. You'd be against, if I have this correct, urgent negotiations entered into with Putin? But would rather blow Russia to smithereens if he doesn't surrender.
While simultaneously horrified at the prospect of nuclear war.
There's a self-contradiction here.
I point out that you suggest that dealing with Putin the brute would be beneath anyone of moral stature.  
So I infer that pride is more important than a holocaust, in your value priorities.
Except I'm wondering if that's "pride" as selfish virtue, or "pride" as emotional outrage i.e. hubris.
The greater value, some peaceful return to Ukraine, alleviating tensions, ending war deaths and easing for now the threat of nuclear exchange, you must concur, sits monumentally above anyone's pride (or insignificant hubris). As you'd see, someone creating a successful deal with Putin-Yelensky wouldn't be an act of altruistic sacrifice, it's an absolutely incalculable "gain".
Where's Henry Kissinger, or Donald Trump, when you need him?
Right now intervention by a wheeling-dealing, pragmatist statesman will be invaluable.

The majority of Eastern Europe. Wow. I got nukes, so do as I say.
That's the kind of impossibly irrational stuff the MSM has been espousing and exploiting.
Maybe just maybe Putin is concerned with no more than what is happening in his front yard?
Considered that anyone?
Has anyone identified and contrasted and evaluated what Putin wants, says he wants and actually is doing, before jumping to pie-in-the-sky conclusions,
Identify first, guys.
omigod, it's dour prophesies like this that will get everybody killed. 
 
 

This one's from RT, definitely has to be "Putin's propaganda" ... (as opposed to overwhelming western, war mongering propaganda)
https://www.rt.com/news/555356-hatred-russia-mcdonalds-us/
 

Not at all, Putin's propaganda. A prescient speech delivered in 2015.
 

Hurting the RF's government, that seems to be the policy adopted by Washington and London. A Russia "weakened" and drained by a lengthy conflict that can't get up to mischief again and maybe force a regime change. And if it can be done by proxy, remote control, without committing boots on the ground, all the better. I think the policy is cynical and altruistic, although yes, absolutely not a western soldier should ever be sacrificed in Ukraine.
In effect: "We'll send you the latest gear, teach its use, pinpoint targets for you with hi-tech surveillance, and - step aside for you to push the button". But we are not at war...
No wonder peace negotiations are not discussed.
btw, London has been the surprise. The British have the largest international appetite for war with and a victory over Russia, presently. The neo-conservatism and Jingoism read in normally straight down the middle newspapers like the Telegraph is shocking. They've convinced themselves that victory is in sight even as Ukraine is losing the East - such is propaganda.