Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Russian invasion of Ukraine/Belief of Mainstream Media Narrative

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Maybe, but I hesitate to say that these are necessarily signs of an authoritarian regime when these happen during wartime. I mean, I would classify banning Russian classics as authoritarian (do you have a citation though so I can read about that?), and banning people from leaving as authoritarian but the others are questionable. Anyway though, I don't really support intervention with Ukraine. 

It was PRE-wartime that some of those authoritarian measures were implemented. The war only worsened them by far. Critical, as the measures had a bearing on the country's later divisions. Russian language (and therefore, cultural) restrictions - a 'cancel culture', in effect - played a large part in developing an elitist v. inferior class mentality, I think.

The Gvt's overthrow and Maidan exacerbated the split within the citizenry. There were few signs that the Russophiles and Russian speakers in Ukraine were disturbed much by the removal of Lenin's (etc.) statues and street names, in a kind of de-Sovietization, one might call it - but they objected strongly to the de-Russification program coming from the recent and present Gvts.

There are several modern countries and societies that have successfully managed their bi-lingual and bi/multi-cultural diversity. That Ukraine could not, one could put down to the nation's immaturity, a lack of vision.

This opinion piece (warning: RT 'propaganda'!) is informative:

https://www.rt.com/russia/558197-ukraine-decided-eradicate-rus-culture/

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/4/2022 at 3:01 PM, whYNOT said:

This opinion piece (warning: RT 'propaganda'!) is informative:

But that's the thing, it's not informative because the very way that it is stated shows that it leaves things just vague enough that it sounds true and right, but is quite open for interpretation. It doesn't say Russian was banned (whatever that means) despite claiming that at first, it just says Ukrainian was adopted as the official language. I'm not a fan of official languages, and it is probably a good idea to keep Russian literature in any school curriculum in any country, but I would not call that authoritarian. If you have other sources besides RT I will look at those, but if you want to promote critical thinking about news media, you should do the same with this article. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 but I would not call that authoritarian. If you have other sources besides RT I will look at those, but if you want to promote critical thinking about news media, you should do the same with this article. 

 

"Active" minds ought to independently find sources...

This, by a Cato Senior Fellow, May 2021:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjI95jq6uT4AhXLAewKHWu8B6EQFnoECCsQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cato.org%2Fcommentary%2Fukraines-accelerating-slide-authoritarianism&usg=AOvVaw3lBH2Efl1IBkHVsvyXIkSH

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2022 at 4:35 PM, Doug Morris said:

What, exactly, does "official language" mean?  The business of a government must be conducted in some language.

I mean, the US doesn't have an official language as codified by law. The issue I find is more cultural or social, where the government is making a decision about what should be voluntary standards of communication. Not that unofficial languages are banned, of course, it's just that communication happens perfectly fine without any opinion from the government. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2022 at 2:02 PM, whYNOT said:

"Active" minds ought to independently find sources...

This article is considerably more informative. It doesn't use the same deliberately vague language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/30/2022 at 10:04 PM, whYNOT said:

"NATO admits it’s been preparing for conflict with Russia since 2014"

Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that increases in deployments and military spending were carried out with Moscow in mind

 

 

A lack of action can be as telling as an action.

At this stage of the war, still little motivation to find a resolution, still equivocation about a truce and negotiations, and still is heard the stated wish to keep hostilities ongoing - at increasing cost to Ukraine and the world - to 'weaken' Russia. This fits with earlier events (and non-events) leading to this point, revealing intentionality on the part of western powers.

Anyone who regards war with disgust would have believed that Brussels/Washington/London would have treated the civil war within Europe - in territory adjacent to a nuclear superpower - as a supreme emergency, a probable powder keg. But rather it was allowed to continue and fester and get little media air time to inform the western public. The Minsk agreements were abandoned by two Ukraine presidents who indicated and showed plainly they had no intention of upholding them; which should have brought immediate, heavy pressure on Kyiv to keep their bargain, regarding the Donbass "terrorists". (The warning of imposed EU sanctions against Ukraine could have achieved this).

Peaceable people would have expected the West to identically pressure Moscow and Putin into negotiations and a deal shortly prior to, even after the invasion. While it's not sure that Putin would have accepted the provisos that late and retire his forces behind the border, it seems unlikely he would rather tackle what has proven to be an immensely dangerous and humanly expensive war. 

Anything but. Where are and were the teams of diplomats and peacekeepers? Who should have early been commanding proceedings with "jaw, jaw"?

Stoltenberg's seeming 'prescience' in preparing the defense of NATO countries since 2014 was instead calculation, based on a cynical scheme in which Putin, under certain conditions, would *have to* invade. A Russia-Ukraine proxy conflict would *have to* eventuate, with a lack of western preventive actions to blame, in some part.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Stoltenberg's seeming 'prescience' in preparing the defense of NATO countries since 2014 was instead calculation, based on a cynical scheme in which Putin, under certain conditions, would *have to* invade.

In the long run, that's what authoritarian governments usually do. And they did it. Putin never had to invade anything, the Ukraine is not Russian territory, Donbass is not Russian territory, no one was attacking Russia, and the most anyone did before is not trust Putin. Sitting around for 8 years is not really a scheme. It has been more of a response to ongoing events as they happen.

9 hours ago, whYNOT said:

While it's not sure that Putin would have accepted the provisos that late and retire his forces behind the border, it seems unlikely he would rather tackle what has proven to be an immensely dangerous and humanly expensive war. 

Then why is he continuing to do it? He can stop anytime he wants. Why would he prefer a dangerous and expensive war right now? Presumably, you think it's because he wants to save the people of Donbass and to repel NATO. In which case, the only workable negotiation would be one where NATO deliberately weakens itself, the US weakens itself, and Russia comes out stronger. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2022 at 7:38 PM, Eiuol said:

In the long run, that's what authoritarian governments usually do. And they did it. Putin never had to invade anything, the Ukraine is not Russian territory, Donbass is not Russian territory, no one was attacking Russia, and the most anyone did before is not trust Putin. Sitting around for 8 years is not really a scheme. It has been more of a response to ongoing events as they happen.

 

It is one's values that determine the actions one makes. While one doesn't need to know of or share or approve of others' values. Usually, others have a mixed bag of objective/non-objective values, explicitly or implicitly selected and held.

But if you have long familiarity with a person, and gather which values and aspirations, etc., they hold, you will have a good idea which way they will jump when exposed to a set of circumstances that endanger their values. The corollary: if you observe their actions and the price they pay, you know what are their values and how important they are to that actor. And how loyal he is to them.

Did, therefore, Putin ~have~ to invade? Well, he made his primary value clear - the security of his country. And it's here, that his values can be frustrated and thwarted by bad faith players with designs on the country.

Clear, certainly, to NATO. Which Putin identified to be "an existential threat" to the RF and said so many times. There can't be any doubt, NATO has always known that the course they set and sustained - eastwards expansion - would sooner or later cause a collision between Russia and Europe. They can't have been that stupid or innocent to believe otherwise.

So NATO has been very aware which way Putin would "jump" - since he made his values explicit. His "red line" drawn at neighboring Ukraine? We will admit Ukraine to NATO and publicly say so. He wants Ukraine "neutral"? We will bring Western political influence to bear on their Gvt. A "demilitarized" Ukraine? We will help build up and strengthen an already large Army (and continue arming it post-invasion). "De-Nazification"? The neo-Nazi battalions will be strengthened too. An autonomous Donbass, as agreed? The response: years of assaults by Kyiv on the region, culminating in a massive attack planned this year. 

Appreciate Putin's values or not - or his right as leader to hold and act on them - in order to protect his values, he had to invade. Or, lose the Donbass with great loss of Russian-Ukrainian lives. Or, most probably in his eyes face much greater threats in future from a more powerful neighbor in ascendency, now also a NATO member. 

To repeat, not NATO, nor Kyiv, nor Moscow are "innocents" in this matter.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2022 at 7:38 PM, Eiuol said:

 

Then why is he continuing to do it? He can stop anytime he wants. Why would he prefer a dangerous and expensive war right now? Presumably, you think it's because he wants to save the people of Donbass and to repel NATO. In which case, the only workable negotiation would be one where NATO deliberately weakens itself, the US weakens itself, and Russia comes out stronger. 

NOBODY can emerge stronger from this war. Everyone will be weaker for it, and from the self-sacrificial handling of it.

From the moment Russian troops invaded, it was obviously always going to be (and should have been) all about damage control.

Therefore, the parties should have met in negotiations, earliest, averting the 'defeat' of anyone by anyone: neither Russia nor Ukraine had to lose. Which is my harsh criticism of any warmongers pushing Ukraine on, looking to prolong this wasteful war, who still desire and hope against hope, for One Winner (The new slogan: "As long as it takes...")

(Perhaps, Putin over-reached, maybe he thought the Russian Army presence would intimidate Kyiv into granting Russia's conditions without a fight; but the resistance he met has put paid to that and things escalated. An escalation, now that Ukraine is deliberately firing its new, long-range, highly accurate missiles on civilian areas in the Donbass, which talks must cease immediately before things get out of hand. If there are any rational players left to insist on peace talks).

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, whYNOT said:

in order to protect his values, he had to invade.

Yeah, that's why authoritarians act the way they do: it will achieve what they think is best, which is anything but freedom.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, whYNOT said:

<link>

Again a link to the state propaganda outlet of one of the conflicting sides !

The state-owned publications of any side have a priory no credibility. One does not know which information is true, one has to check always, so that it is a waste of time to rely on any of these.

Moreover, in your case it is always from the same, Putinist side, never from the other side. The crass bias is obvious. But when one takes the FACTS from such biased sources and does not cross check them, the bias is inevitable because it becomes self-sustaining.

Also, when I challenge or refute your "facts", like I did for example here, there is no follow-up from you ! Does it mean that you are somewhat aware they are fakes, but you conscientiously evade?

The sad end result is that this publication, The Objectivism Online, becomes - who would have thought !! - another loudspeaker for the Putinist propaganda. Notwithstanding the efforts by Eiuol to inject some rationality.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, AlexL said:

Again a link to the state propaganda outlet of one of the conflicting sides !

The state-owned publications of any side have a priory no credibility. One does not know which information is true, one has to check always, so that it is a waste of time to rely on any of these.

Moreover, in your case it is always from the same, Putinist side, never from the other side. The crass bias is obvious. But when one takes the FACTS from such biased sources and does not cross check them, the bias is inevitable because it becomes self-sustaining.

Also, when I challenge or refute your "facts", like I did for example here, there is no follow-up from you ! Does it mean that you are somewhat aware they are fakes, but you conscientiously evade?

The sad end result is that this publication, The Objectivism Online, becomes - who would have thought !! - another loudspeaker for the Putinist propaganda. Notwithstanding the efforts by Eiuol to inject some rationality.

 

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.

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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/

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2022 at 1:11 PM, tadmjones said:

There’s a lot of that going around these days.

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.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

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.

along with western response to the pandemic, climate crisis, racism, equity, immigration,financial policy ect.., but they are not authoritarian they just act that way sometimes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, whYNOT said:

[...]

You ignored my points. Again. 

I am not quite sure if you are evading or if you simply did not identified them correctly. If it is the latter, please try again.

(It is easy to identify my points: each of my paragraphs makes a different point.)

Edited by AlexL
Added the last line
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, tadmjones said:

along with western response to the pandemic, climate crisis, racism, equity, immigration,financial policy ect.., but they are not authoritarian they just act that way sometimes

Practice makes perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A new season of war".

Why do I report "Russian propaganda"? Because no one hears the "other story", as here, the background events glossed over, hidden, indeed suspiciously stifled, in the West's media - out of sight out of mind, like a falling tree which did not make a sound. This conflict supposedly started on 24 Feb? If you were living there, in eastern Ukraine, not quite. [edited for brevity]

17 Jul, 2022 14:38

"A view from Donbass: Ukraine has treated the people of this region as sub-humans, this made peace impossible"

How Kiev has tried to dehumanize people in its former East – first domestically, then everywhere

By Vladislav Ugolny, a Russian journalist based in Donetsk:

 

"The military conflict in Ukraine, which began on February 24, was preceded by a long war in Donbass. Over the course of eight years, it claimed the lives of at least 14,200 people (according to the OHCHR), over 37,000 were wounded, hundreds of thousands became refugees or had their homes destroyed. A de-escalation was achieved in February 2015, as both sides realized that a bad peace was better than a good war, and attempted to find a political resolution on the basis of the Minsk agreements. That, however, failed to bring peace to Donbass, which instead faced eight long years of economic and legal blockade, compounded by chaotic shelling of areas near the frontlines.

They were eight hard years, which involved rebuilding bombed schools, hospitals, and houses, a rather humiliating dependence of formerly well-to-do people on humanitarian aid, an economic slump due to the economic blockade imposed by the Ukrainian government, restricted access to pensions, and the risk of being wounded or killed for those who lived in urbanized frontline areas. People who voted for the independence of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics in the referendum in May 2014 could never have imagined living in this endless terror.

They were forced to wait for that terror to stop until February 2022, when Russia recognized the independence of Donbass and then deployed its military to, among other things, protect it and liberate territory occupied by Ukrainian forces since 2014. It hasn’t exactly been a walk in the park, but the people of Donbass now know that war will soon be over for them. The people’s militias of both republics are doing everything in their power to achieve victory as soon as possible.

 

It may seem to an outside observer that some citizens of Ukraine backed by the Russian military are fighting other citizens of Ukraine backed by NATO. This description, however, would satisfy neither side of the conflict. Donbass residents no longer consider themselves citizens of Ukraine, while the Ukrainian government and society at large deny their sovereignty and dismiss them as collaborators and mercenaries for Russia. Both are wrong.

In reality, it was precisely this denial of sovereignty that led Donbass to renounce everything having to do with Ukraine, and it started way before 2014. Let me add here that what was said above applies to the whole southeastern region of Ukraine, also known as Novorossiya; however, the case of Donbass was the most dramatic and revealing manifestation.

It all began with dehumanization. After gaining independence in 1991, Ukraine was too big to be uniform. The enthusiasm of Galicia in the west to build a nation-state was mixed with depression in the southeast over the loss of a shared economic space with Russia. Machine building in Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov, and Zaporozhye declined, Odessa’s Black Sea shipping operations were shut down. The country survived thanks to metallurgy and coal mining. Both industries were centered around Donbass.

[...]

Children were killed in Donbass. Nobody gave a damn, except Russia and the repressed Russians in the rest of Ukraine....

All of this convinced Donbass it had the moral high ground, which allowed it to stand tall and weather eight years of incredible hardship. The Ukrainians were granted the chance to reach a political settlement with the Minsk agreements, if they agreed to treat Donbass as a sovereign region within Ukraine. Had they done this, Donbass would have lost interest in politics, returned to its industrial roots, and left policymaking in the hands of western Ukraine again in a few years’ time. But they wouldn’t do this, even for the sake of stopping the war. Recognizing the sovereignty of Donbass was a red line for Ukraine, and so was dialogue with Donbass.

The Ukrainian leadership stuck to those red lines even after Russia said it was going to put an end to the ongoing slaughter at its doorstep. So, what we now have is a new season of war, which has been going on for Donbass since 2014. The two people’s republics’ armies are storming Ukrainian fortifications as the Ukrainian military continues to bomb residential areas in Donetsk. People in Donbass stopped wondering “what they are capable of.” Now they know that the Ukrainian army and government are capable of anything – bombing cities, torturing people, and trying to pass off Donetsk people that they killed for Kiev residents, supposedly killed by Russian missile strikes. The only thing they can’t do is admit that the citizens of Donbass are people just like them, people who have their own interests and are prepared to fight for them until they win or die in battle".

https://www.rt.com/russia/559061-children-donbass-world-not-care/

 

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, AlexL said:

You ignored my points. Again. 

I am not quite sure if you are evading or if you simply did not identified them correctly. If it is the latter, please try again.

(It is easy to identify my points: each of my paragraphs makes a different point.)

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.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/17/2022 at 12:31 AM, whYNOT said:

The Western propaganda machine that succeeded from the start and has been favoring one direction 99:1, has convinced nearly all people

It's like you can't conceive that someone would say unequivocally that Russia is significantly worse than the Ukraine and is responsible for great moral fault. You have rationalized that by saying you have lower standards for Russia than the West morally speaking, refusing to engage many questions unless you can blame NATO or the Ukraine for irritating Putin (you don't bother answering questions about what you think), and your only source for any claim is RT. 

On 7/17/2022 at 12:31 AM, whYNOT said:

1.  RT produces mainly simple stories putting forward facts and statements, not always favorable to Russia, that you can verify elswhere.

I already went over before how one story was not putting forth facts and statements, but using adjectives and descriptions that directly distort factual information. Adopting an official language was portrayed as banning the Russian language. If you don't notice this, you aren't paying attention.

On 7/17/2022 at 12:31 AM, whYNOT said:

Try considering the words and ideas independently without prejudice. Break down their arguments and facts, if you can.

Why should he bother? You aren't going to bother responding, you don't typically respond to people breaking down arguments.

On 7/17/2022 at 8:38 AM, tadmjones said:

along with western response to the pandemic, climate crisis, racism, equity, immigration,financial policy ect.., but they are not authoritarian they just act that way sometimes

Did you literally not understand what I said about the difference between something being authoritarian by nature by its very functioning, and something being authoritarian as merely an individual act? But hey, if you think you are really living in an authoritarian dictatorship, and Russia is no better, I guess enjoy your fantasy? Jon Letendre is enjoying his with his qanon LARP campaign. 

19 hours ago, whYNOT said:

You already made one wrongful accusation, which I verified from Wiki concerning Putin's presence at Minsk

You didn't verify it and present the evidence to us (I looked) and it was a big part of your claim for Putin's justification for invasion (you never did say Russia's invasion was moral, explicitly, but defense of justifications indicates moral defense). It doesn't help when your only source is RT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...