Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Russian invasion of Ukraine/Belief of Mainstream Media Narrative

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, EC said:

So, Putin having a non MSM "point of view" makes it okay to start a war of aggression on a mostly peaceful neighbor and destroy it's cities, murder and rape it's people and leave them dead in the streets or stuff them in mass graves? Now he must also be given things via "negotiations" for doing all these things that you won't declare as evil because he had "reasons"!? Also, the world has no right to defend itself because of these propaganda excuses because you are too much of a pussy to die potentially die for freedom in a nuclear war?

All evil regimes including the Nazi's in WW2 have these propaganda based excuses to justify their aggression and mass murder, knowing they exist doesn't magically transform morality from black-and-white to whatever form of relativistic grey like you and others here are attempting.

Now, I'm interested in the actual reason all of you are doing this...

I want to believe it's just fear that would cause people to defend evil but I'm truly not sure atm

"A mostly peaceful neighbor"!! Not if you lived in the Donbass since '14.

Most weird. Over 10,000 Russian-Ukrainian deaths are forgettable or justified but Ukrainian deaths are evil. Premises to check.

I have related how the aggression and killing began EARLIER - committed by a government - and you refuse to countenance that. Look it up, bud.

I'm funny this way, sickened by all violence and destruction (for any reason) in theory and gut level, and maybe too because I've seen "action" and corpses. A peacenik - distinct from a pacifist - that's me.  

(The "mass murder" of civilians stands recently at 3778 in Ukraine. In dark humor I say sometimes the Russian Army is very bad at it).

If there will be an impartial enquiry into this war you are going to hear of atrocities by Ukrainians also. Some 'unofficial' reports have already slipped out I believe. So let's return to reality and leave out the rationalism.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did then Stephen, instinctively, you might say, but was eventually taken in by the (false) justifications of Blair and Bush.

I do now, and have said so. This invasion, in isolation from the rest of the context, is an egregious aggression.

There is a difference between them. Again - from Putin's viewpoint, he certainly seems to believe his "special military operation" was a rescue mission. A "liberation". That a considerable attack was mounting on the oblasts, as he claimed, was true.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boydstun said:

Tony, do you condemn Bush's aggression in Iraq? Do you see that it was an aggression and that a preemptive invasion is an aggression? Do you see that the fact that Sadaam had aggressed against Iraq's own peoples does not make Bush's invasion, however benevolent, into not an aggression? Do you condemn Putin's invasion as an aggression?

The matter of preemptive aggression, for conventional** warfare, seems to me necessary, moral and practical. When made by a moral nation. A mounting attack on one's country is *visible* and predictable, Intel can confirm such; especially where distances and response times are short (as with countries close by, in e.g. Europe) an armed force must meet them early and first, striking before they enter one's territory and cause casualties and weaken one's forces. Particularly Israel comes to mind. Its first strikes against several gathering armies was what saved it in 1973. Soon, the IDF will have to decide when -and in what manner - to preemptively hit Iran...

The argument will spring up, who decides who's "moral". That's a tricky one. But non-initiation of force shouldn't be a passive wait for the enemy's first strike, I believe.

**as weaponry advances in deadliness and range, hard to define what is conventional any more

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boydstun said:

Tony, do you condemn Bush's aggression in Iraq? Do you see that it was an aggression and that a preemptive invasion is an aggression? Do you see that the fact that Sadaam had aggressed against Iraq's own peoples does not make Bush's invasion, however benevolent, into not an aggression? Do you condemn Putin's invasion as an aggression?

56 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

I did then Stephen, instinctively, you might say, but was eventually taken in by the (false) justifications of Blair and Bush.

I do now, and have said so. This invasion, in isolation from the rest of the context, is an egregious aggression.

There is a difference between them. Again - from Putin's viewpoint, he certainly seems to believe his "special military operation" was a rescue mission. That a considerable attack was mounting, as he said, was true.

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.)

Edited by Boydstun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

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. 

 

Quite so. You listen to someone and look at their actions, from the composite one may begin to build up what their convictions and character are.

This is still in flux, who knows what Putin says/does next?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putin had every right to go into Ukraine as we had every right to go into Cuba once they allowed their island to become a pitching mound for lobbing nukes at Americans.

Not one of you Ukraine-is-a-virgin brainwash victims in willing to engage in good faith with the facts about what the Ukrainian government did to the Donbass after the coup in 2014.

That means you are merely going through the motions of a discussion. See, we engage with everything you present to us while you evade everything we say that CNN isn't also saying. Literal evasion — you refuse to look at it.

Edited by Jon Letendre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And we haven't even addressed the viral labs there and regular mysterious releases the Russians got tired of.

How long would Americans tolerate Russian viral research labs on our border with Mexico? How long would we tolerate being murdered by Nazi brigades stationed in Mexico, introduced by Russia? How long would we tolerate plans to make Mexico a full-blown Warsaw Pact (analogous) country, loaded up with weapons aimed at us and our cities? Don't forget the Mexican coup against its democratically elected government in 2014, plus shelling Americans, killing us in the many thousands. Year after year after year.

We would fix all of that immediately and have every right to do so.

And the guilt for every Mexican death would be on Russia and the Mexican leaders who got their country in bed with Russia against us.

Edited by Jon Letendre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fascinating discussion (interviewing Westerners) on the RT show Crosstalk. A chance to hear views CNN won't air.

The theme is altruism, not explicitly worded but which anyone here will recognize. The West is surrendering a greater value(s) for a lesser...etc.

https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/555767-west-russia-sanctions-isolation/

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

I abandoned television back in 1995. For all intents and purposes, I do get the gist of my current events from "random" web sites.

You've missed a LOT of really good shows over the last decade and a half then. TV turned awesome after the 90's especially after about '05 or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The theme is altruism, not explicitly worded but which anyone here will recognize. The West is surrendering a greater value(s) for a lesser...etc.

https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/555767-west-russia-sanctions-isolation/

How stupid do you have to be to talk against propaganda of all kinds, but then literally promote propaganda? It would be like you unironically posting CNN links. 

3 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Literal evasion — you refuse to look at it.

Could you post some evidence then? Nevermind, it doesn't matter, q-leivers can't be reasoned with, because any such person is trapped inside a cult. Not figuratively, I mean a literal cult. 

6 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Some 'unofficial' reports have already slipped out I believe.

Share some. You should know that "look it up" doesn't work, Google searches are tailored towards individuals, so we will literally get different information. As much as I get combative with you, I trust you to provide something better. JL certainly won't. I can't get into Donbas, I didn't research it extensively, and like most countries involved with geopolitical things, there is probably a prior act of aggression by Russia, then back and forth until the beginning of Russian history. RT is about as helpful as Chinese media talking about Tiananmen Square. As in, not at all, and would as a matter of routine deny any negative implication as either nonexistent or as actually an act of self-defense. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, tadmjones said:

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.

But the Russian Federation deserves a bigger fuck than the other 2 combined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Eiuol said:

How stupid do you have to be to talk against propaganda of all kinds, but then literally promote propaganda? It would be like you unironically posting CNN links. 

 

 

Your particular blind spot is 'revealed knowledge'. Intrinsicism. We've been here before. The 'book cover' tells you all you want to know. Truth-value is revealed by the outer image, why think further.

When the opining of Americans and a Frenchman (not Russians) is broadcast [on RT] switch off your thought, don't bother to look further; it's obviously indoctrination. If written in the NYT - okay then. 

Their opinions, in brief:  how the West has abandoned self-interest in its frenzy to accomodate Ukraine - and defeat, punish, weaken etc., Russia.

Self-evident, one would think.

Many Objectivists could recognize the altruist self-sacrifice the West is wallowing in. But not you.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

That means you are merely going through the motions of a discussion. See, we engage with everything you present to us while you evade everything we say that CNN isn't also saying. Literal evasion — you refuse to look at it.

Would appear you are correct there, Jon.

Really, one has to go through plenty of nit-picking obstacles to communicate any idea. Each concept has to be justified from the ground up, and then still ignored.

The aim seems to be to weary the few who haven't automatically accepted the over-riding, emotionalist narrative and shut them down.

I need to explain altruism! Outside commentators are needed to point to the glaring, western self-sacrifices!

Not (just) that reality has been squeezed to fit O'ist principles, but base moral principles like the nations' self-interest v. altruism are not applied.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 you unironically posting CNN links. 

 

 

The point about CNN being, even they occasionally can "get it right". As can RT, etc. I mentioned that already, about sifting the news.

Some or many facts they report will indeed by necessity be valid. And even, if very seldom, is their editorializing sometimes worthy.

Or they inadvertently may expose some truths, unknowingly.

I hardly watch CNN any longer, they are so predictably hateful of good American values. Less reporting of the news than consciously moulding their public audience into one world view. Less journalists now, but ideologues.

The great pity is CNN became the dominant US broadcaster overseas, accepted unthinkingly by many as "the Voice of America" while subtlely (or crudely) misrepresenting America and the great majority of Americans. That's how dirty ideologies have spread.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Your particular blind spot is 'revealed knowledge'. Intrinsicism. We've been here before. The 'book cover' tells you all you want to know. Truth-value is revealed by the outer image, why think further.

What are you talking about? RT is a known state propaganda outlet, I've never heard of state propaganda that was a purveyor of truth. Contestable portrayal of facts (ie the Ukraine was committing mass murder in Donbas) are portrayed as obvious truths (even though the deaths did happen, that doesn't mean the Ukraine could not have been acting out of self-defense). Effective propaganda uses facts but throws in a twist to the interpretation that the interpretation ends up looking like unquestionable fact. The question isn't if RT makes some true statements, but what message it intends to convey. "The truth" isn't the message. 

I didn't even disagree about some impulse towards self-sacrifice. I don't see anyone who disagreed actually. I said that doing anything now with regard to the Ukraine is probably a waste of money, and even said that Ukraine should be used as a pawn. The ideal would be harming Russia, but that can't always be done with impact, although some kind of support towards Ukraine can help that end. You and others seem to accuse people who think that Russia is an aggressor that they are brainwashed by Western media. Except there are other ways to reach that conclusion without even reading Western propaganda or reading any of the bad sources that you mention. 

"Russia is the bad guy" doesn't mean I also believe "the West is responding to Russia correctly". 
 

15 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Really, one has to go through plenty of nit-picking obstacles to communicate any idea. Each concept has to be justified from the ground up, and then still ignored.

Did you not notice that when he was asked, he refused to provide any evidence, to even bother showing us what he has seen? He didn't make an attempt, he didn't link to something that would show he tried even if everyone denied what he said was true. You've been trying to justify concepts from the ground up, without realizing that you aren't even arguing about the same topic. You are explaining things that don't need to be explained. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

What are you talking about? RT is a known state propaganda outlet, I've never heard of state propaganda that was a purveyor of truth. Contestable portrayal of facts (ie the Ukraine was committing mass murder in Donbas) are portrayed as obvious truths (even though the deaths did happen, that doesn't mean the Ukraine could not have been acting out of self-defense). Effective propaganda uses facts but throws in a twist to the interpretation that the interpretation ends up looking like unquestionable fact. The question isn't if RT makes some true statements, but what message it intends to convey. "The truth" isn't the message. 

I didn't even disagree about some impulse towards self-sacrifice. I don't see anyone who disagreed actually. I said that doing anything now with regard to the Ukraine is probably a waste of money, and even said that Ukraine should be used as a pawn. The ideal would be harming Russia, but that can't always be done with impact, although some kind of support towards Ukraine can help that end. You and others seem to accuse people who think that Russia is an aggressor that they are brainwashed by Western media. Except there are other ways to reach that conclusion without even reading Western propaganda or reading any of the bad sources that you mention. 

"Russia is the bad guy" doesn't mean I also believe "the West is responding to Russia correctly". 
 

Did you not notice that when he was asked, he refused to provide any evidence, to even bother showing us what he has seen? He didn't make an attempt, he didn't link to something that would show he tried even if everyone denied what he said was true. You've been trying to justify concepts from the ground up, without realizing that you aren't even arguing about the same topic. You are explaining things that don't need to be explained. 

They don't realize that they are actually the victims of bias and propaganda except when they (properly) reject the "MSM's" narrative of these events they then immediately jump to another crazy narrative that somewhat fits there own internal thinking because "it's in opposition to the conventional narrative" without objectively thinking through *why* this "alternative" exists and vetting the sources properly.

For those guys: you must realize that whatever the source of information you need to just treat it as a puzzle piece of the truth and then put the actual reality based picture together properly in your own mind in an unbiased first principles first manner in your own mind. Only then will you be free of the biases that you are claiming I and others here hold yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ukraine has been in play as a political football between Russia and the EU since before 2004.  Russian money funded political campaigns and parties friendly to Russian interests while the CIA and European players worked on pulling Ukraine into the EU orbit.  September 2004 was a milestone because Putin approved an operation to poison Viktor Yushchenko, the pro-western candidate for president.  In January 2010 while on his way out as President Yushchenko "rehabilitated"  World War II-era ultranationalist (Nazi) leader Stepan Bandera, awarding him the title of "Hero of Ukraine."  Both sides of the Ukrainian dispute have been bad before even getting into the EuroMaidan of 2014.

As much as I initially enjoyed seeing the American political establishment's corrupt and cozy Ukrainian money laundering scheme potentially fall apart any good guy-bad guy narrative doesn't fit, in either direction.  Remembering the political maxim "all politics is domestic politics" I looked into why Russia chose to launch its war.  

Apparently Putin is a subscriber to the conventional and long standing Russian understanding of its own security, that to quote Catherine the Great “I have no way to defend my borders but to extend them.”  Who Putin thinks or fears may want to invade Russia is a mystery to me but there is an established pattern:  4 previous military operations have secured potential routes of invasion, Ukraine leads to two more in the directions of Romania and Poland, and he threatens Finland of all places because of the route over Karelia.

So here is a guy explaining in three and half minutes a more objective and big picture view than "espionage is bad".  Espionage operations have been bad for Ukraine but letting Russia have its way was never going to happen.

 

For a big picture of the near future of the entire world with forecasts of famine, energy shortages and the spontaneous dissolution of China as we have known it I recommend setting time aside (2 and half hours) for viewing the presentation "Energy at the End of the World" given for the (U.S.) Naval Postgraduate School at https://nps.edu/web/nps-video-portal/-/energy-at-the-end-of-the-world

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grames said:

.  

Apparently Putin is a subscriber to the conventional and long standing Russian understanding of its own security, that to quote Catherine the Great “I have no way to defend my borders but to extend them.”  Who Putin thinks or fears may want to invade Russia is a mystery to me but there is an established pattern:  4 previous military operations have secured potential routes of invasion, Ukraine leads to two more in the directions of Romania and Poland, and he threatens Finland of all places because of the route over Karelia.

So here is a guy explaining in three and half minutes a more objective and big picture view than "espionage is bad".  Espionage operations have been bad for Ukraine but letting Russia have its way was never going to happen.

 

 

This fellow jumps to the other side of the 'NATO-expansionism' dichotomy ('Russian imperialist-expansionism') and ends up simplistic and flawed.

If he is a considered expert in the field, you'd have to question his rationality, (scare-mongering) motives, premises and common sense. You don't have to be a military strategist to know that what he believes Putin believes and intends: controlling/invading/occupying a raft of countries (while the West sits back and watches), is - ever, remotely possible - or planned. Nukes or no nukes. Especially...*with* nukes.

Grames: "4 previous military operations have secured potential routes of invasion..."  now, that IS close to the reality according to other experts, and logic.

Those potential routes of invasion have to be *plugged* - fits Putin's actions/intent.

When does self-defense resemble belligerence? And the reverse? They can come close.

Putin has always been and is in *defensive* mode. A quite paranoid, extreme pragmatist (one might call him) - not a suicidal maniac.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Putin has always been and is in *defensive* mode. A quite paranoid, extreme pragmatist (one might call him) - not a suicidal maniac.

 

"In defensive mode": over and above what's self-evident - his territorial ambitions in the East and South Ukraine. I forgot to add.

"Ambitions" which possibly have a tactical, defensive purpose too.

But expansionist on the broad European front, ludicrous, and dangerously escalatory.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a different view to the above view, complete with factual statements, issued warnings - not conjecture or the appeal to 'historical determinism'.

Often said, there are two sides to every story (the third one, the objective side).

Cause and effect:

In geo-politics and diplomacy, one has to surely be aware of, acknowledge and identify the Other Guy's self-interests, perceptions, and possible reactions - in response to one's own acts and words. Ignore, at your possible peril.

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Eiuol said:

What are you talking about? RT is a known state propaganda outlet, I've never heard of state propaganda that was a purveyor of truth. Contestable portrayal of facts (ie the Ukraine was committing mass murder in Donbas) are portrayed as obvious truths (even though the deaths did happen, that doesn't mean the Ukraine could not have been acting out of self-defense). Effective propaganda uses facts but throws in a twist to the interpretation that the interpretation ends up looking like unquestionable fact. The question isn't if RT makes some true statements, but what message it intends to convey. "The truth" isn't the message. 

I didn't even disagree about some impulse towards self-sacrifice. I don't see anyone who disagreed actually. I said that doing anything now with regard to the Ukraine is probably a waste of money, and even said that Ukraine should be used as a pawn. The ideal would be harming Russia, but that can't always be done with impact, although some kind of support towards Ukraine can help that end. You and others seem to accuse people who think that Russia is an aggressor that they are brainwashed by Western media. Except there are other ways to reach that conclusion without even reading Western propaganda or reading any of the bad sources that you mention. 

"Russia is the bad guy" doesn't mean I also believe "the West is responding to Russia correctly". 
 

Did you not notice that when he was asked, he refused to provide any evidence, to even bother showing us what he has seen? He didn't make an attempt, he didn't link to something that would show he tried even if everyone denied what he said was true. You've been trying to justify concepts from the ground up, without realizing that you aren't even arguing about the same topic. You are explaining things that don't need to be explained. 

Privately-owned TV media is a rarity everywhere in the world excepting the US. Which would indicate by your gauge that outside the USA nobody is getting ¬any¬ of the truth. That's plainly false.

Usually, there are public watchdogs that oversee the content (political bias, etc.) of news channels. The BBC faced such an investigation and report not long ago that resulted in the D-G's resignation.

A public watchdog with interfering/censoring state power is anti-freedom of Press, of course -- but private ownership is no more a guarantee of accurate, unbiased, non-partisan and impartial journalism than is a state-owned one. Comparing the BBC to CNN, I'd say much less so.

Of course, an owner and publisher has the right to disseminate his own opinions. Viewer beware. So, and I reiterate, every news source can and will have a mix of "propaganda" and truthiness. 

This is basic to all: it's not simply what they report, and how, ("throwing in twists", etc. - that's easy to spot) it's what they DON'T report.

The public doesn't know what they aren't told. Many a story, like with a reporter's investigation into a politician's doings, or exposed vaccine facts, or the discovery of war atrocities by the 'good' side will often be spiked and shoved under the rug as unfitting and in conflict with the station's ideological-political-financial agenda. 

If and when the facts emerge later on, well, they can always obfuscate, downplay their role in the cover-up, appeal to innocent ignorance, and clearly do. As the last resort, most of the public can be counted on to have a short-attention span.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

When does self-defense resemble belligerence? And the reverse? They can come close.

What makes Putin's forward defense strategy difficult for me to understand is that I can't imagine an invasion of Russia from any quarter.  No Napoleon or Hitler or Khan is going to come for them, especially in the modern urban era where populations are contracting.  With no plausible opponent the forward defense strategy is not moored to reality but still requires keeping non-Russian populations under the control of Russia or in other words an empire.  The imperial nature of the Russian strategy is why Putin is against nationalism, even Russian nationalism.  

Russia's defense strategy is to keep an empire, but Russia doesn't need an empire because they are not worth invading in the first place.

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...