Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[TwoSheds]

For balance, we should ask for non-NATO sources, too, then. Or is our media entirely honest with us? Does it tell us that we go support tyrants for the sake of military and economic reasons? Is it doing that now with respect to the Ukraine situation? If the answer to the last question is no, then you have to look beyond NATO host countries, too.

About as bipartisan as you will get.

That's not actually how evaluation of sources works. You're supposed to evaluate sources from both sides of a debate AND neutral sources should such a thing exist. You can't rely on there ever being a truly neutral source so you have to base the balance of probabilities off the biased ones as well.

 

[R'hllor]

First off, that question is provocative.

As for your other questions, I think you already know the answer. I don't live in Ukraine but I speak daily to Ukrainians. I've said numerous times in this thread that I don't believe my small sample size can count as the truth. I'm just updating whoever is interested in what I heard from some Ukrainians.

Lastly, I laughed because @R'hllor's post is basically: "I'm taking a stand against people taking a stand." There are no good guys or bad guys. They're basically all bad guys. Hitler = Churchill.

Politicians are scum, I agree, but to vindicate Russia in any way is delusional. No amount of propaganda can cloud the fact that Putin is a dick. In this crisis the West is defending Ukraine's sovereignty and Putin is trying to deny them that. No propaganda here, just facts.

Putin aint a dick, he is a cnut, now about drivel after that, holy shit and you have a cheek too laugh at me, ha.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

The Ukrainians voted 95% or more for independence from Russia in the referendum which was the death knell of the soviet union.

That included a majority of ethnic Russian Ukrainians.

There is already a civil war in Ukraine and it was started by Russia. If the intensity of that civil war grows it will be because Russian soldiers have directly joined the fighting.

Yet some how we are asked to believe this is 50-50 sort of thing.

 

[R'hllor]

My perspective is different as i live in a country which was in between powers through most of the history not only recent one so its waste of time arguing with drones.

 

[neverdie]

That's not actually how evaluation of sources works. You're supposed to evaluate sources from both sides of a debate AND neutral sources should such a thing exist. You can't rely on there ever being a truly neutral source so you have to base the balance of probabilities off the biased ones as well.

Yeah, I do look at sources from US/NATO and Russia. My point was that the first is equally as unreliable in such matters as the second. And that if you want to dismiss the second entirely, by the same token you must dismiss the first. I take each into account and weigh them against other sources.

There is no such thing as an absolutely neutral view imo. But there are obviously degrees of partisanship.

 

[Paxi]

I wonder what potential invasion of Ukraine will do for Putin? I don’t know the official numbers but, most of my mates, family and I, were his supporters at one period but I literally have one friend whom would still back him, so it just shows you how much approval he has lost. It’s certainly not 70% as some were suggesting. I’d say my guesstimate would be 20% — not that it matters much as he’s in power purely on a dictatorial level and unless he shuffles off his mortal coil — he won’t be going anywhere soon.

 

[neverdie]

There is already a civil war in Ukraine and it was started by Russia.

It is impossible to say that Russia is the cause of the civil war in Ukraine. At least it's impossible to say that Russia is the sole cause of civil war in Ukraine. The UN notes that there are many factors involved and doesn't give an opinion either way. You could just as easily say that NATO is responsible for the current state of affairs, and only NATO. Without facts and a lot of sources it's a pointless assertion. The people who deal with facts at that level of accuracy cannot agree either way.

 

[harms]

The Ukrainians voted 95% or more for independence from Russia in the referendum which was the death knell of the soviet union.

That included a majority of ethnic Russian Ukrainians.

There is already a civil war in Ukraine and it was started by Russia. If the intensity of that civil war grows it will be because Russian soldiers have directly joined the fighting.

Yet some how we are asked to believe this is 50-50 sort of thing.

1. That referendum (I assume that you mean the one that happened in December of 1991) was about independence from Soviet Union, not Russia
2. A few months before that, in another referendum, 70,2% Ukrainians had voted for remaining in USSR
3. I'm not sure if 90,3% is more than 95%
4. In Crimea, the amount of the votes for were 54,19%; In Sevastopol (it's a separate federal entity) — 57,07%; Kharkhov, Donetsk & Lugansk were all in mid-to-low 80's (which is a lot, but there was still a clear disparity between Eastern and Western regions that only grew over the past few decades)
5. The referendum (both referendums, in fact) happened 30 years ago

As you can probably see by this thread and other Russian-related threads in CE, I'm one of the most vocal critics of Putin & his politics, both foreign and internal. But I hate inaccurate arguments especially when they're based on false facts that can be checked in like 3 minutes.

P.S. if you were wondering, what happened between March & December that got more or less all of Ukraine to change their opinion, look up the August Coup of 1991

 

[KirkDuyt]

Regardless of which side you on in this, who ever thinks that US/West are good guys and Russia are bad one or vice versa, those people are dumb as rocks. Propaganda and bullshit coming from both sides, people getting fed by their media and dumb fecks will eat all up. This is just a game between superpower cnuts countries where real people between them will suffer and get hurt at the end. fecking hate politics.

Whilst this is partly true, I'd say some countries are slightly more enthusiastic with the propaganda shtick than others.

Maybe we should do a tierlist, video game style. I'd say Russia, China and North Korea would be S-tier.

It's a bit like the US news discussion with right wing nutters claiming OANN and CNN are cut from the same cloth.

 

[harms]

I just spoke to a Ukrainian lawyer who regularly works with highly-placed Slavic oligarchs: There are 8 scenarios from here on in.

Only 2 scenarios involve Russia NOT invading. Right now it looks likely that Russia will invade early February (according to the lawyer)

You can tell us. It's Dr. Strange, isn't it?

 

[syrian_scholes]

As a Syrian I would like to contribute to this discussion by saying feck Putin and his apologists.

 

[harms]

Regardless of which side you on in this, who ever thinks that US/West are good guys and Russia are bad one or vice versa, those people are dumb as rocks. Propaganda and bullshit coming from both sides, people getting fed by their media and dumb fecks will eat all up. This is just a game between superpower cnuts countries where real people between them will suffer and get hurt at the end. fecking hate politics.

I'd say that in this particular case there's clearly a worse side of the conflict. Not that U.S. didn't do the same shit with its South American & Cuban neighbours etc.

 

[Paxi]

Whilst this is partly true, I'd say some countries are slightly more enthusiastic with the propaganda shtick than others.

Maybe we should do a tierlist, video game style. I'd say Russia, China and North Korea would be S-tier.

It's a bit like the US news discussion with right wing nutters claiming OANN and CNN are cut from the same cloth.

Russia and China love their propaganda but even they don’t claim one of their leaders were born on this mythical mountain under a shining star. I would say NK are only ones whom achieve the S rank.

 

[harms]

Use sources that aren't Western or Russian. Neither is reliable when the conflict is partisan. And state-owned Russian press is propaganda but it's honest propaganda. You know it's a state mouthpiece. A lot of western states function the same way but pretend otherwise. Can you forget the Iraq War so quickly? Almost unanimous support of that in the press despite enormous resistance to it at public level. That is propaganda.

Which sources would you suggest using in this particular case? The Beijing Dispatch? Everyone who has even a little bit of actual information about the matter is heavily biased one way or another. The reimagining of Roosevelt's Somoza quote is hilarious by the way. And no, it's not honest in any way — including the fact that not all of Russian press that takes part in Russian propaganda is technically state-owned.

 

[FortBoyard]

What do we think the actual NATO response to an invasion will be? I think that sanctions will be the only action, with the risk of armed intervention (even if it is only aerial support) being viewed as too likely to start nuclear posturing.

The strong arm tactics from Russia will likely result in some form of appeasement.

 

[Paxi]

Which sources would you suggest using in this particular case? The Beijing Dispatch? Everyone who has even a little bit of actual information about the matter is heavily biased one way or another. The reimagining of Roosevelt's Somoza quote is hilarious by the way. And no, it's not honest in any way — including the fact that not all of Russian press that takes part in Russian propaganda is technically state-owned.

Maybe some German sources, considering they’re not as hasty to support the rest of NATO.

 

[neverdie]

As a Syrian I would like to contribute to this discussion by saying feck Putin and his apologists.

Wasn't Russia largely responsible for eliminating ISIS in Syria? Of course, it is also largely responsible for keeping Asad in power so I can sort of see your point.

Which sources would you suggest using in this particular case? The Beijing Dispatch? Everyone who has even a little bit of actual information about the matter is heavily biased one way or another. The reimagining of Roosevelt's Somoza quote is hilarious by the way. And no, it's not honest in any way — including the fact that not all of Russian press that takes part in Russian propaganda is technically state-owned.

The UN is about as good as you'll get. Agreed, bias is everywhere.

If you understand RT as a Kremlin mouthpiece, it is then "honest" insofar as it speaks for the Kremlin. It is not honest about this, but that's not what I was saying.

 

[Paxi]

What do we think the actual NATO response to an invasion will be? I think that sanctions will be the only action, with the risk of armed intervention (even if it is only aerial support) being viewed as too likely to start nuclear posturing.

The strong arm tactics from Russia will likely result in some form of appeasement.

There won’t be armed intervention. The whole reason Russia is potentially invading is to stop Ukraine ever becoming part of NATO, if that happens then it would be too late to do anything. Now if anything happens to Baltic states then conflict with NATO is certain.

 

[FortBoyard]

There won’t be armed intervention. The whole reason Russia is potentially invading is to stop Ukraine ever becoming part of NATO, if that happens then it would be too late to do anything. Now if anything happens to Baltic states then conflict with NATO is certain.

Yes I am in agreement and I don't think Russia will ever invade a NATO state. Perhaps Serbia should be grateful it is encased by NATO territories (even with their obvious disdain for the institution)

 

[Raoul]

First off, that question is provocative.

As for your other questions, I think you already know the answer. I don't live in Ukraine but I speak daily to Ukrainians. I've said numerous times in this thread that I don't believe my small sample size can count as the truth. I'm just updating whoever is interested in what I heard from some Ukrainians.

Lastly, I laughed because @R'hllor's post is basically: "I'm taking a stand against people taking a stand." There are no good guys or bad guys. They're basically all bad guys. Hitler = Churchill.

Politicians are scum, I agree, but to vindicate Russia in any way is delusional. No amount of propaganda can cloud the fact that Putin is a dick. In this crisis the West is defending Ukraine's sovereignty and Putin is trying to deny them that. No propaganda here, just facts.

Spot on

 

[MTF]

It is impossible to say that Russia is the cause of the civil war in Ukraine. At least it's impossible to say that Russia is the sole cause of civil war in Ukraine. The UN notes that there are many factors involved and doesn't give an opinion either way. You could just as easily say that NATO is responsible for the current state of affairs, and only NATO. Without facts and a lot of sources it's a pointless assertion. The people who deal with facts at that level of accuracy cannot agree either way.

Yeah, no, clearly it's those feckers from Papua New Guinea that are responsible for the civil war in Ukraine. The feck is this shit? Both-sidism 101?

 

[neverdie]

Yeah, no, clearly it's those feckers from Papua New Guinea that are responsible for the civil war in Ukraine. The feck is this shit?

If you have a found a historiography which declares a consesus that Russia is the sole cause of the civil war in Ukraine, I'd be happy to read it.

 

[Sky1981]

What do we think the actual NATO response to an invasion will be? I think that sanctions will be the only action, with the risk of armed intervention (even if it is only aerial support) being viewed as too likely to start nuclear posturing.

The strong arm tactics from Russia will likely result in some form of appeasement.

What's there for NATO to gain from a 100% full war? At this rate they can yell "feck Russia", sending arms, and helping with sanction, but I honestly don't think they have it in their stomach to send actual troops on the ground. Ships/Arms/Missiles/Radar/Recon sure, but mobilizing actual army? Meh.

The US, I don't think they would call their bluff, they're in a political mess back home, Covid, and fresh from getting their arse kicked in Afghanistan. Putin knows this, he might or might not take the odds.

For what it's worth, I still think Putin don't want to risk an open war. But he definitely holds the card, all he has to do was do nothing and it'll all pass, he'll probably stretching for some sort of concession before backing off

 

[MTF]

If you have a found a historiography which declares a consesus that Russia is the sole cause of the civil war in Ukraine, I'd be happy to read it.

"Russia is the main protagonist of Ukraine's civil war."
- MTF, Redcafe 2022

 

[harms]

The UN is about as good as you'll get. Agreed, bias is everywhere.

If you understand RT as a Kremlin mouthpiece, it is then "honest" insofar as it speaks for the Kremlin. It is not honest about this, but that's not what I was saying.

It doesn’t present itself as a Kremlin mouthpiece though, it present itself as the only source of objective information, which isn’t honest even in the most far-fetched definition of “honest”. And Russian propaganda isn’t limited to RT. If you can process the information better when it comes from RT because you know their stance then surely it should work the same for The New York Times or The Guardian? Don’t tell me that you don’t know their affiliations.

 

[FortBoyard]

What's there for NATO to gain from a 100% full war? At this rate they can yell "feck Russia", sending arms, and helping with sanction, but I honestly don't think they have it in their stomach to send actual troops on the ground. Ships/Arms/Missiles/Radar/Recon sure, but mobilizing actual army? Meh.

The US, I don't think they would call their bluff, they're in a political mess back home, Covid, and fresh from getting their arse kicked in Afghanistan. Putin knows this, he might or might not take the odds.

For what it's worth, I still think Putin don't want to risk an open war. But he definitely holds the card, all he has to do was do nothing and it'll all pass, he'll probably stretching for some sort of concession before backing off

I don't even think they will opt for air support. Just economic sanctions.

 

[MTF]

What do we think the actual NATO response to an invasion will be? I think that sanctions will be the only action, with the risk of armed intervention (even if it is only aerial support) being viewed as too likely to start nuclear posturing.

The strong arm tactics from Russia will likely result in some form of appeasement.

Yeah, just sanctions. The US has already taken the threat of the use of force off the table.

 

[FortBoyard]

Yeah, just sanctions. The US has already taken the threat of the use of force off the table.

The only issue would be if there was obvious, brutal human rights abuses. If we get a Srebrenica could NATO really stand idly by?

 

[neverdie]

It doesn’t present itself as a Kremlin mouthpiece though, it present itself as the only source of objective information, which isn’t honest even in the most far-fetched definition of “honest”. And Russian propaganda isn’t limited to RT. If you can process the information better when it comes from RT because you know their stance then surely it should work the same for The New York Times or The Guardian? Don’t tell me that you don’t know their affiliations.

It isn't that difficult. They support Western hegemony under the guise of liberal humanism ("democracy" and all that). There are many many studies which demonstrate this. I can link if you are interested.

 

[neverdie]

"Russia is the main protagonist of Ukraine's civil war."
- MTF, Redcafe 2022

So you object without any reason except you think it has to be true. Good to know.

 

[neverdie]

fresh from getting their arse kicked in Afghanistan.

They arranged a deal with the Taliban. The US retains operational forces in that region. The complete withdrawal never really happened.They withdrew a lot of ground forces and gave back control of the state, but they still have military assets active there and that is per their agreement with that regime. I don't think it's accurate to view Afghanistan as a loss from the US point of view. They freed up a lot of resources whilst retaining a degree of military control (they can operate there and do).

 

[MTF]

The only issue would be if there was obvious, brutal human rights abuses. If we get a Srebrenica could NATO really stand idly by?

It's Russia, so I think yes. Unfortunately, because the people of Ukraine have done nothing to deserve what they have suffered already, and what is apparently to come in the near future.

 

[Raoul]

The primary aim isn't to defend Ukrainian democracy is it? It's to maintain US/Nato strategic interests (consequences be damned), which is always the reason clouded behind some simple media spin that is easy for some to consume and get behind.

I don't think the poster is excusing Russia as much as pointing out there's no good guys but there would be a lot of victims.

Democracy is innately woven into US and NATO’s strategic interests, particularly among nations in Europe (or in the European sphere). A vast majority of Ukrainians want to be able to decide their own path instead of having a neighboring autocracy and it’s dictator bully them into submission and emplace a puppet leader in Kiev. At the end this is all about Putin wanting restrict the spread of democracy onto his doorstep, because he fears it will embolden domestic pro-democracy movement to one day overthrow him from within and lead to his own execution. The easiest way for him to avoid this is to invade his former Soviet neighbors and expand his sphere of influence, thereby reestablishing a new iron curtain.

At the end of the day this is about democracy and autocracy, which is why it’s very easy to take a moral position on which of the two is the correct side, and is also why some of the fence sitting arguments about “both sides” being at fault are the sort of narratives that only serve to muddy the waters, which winds up benefiting Russian propaganda.

 

[harms]

It isn't that difficult. They support Western hegemony under the guise of liberal humanism ("democracy" and all that). There are many many studies which demonstrate this. I can link if you are interested.

I’m not sure why you’re telling me this — you’re just proving my point that you know their affiliations, so you shouldn’t have any difficulties assessing their information while keeping that in mind. So it’s just as honest as RT.

 

[neverdie]

But how can it be about democracy and autocracy? If it were that simple then the importance of democracy would not be limited to the US and Europe (and neither of those entities would suppress Democratic institutions in states around the world because the will of the people is deemed unacceptable - Chile is among the best examples).

Democracy is absolutely secondary in US/NATO actions. If the state they want to prop up is democratic, well and good, if not no one cares.

I’m not sure why you’re telling me this — you’re just proving my point that you know their affiliations, so you shouldn’t have any difficulties assessing their information while keeping that in mind. So it’s just as honest as RT.

Fair enough. We can agree that Western media and Russian media are both propagandistic mouthpieces. That's where I was at to begin with. On the other hand, how many people here in the West will agree that their state media is propaganda first and foremost? I bet more Russians are aware that their media is propaganda than Westerners.

 

[KirkDuyt]

But how can it be about democracy and autocracy? If it were that simple then the importance of democracy would not be limited to the US and Europe (and neither of those entities would suppress Democratic institutions in states around the world because the will of the people is deemed unacceptable - Chile is among the best examples).

Democracy is absolutely secondary in US/NATO actions. If the state they want to prop up is democratic, well and good, if not no one cares.


Fair enough. We can agree that Western media and Russian media are both propagandistic mouthpieces. That's where I was at to begin with. On the other hand, how many people here in the West will agree that their state media is propaganda first and foremost? I bet more Russians are aware that their media is propaganda than Westerners.

Seriously though, you can't honestly argue that western Europe and Russia employ the same amount of propaganda. That's absurd.

All countries have a nationalistisch view to some extend, but you can't judge then to all be on the same level.

 

[Jippy]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

The Observer shot down the Brit claims earlier.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ver-uk-claim-that-putin-plans-coup-in-ukraine

 

[neverdie]

Vietnam.
Cuba.
Chile.
Iraq.

The first three were invaded to repress democratic movements. The will of the people put down without mercy. The first two were abject failures, thankfully. Unfortunately millions of people had to die in IndoChina all the same.

The fourth was invaded because the US/UK wanted to make Iraq part of their sphere of influence. Democracy was used as an excuse, too.


Iran.

The West supported a tyrant (as they had with Saddam in Iraq). When the Revolution overthrew the Shah, the West let the Shah have refuge and also started to undermine Iran anyway it could.


The West sold weapons to the Iran and Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war.

Where was the democratic motive here?


Egypt.

The regime of Mubarak was a brutal dictatorship. The Arab Spring was supported by the West but only insofar as it might undermine Syria and Libya. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and so on, were never supposed to be on the table. Sisi was installed and retains the support of the West. He too is a tyrant.

Where's the democracy?

South Africa. The US administration under Reagan and even Bush were supporting SA apartheid regime up until the very end.

Where's the democracy here?

It's democracy when it suits and autocracy when expedient. So to try and frame US/NATO action in Ukraine as a moral action is beyond absurdity.

Putin is an autocrat. That's true. So are all the above instances with the exception of the democratic movements the West/NATO/US purposefully destroyed.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

1. That referendum (I assume that you mean the one that happened in December of 1991) was about independence from Soviet Union, not Russia
2. A few months before that, in another referendum, 70,2% Ukrainians had voted for remaining in USSR
3. I'm not sure if 90,3% is more than 95%
4. In Crimea, the amount of the votes for were 54,19%; In Sevastopol (it's a separate federal entity) — 57,07%; Kharkhov, Donetsk & Lugansk were all in mid-to-low 80's (which is a lot, but there was still a clear disparity between Eastern and Western regions that only grew over the past few decades)
5. The referendum (both referendums, in fact) happened 30 years ago

As you can probably see by this thread and other Russian-related threads in CE, I'm one of the most vocal critics of Putin & his politics, both foreign and internal. But I hate inaccurate arguments especially when they're based on false facts that can be checked in like 3 minutes.

P.S. if you were wondering, what happened between March & December that got more or less all of Ukraine to change their opinion, look up the August Coup of 1991

I should have checked its 92.3 % according to Wiki citing Nohlen and Stover. If that figure is acceptable? I would correct my post but you know it doesn't change my point. The vast majority wanted independence and that included a majority of ethnically Russian Ukrainians all across the country at that time.

I don't dispute that opinions change and events change them and that includes being invaded by a foreign power which triggered a civil war.

From gaining independence and having that independence acknowledged at the time by both the president of Russia and the president of USSR events inside Ukraine rightly remain matters for the Ukrainians to decide. Not Russia or the west or NATO.

Russia won't accept that. NATO hasn't asked them to join but there are 150'000 Russian troops about to invade their country unless it agrees to never let them join.

These are not the same things at all.

 

[The Firestarter]

@neverdie Move this shit to some other thread, this one is for the situation in Ukraine .