Do you always get your information from pro-Russian youtubers?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoly_Shariy
Ukraine Today
- Thread starter SwadianJedi
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Do you always get your information from pro-Russian youtubers?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoly_Shariy
In agreements like these, the meat of the concessions are sometimes hidden from the public for a few decades, particularly in these cases involving existential questions regarding nations. For example during the Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy did manage to get the ballistic missiles out of Cuba, but the US also promised to removed its own ballistic missiles from Turkey.
On Turkey's issue with who it regards as terrorist, it does have a valid point in its objections. Letting a country into a defensive alliance, when said country is ostensibly harboring agents that is threatening the national security of an existing member state is going to be a disaster waiting to happen. However justified or not you feel for the Kurdish saboteurs/terrorists and their cause, there have been attacks orchestrated by this group against Turkey.
One of NATO's requirements for joining is that member-states must divest from any existing international obligations that would harm its commitment to NATO's core aim of a military defensive alliance. A state cannot be part of another military alliance that is at odds with NATO, or at least, must make the decision to jump ship to NATO upon joining. A country cannot, for example, be part of Russia's military alliance CSTO as well as NATO. This isn't unreasonable, but it is very cloak-off about the dog-eat-dog world of international politics.
Whatever horse-trading happened behind those closed doors, I hope is definitive. Otherwise, you're going to have a very sticky situation in the long run. I would argue that a member-state harboring agents that are actively undertaking operations to threaten the national security of a fellow member-state is a lot more dangerous than a country with a very authoritarian (but one that plays ball and does a lot of heavy lifting) democracy as a member-state. I mean like, Greece and Turkey already have some pretty big beef between the two. Having that issue be unresolved is pushing more furniture closer to the fire.
Let's hope there won't be any Turkish amphibious landings in the Baltic to apprehend alleged Kurdish militants there.
Turkey has a problem with many NATO states, so the problem is elsewhere.
Also note how this post would be deemed offensive by Erdogan for not saying Turkiye.
Turkey has a problem with many NATO states, so the problem is elsewhere.
Also note how this post would be deemed offensive by Erdogan for not saying Turkiye.
I don't agree with the way this buddy frames it.
He's right that if the war was over in 3 days there would be no serious repercussions. And that it would be a plausible outcome for many.
But I can't agree that the West is "selling Ukraine out". That's the least generous interpretation of what's happening. Let's just say that Ukraine's national interests come after their respective countries' national interests and they will always want to minimize the impact on themselves.
What I can say for certain, there will be no frozen conflict. We tried that once in 2014. And it just led to the second stage. The third stage might be the final one, so we will not accept any arrangement that leads to it. It will remain hot until we feel safe enough, something has to give.
You can not have trustworthy sociology in an authoritarian regime. Neither you need one. That's all I can say.
Sheesh, even I don't want that. I'm one of those freaks who think Syria was better off under Assad.
A violent fall of a terrible regime always makes things worse. Because this regime has destroyed all the popular opposition and orgaizations who are prepared to take over come from the underground movements and are total nutjobs even compared to the tyrant.
This group of old wargamers this buddy and I belong to are the "Maddogs." We've been a pretty solidary bunch of years, but this Ukraine thing has really driven a wedge in our little society. About half the regulars have effectively adopted the Tucker Carlson "Biden Derangement Syndrome" view and argued that anything short of an immediate pullout from NATO, and abandonment of all U.S. overseas military involvement in Europe is the only way to sufficiently atone for having provoked Putin with the expansion of NATO and avoid his righteous reprisal by nuclear hellstorm . . . that is an exaggeration for most of them, but sadly not all of them.
Seems to me we would do well to lure Weaver to join our merry band of psychopaths and slackers . . . but with egregiously vile views about Ukraine being expendable being common, that might not be very kind of us . . . so in the mean time I'll just act as go-between
@Swadius 2.0 do you have a sense for what policies or relations Sweden and Finland had held vis a vis the PKK to which Turkey objected? It has never been really clear in what I've read, and I assumed that what it amounted to was: refugee PKK members were given political asylum in those countries?
@Bjorn The Upset I must confess that my knowledge of the history of the PKK and Turkey is minimal, but I'm probably slightly biased in favor of the Kurds overall. Do you know of a good, non-prejudiced source to get an overall sense for the conflict?
Last edited:
First of all, a disclaimer, I must say when it comes to following and keeping myself updated about politics, I am certainly a casual Turkish citizen.
I think wikipedia offers an unbiased source.
en.wikipedia.org
I have only read the description part and human right abuses from both sides. Overall, it is pretty accurate with respect to what I have heard over the years as a 30 years old guy. As a Turk, it really hurts reading the part of human right abuses from Turkish military but I certainly read and heard these kind of things happened back in the day between 1980-2000.
However, in past two decades, I think Turkish military are much more civil (of course, I am living in north-west of Turkey, it is better to ask this to a guy who is living south-east of Turkey). Right now, Kurds can speak their language, dress however they want. There is an even govermantal-national channel which is in Kurdish but as I said, it is still best to ask this to a Kurd since I am living in a province where conservatives are in majority.
Although Erdogan might be too much of an authoritarian leader, he certainly did major improvements on provinces which are in south-east of Turkey where most of Kurds lives.
Although this site is in Turkish language, I think presentation of the information can be understandable. It is the last election and you can see south-east side of Turkey colored purple which is representing HDP, pro-Kurd party. In most of the provinces in sout-east, HDP is getting majority of the votes but AKP [Edit: orange color is representing AKP], which is Erdogan's party, is getting considerable amount of votes ranging from 20-50 percent, If you click on provinces, you can see the percentages of political parties.
When it comes to PKK abusing human rights, it is bad. I read and heard too many times that PKK killing Kurdish peasants who do not support their causes. This is included in wikipedia page I shared. One of the main reason Turkish government fighting against drug trafficking is that cutting off major cash flow of PKK.
www.crisisgroup.org
You can see the casualties in this website between 2015-2022. I was in Ankara between 2010-2016. One of the guy, personally I did not know him much, who lives in the same dorm as I, got killed because of PKK bombing a civilian bus. So there is no brainer for me to call PKK as a terrorist groups.
But the most crucial reason this conflict still ongoing is that Kurds acted so late to form a national state for themselves as an Iranian folk historically. Because they acted so late and because of the power scale difference, this dream of Kurds will not come true in a foreseeable future.
I think wikipedia offers an unbiased source.
Kurdistan Workers' Party insurgency - Wikipedia
I have only read the description part and human right abuses from both sides. Overall, it is pretty accurate with respect to what I have heard over the years as a 30 years old guy. As a Turk, it really hurts reading the part of human right abuses from Turkish military but I certainly read and heard these kind of things happened back in the day between 1980-2000.
The underlined part is just awful and most certainly it is the truth.
However, in past two decades, I think Turkish military are much more civil (of course, I am living in north-west of Turkey, it is better to ask this to a guy who is living south-east of Turkey). Right now, Kurds can speak their language, dress however they want. There is an even govermantal-national channel which is in Kurdish but as I said, it is still best to ask this to a Kurd since I am living in a province where conservatives are in majority.
Although Erdogan might be too much of an authoritarian leader, he certainly did major improvements on provinces which are in south-east of Turkey where most of Kurds lives.
Although this site is in Turkish language, I think presentation of the information can be understandable. It is the last election and you can see south-east side of Turkey colored purple which is representing HDP, pro-Kurd party. In most of the provinces in sout-east, HDP is getting majority of the votes but AKP [Edit: orange color is representing AKP], which is Erdogan's party, is getting considerable amount of votes ranging from 20-50 percent, If you click on provinces, you can see the percentages of political parties.
When it comes to PKK abusing human rights, it is bad. I read and heard too many times that PKK killing Kurdish peasants who do not support their causes. This is included in wikipedia page I shared. One of the main reason Turkish government fighting against drug trafficking is that cutting off major cash flow of PKK.
Türkiye’s PKK Conflict: A Visual Explainer | Crisis Group
www.crisisgroup.org
But the most crucial reason this conflict still ongoing is that Kurds acted so late to form a national state for themselves as an Iranian folk historically. Because they acted so late and because of the power scale difference, this dream of Kurds will not come true in a foreseeable future.
I always wanted to be a wargamer slacker but that's a first-world privilege.This group of old wargamers this buddy and I belong to are the "Maddogs." We've been a pretty solidary bunch of years, but this Ukraine thing has really driven a wedge in our little society. About half the regulars have effectively adopted the Tucker Carlson "Biden Derangement Syndrome" view and argued that anything short of an immediate pullout from NATO, and abandonment of all U.S. overseas military involvement in Europe is the only way to sufficiently atone for having provoked Putin with the expansion of NATO and avoid his righteous reprisal by nuclear hellstorm . . . that is an exaggeration for most of them, but sadly not all of them.
Seems to me we would do well to lure Weaver to join our merry band of psychopaths and slackers . . . but with egregiously vile views about Ukraine being expendable being common, that might not be very kind of us . . . so in the mean time I'll just act as go-between
Seriously though, I get it. There were people who said Britain and France provoked Germany to start a new war by how they treated it after WWI. And it's kinda true. They didn't have the luxury to crawl under a rock and atone though. The US can still do that. They're untouchable. So they can actually pull out the shame without war scenario. Who knows what Churchill would choose if that was on the table? And it's not my place to tell them what's right for them. I guess this nation is tired of leadership and I'm not being sarcastic. It's a burden.
I think it perfectly mirrors how many US intellectuals are looking at things right now on the domestic front too. Defund the police, let those radical groups with fringe ideologies wallow in strife and chaos and see what happens. Can't help everyone but at least I've got my life figured out, right? Maybe those people will settle down if we stop trying to preserve the status quo? And Europe is always like that, always those people with crazy ideas of nationalistic greatness and ages-old grudges.
Maybe it's an awakening from a narcissistic dream. Maybe the new US national idea should be just minding their own business. And that's exactly what Putin wants, so it's a win-win. Didn't he directly say that Russia is fighting not just Ukraine but the whole NATO and its goals are not to just gain territory but to shatter the uni-polar world order. Give him that and a few backwater countries and it will be over. I genuinely don't reckon he actually wants a hot war with NATO so it's a sound pacifying strategy.
I definitely wouldn't attempt to dissuade your buddies. They're small people with small ambition. I'm a small person too just living in a completely different reality. We all hope for peace, we just have different stakes. But I'm sure we understand each other.
I don't follow Swedish politics that closely, but from what I can find:
Sweden has a British parliamentary system with multiple political parties and ruling coalitions between parties take place if no one party wins an outright majority. Which is the case presently. The Social Democrat party, their policies you can guess accurately by the name, is the biggest party, but only hold 100 seats of the 398 legislature, so they banded together with the centre party, the left party, the green party...
...and 1 independent giving them a 1 vote majority to form the coalition.
That 1 MP is an individual of Kurdish origin. And not just any Kurd! Someone that has previously fought as a guerilla fighter in Iran. Amineh Kakabaveh. She still supports Kurdish groups, maybe not outright violent ones directly like the PKK, but she does support ones like the equally armed YPG. And as guerilla groups go, often these groups do trade a lot of personnel and resources in the background. As she is instrumental to the current ruling coalition's survival, she is punching above her weight in the demands she makes of the legislature. She has caused government to fall before. Prior to being an independent, she was part of the left party. Her leaving triggered the proceedings. She was lured back to the ruling coalition later by offers of support for the Kurds, and denouncement of Turkey's actions regarding Syria that have harmed the Kurds. She was named as someone Turkey wanted extradited when they signaled they will veto Sweden and Finland's application.
I have no idea about Finland. They might as well be moon people.
me too, but the US media back in the day bashed him for corruption. But as soon as Russia invaded, he is now a hero. It s a rather drastic change if you ask me.
That info has been brought to me by ukranian dude, and it looks like this youtuber bashes both sides of this conflict, but hence he is an ukranian he mostly covers Ukraine.
Yet, the case remains. That political party has been shut down for reasons unknown.
He can be both, you know? I also don't remember Zelensky singled out for bashing for corruption, but by coincidence all of the pro-Russian trolls on the internet make this claim, unsuccessfully and with little merit.
If I pretend for a moment I talk to not a Putinbot, but someone who is interested in actual reality, the Western (liberal! the right-wing doesn't mind a bit of nazism) media bashed Ukraine for years for their tolerance of few neo-Nazi auxilliary units financed by oligarchs and unaccountable to anyone. Now this criticism has subsided, as all criticism of Ukraine can be used as enemy war propaganda.
And make no mistake, you and your side are the enemy. And yet you demand we make it easier for you to spread your propaganda. Why don't you ask Putin to allow Western media reports about the war in Russia? Because that's the equivalent demand.
A pro-Russian youtuber, which you call "Ukrainian" to hide his allegiance to Kremlin, says his pro-Russian party has been shutdown for "unknown" reasons. It is a mystery!
An uncomfortable amount of US media will brand themselves as news outlets, tell blatant lies on their platform, get sued, go to court, and then argue that they're not subject to laws regulating news media because they're actually satirical, commentary, or analytical in nature and not fact-based (and regulated) news outlets. They have "news" in their name but they are politically-themed talk shows first and foremost. Their incentive is profit, their success is measured in viewership/circulation, and so their product is designed to grab as much attention as possible. At this point, and honestly for the past few decades, any incident--contrived or not--is merely used as a staging point to launch attacks on opposition. Because they're not reporting news in a technical/legal sense (they are editorializing) they can jump to whatever conclusions and draw whatever assumptions they want without worrying about the veracity of the gibberish which tumbles out of their mouths, and so they freely try to tie in totally unrelated topics and talking points to paint everything as a scandal.
The reality of US media today is that Biden could say he donates money to a child cancer research foundation and there would be talking heads on TV the same day saying he's funding bioweapons research to antagonize Putin into using NBC weapons to initiate a third world war so that we can kill all the Russians as part of some war on white people, paving the way to open camps for turning god-fearing white American children into gay/trans paedophilic abortion doctors who have interracial polyamorous relationships and steal everyone's guns. Rational people would think I'm exaggerating, but I only wish I was.
Would you like examples? They are easy to find.
Last edited:
This is almost perfect, but you also need to clarify the sinister role of the WEF in this (and throw Great Reset gang signs) and I'm guessing you are not mentioning the Jews in every sentence because you'll break the forum rules.
Incidentally this kind of superfake conspiracies may be the best weapon to weaken the faith of conspiracy believers, and that's the most we can hope for.
Weaken the faith of conspiracy believers? To me, that sounds even more unbelievable than the theories themselves.
I wonder when and how all of this ends. Start heavily censoring fake news media and you'll be accused of fascism. Is that even the right way to fight against fake media? After all, most of modern civilization has been built on the premise of freedom and free speech. I am not one to go against punishment for spreading false pieces of information, but how does that differentiate us in the eyes of the common folk from the authoritarian regimes like in Russia?
I am relatively young. Very young compared to the average age of people on these forums (if I had to guess), but the older I am, the more I feel like this small world we call society is closing in on its end just because.
Last edited:
Freedom of speech is--at its heart--the ability to openly criticize government and those who govern without fear of prosecution. The US doesn't rate super high on various metrics for individual freedoms, despite what we would like to believe, but we do consistently rate among the highest (if not the highest) for freedom of speech and for support of that freedom. With that in mind, there are still content-specific and contextual restrictions on speech in the US and other places which rate highly for freedom of speech. The simplest example is for threats and calls for violence. Obviously, it is unwise to allow something like a march at a political rally to carry on a chant calling for extrajudicial killings of their political opponents because that's advocating for and potentially inciting a violent crime.
The tricky part is identifying when promotion of certain ideologies becomes equatable with inciting crime. We have some examples of this on the books, the obvious one being Nazis, but even Neo-Nazis in the US are permitted to organize and promote their ideology publicly. This is despite the fact that Neo-Nazism is built almost entirely on social and cultural values of the original Nazis and not their governing, economic, or even diplomatic values. The most prevalent of these social values are white supremacy, eugenics, and antisemitism, and even their strong trends towards nationalism are inseparable from the issue of ethnicity, making ethnonationalism a better descriptor. These social and cultural values call for suppression and removal of non-conforming peoples, and historically this has been done through displacement and genocide. The fact that this ethos openly calls for racial and religious discrimination and its followers have shown a willingness to violently persecute others could qualify it as incitement, but currently it does not. As soon as one of them slips and says "kill the Jews" then they're open to prosecution, but "guilt by association" is a no-go here even when the associate in question is literally Hitler.
So, at what point can we say some political or ideological group has gone beyond the pale of protected political speech/protest and into the realm of calling for violence or incitement of some crime? Legally, should we draw a line at all, or is that just codifying a means to persecute technically innocent people on the basis of association? Can we risk the potential for even more institutional bias/favoritism?
That is all assuming, of course, that there is genuine discourse being had. Actual people promoting their personal ideologies, for better or worse. When you venture into the realm of fake news (and I mean actual fake news, i.e. disinformation, conspiracies, etc.) then the ethicality becomes simpler but the legality becomes somehow more frustrating in the US. As I mentioned before, we can probably all agree that any media outlet which brands itself as "news" but whose content is entirely politically-motivated commentary and knowingly lies or omits facts and context--to the point that they cannot be said to offer any form of fact-based reporting--shouldn't be trusted. However, knowing that you shouldn't trust what they say is irrelevant to their right to say it in the first place. The FCC has very narrow scope on what they will and won't enforce with regards to the truth of statements in news media. Technically it is legal to lie, even when "reporting" as a "news" outlet, so long as those lies do not cause immediate public harm. The FCC will come down on a network which broadcasts that it's safe to drive through an active forest fire if that specific forest fire is referenced and is active at the time of the broadcast. If it's a month after the fact and the talking heads open with "recent studies have shown..." then the FCC is powerless to punish them for it even if there are no studies and there are active forest fires elsewhere at the time of broadcast.
How this relates to our ideological concern is that it's tolerated for these networks to broadcast the opinions of those who follow what many would consider to be dangerous ideologies rooted in racism, sexism, and religious discrimination (almost always including antisemitism, but islamophobia is prevalent now as well). They are even allowed to be openly discriminatory on air, as seen in segments on the "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory, as long as they do not attempt to incite an immediate, violent panic. Even then, the network can run a disclaimer saying the opinions expressed by those on the show are their own and not those of the network, so only the person who actually spoke is liable.
You may see some comments saying more and more extremists are "saying the quiet part out loud," which simply means that the proponents of these ideologies which we already knew were dangerous are finally starting to feel comfortable saying the dangerous parts in public spaces. Using Neo-Nazis as an example again, we've had organized Neo-Nazi parties in the US for over half of a century, and historically their public talking points have been anti-desegregation, anti-civil rights, anti-LGBT rights, etc. etc., which are all literally conservative positions (i.e. deference to status quo, and opposition to change) and were stances taken by mainstream political parties at the time. They are also noteworthy for opposing suggested changes and for not recommending alternatives to the status quo. It is known that the status quo in the US in this time frame was not aligned with the social and cultural values of Neo-Nazis, but the Neo-Nazis knew it would even further discredit them if they openly promoted discriminatory policies such as expansion of segregation to Jewish people. It is common knowledge that antisemitism is a core value of Neo-Nazism, but they knew better than to push it in public. Now, however, promotion of these less popular aspects of Neo-Nazism and other ideologies is becoming tolerated in public and private spaces, though it is often presented obliquely. That's my tie-in to this:
The tricky part is identifying when promotion of certain ideologies becomes equatable with inciting crime. We have some examples of this on the books, the obvious one being Nazis, but even Neo-Nazis in the US are permitted to organize and promote their ideology publicly. This is despite the fact that Neo-Nazism is built almost entirely on social and cultural values of the original Nazis and not their governing, economic, or even diplomatic values. The most prevalent of these social values are white supremacy, eugenics, and antisemitism, and even their strong trends towards nationalism are inseparable from the issue of ethnicity, making ethnonationalism a better descriptor. These social and cultural values call for suppression and removal of non-conforming peoples, and historically this has been done through displacement and genocide. The fact that this ethos openly calls for racial and religious discrimination and its followers have shown a willingness to violently persecute others could qualify it as incitement, but currently it does not. As soon as one of them slips and says "kill the Jews" then they're open to prosecution, but "guilt by association" is a no-go here even when the associate in question is literally Hitler.
So, at what point can we say some political or ideological group has gone beyond the pale of protected political speech/protest and into the realm of calling for violence or incitement of some crime? Legally, should we draw a line at all, or is that just codifying a means to persecute technically innocent people on the basis of association? Can we risk the potential for even more institutional bias/favoritism?
That is all assuming, of course, that there is genuine discourse being had. Actual people promoting their personal ideologies, for better or worse. When you venture into the realm of fake news (and I mean actual fake news, i.e. disinformation, conspiracies, etc.) then the ethicality becomes simpler but the legality becomes somehow more frustrating in the US. As I mentioned before, we can probably all agree that any media outlet which brands itself as "news" but whose content is entirely politically-motivated commentary and knowingly lies or omits facts and context--to the point that they cannot be said to offer any form of fact-based reporting--shouldn't be trusted. However, knowing that you shouldn't trust what they say is irrelevant to their right to say it in the first place. The FCC has very narrow scope on what they will and won't enforce with regards to the truth of statements in news media. Technically it is legal to lie, even when "reporting" as a "news" outlet, so long as those lies do not cause immediate public harm. The FCC will come down on a network which broadcasts that it's safe to drive through an active forest fire if that specific forest fire is referenced and is active at the time of the broadcast. If it's a month after the fact and the talking heads open with "recent studies have shown..." then the FCC is powerless to punish them for it even if there are no studies and there are active forest fires elsewhere at the time of broadcast.
How this relates to our ideological concern is that it's tolerated for these networks to broadcast the opinions of those who follow what many would consider to be dangerous ideologies rooted in racism, sexism, and religious discrimination (almost always including antisemitism, but islamophobia is prevalent now as well). They are even allowed to be openly discriminatory on air, as seen in segments on the "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory, as long as they do not attempt to incite an immediate, violent panic. Even then, the network can run a disclaimer saying the opinions expressed by those on the show are their own and not those of the network, so only the person who actually spoke is liable.
You may see some comments saying more and more extremists are "saying the quiet part out loud," which simply means that the proponents of these ideologies which we already knew were dangerous are finally starting to feel comfortable saying the dangerous parts in public spaces. Using Neo-Nazis as an example again, we've had organized Neo-Nazi parties in the US for over half of a century, and historically their public talking points have been anti-desegregation, anti-civil rights, anti-LGBT rights, etc. etc., which are all literally conservative positions (i.e. deference to status quo, and opposition to change) and were stances taken by mainstream political parties at the time. They are also noteworthy for opposing suggested changes and for not recommending alternatives to the status quo. It is known that the status quo in the US in this time frame was not aligned with the social and cultural values of Neo-Nazis, but the Neo-Nazis knew it would even further discredit them if they openly promoted discriminatory policies such as expansion of segregation to Jewish people. It is common knowledge that antisemitism is a core value of Neo-Nazism, but they knew better than to push it in public. Now, however, promotion of these less popular aspects of Neo-Nazism and other ideologies is becoming tolerated in public and private spaces, though it is often presented obliquely. That's my tie-in to this:
I didn't mention Jews in every sentence because at this point in time, virtually all major conspiracy theories have some roots in antisemitism. Many prevalent conspiracy theories in western countries will include mentions of George Soros, the Rothschilds, other international banking institutions like the IMF, "Zionists," Israel, or the "global elite" which is a blanket term for all of the above. You cannot escape antisemitism in contemporary conspiracy theories. Whenever some talking head on political-right media mentions any of the above, they are pushing antisemitism whether they are consciously aware of it or not. If directly pressed on the matter, they will probably backpedal and go with the usual "I'm not antisemitic, some of my friends are Jewish" nonsense, but it doesn't change the fact that they are demonizing Jewish people by associating them with totally unrelated scandals and fabricated conspiracies.
All of this would be already a mess to deal with on its own, but on top of that there's the fact that large corporations in the US have a very strong and real power to limit individual freedom, and have profit as their sole motivation to exercise such power. I personally find the first amendment to be more of a pretense than anything else, now that the people who hold actual access to the means of public discourse are not really bound by it. In fact they don't seem to be bound by any law at all.
Critical thinking was deemed heresy by certain elements in the social sciences in the 1960s. That argument has reached its zenith and was the dominant notion on American university campuses when I last worked in such places in around 2010.
That is the problem. When you are indoctrinating people to believe, not to think, then it doesn't matter how "free" their speech or anything else is.
Given events of the last 10 to 20 years, I do not think any solution is promising; which means that there are only two paths ahead: (a) descent into New Totalitarian Tribalism; (b) conflict.
Correct. If you are familiar with "Manufacturing Consent" book by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky, there is an explanation of the difference between the soviet model of propaganda and the western model.
For example here, in soviet Russia, for the last... 15 years the western model has been adopted and used with great success. Most of russian political talk shows are made by western license. However, for people who survived the russian 90s this model still doesn't really work and it mostly aimed at yonger generations. I honestly can't name a single individual or news outlet that i may consider trustworthy here in Russia.
In the US, Rosenbaum case speaks volumes about how things are when it comes to news and narrative. Good thing that boy made it through. I used to read AP quite often and i used to have AP app on my phone, because i wanted to see a different point of view. Now i just trying to stay clear of that sort of things.
But in the case of Zelensky i believe it was something big, maybe NYT or WP, i don't really remember, but i can look for it if needed. So i find this transition from a bad boy to a good boy as amusing.
Last edited:
Based on what I know about Russian history, culture and society, there is much of great merit and which deserves great admiration. But these "heroic" features, and the tens of millions of heroic "everyday Russians" seem to have always been subject to institutions of power which thrive on cultures of anti-merit and anti-humanism.
Putin it seems is the zenith of this despicable dominant set of forces which prevent freedom and the realization of Russian societies full potential.
From my standpoint, Putin needs to be removed, not just for the sake of NATO or the EU or even "the West" but for the entirety of humanity, including the vast majority of most Russians (setting aside the small fraction of oligarchs who continue to benefit disproportionately from the Putin regime). Whether his removal is by his death or his incarceration and trial for war crimes seems largely immaterial, he needs to go. I was convinced as much as early as 2008 (after he gave his "NATO is bad . . . fall of the Soviet Union was the greatest catastrophe speech"), much less when he invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea in 2014. I am definitely firmly in the "Putin must go," camp today, and thankfully it seems that more and more Western leaders are awakening to this reality. None of us can be safe and secure in a world with a nation possessing a massive nuclear arsenal which is led by a monster like Putin. Putin's regime also needs to be dismembered and measures taken to prevent this type of genocidal maniac from ever again gaining control of Russia, its military and its nuclear arsenal. Certainly Russia as a society and as a nation must remain, and should be nurtured into its full potential; Freedom for Russians and all people! But this means necessarily "Death to all Orcs," meaning anyone who heartily supports Putin and his ethnocentric, supremacist, irredentist clap-trap. Putin is not only a modern day Hitler, he is much WORSE than Hitler because he has shown himself much more adept at the long-game, at diversified efforts toward imperialism and he is heavily armed with nukes. Thankfully, like most dictators, he seems to have promulgated so much corruption (a tool to keep underlings vulnerable and himself rich) that he has at least in part come to dwell in an echo chamber. The fact that his plans for this takeover for Ukraine were at the outset so severely detached from reality would be hilarious if not for the massive suffering and destruction he has caused.
There can be no compromise. Putin has to go.
damn, you live a life full of fear it seems. Look under your bed, just in case there is Putin underneath, waiting to for you to go to sleep.
i will give you some numbers
1946, 1950, 1958, 1959, 1964, 1965, 1967, 1977, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1986, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2011, 2014, 2015.
I'm pretty sure that death toll behind these numbers is pretty substantional. I bet it is even greater than Hitler's. And if you are from States or you are from a NATO country. I suggest you look in the mirror and ask yourself do you have a moral right to say anything about anyone.
I can also list a different set of numbers that relates to Russia, because i'm aware of a death toll behind USSR and RF.
But i am also aware who benefited the most from this conflict, you can check the stocks by yourself.
Let me get this clear. This conflict is not about Ukraine, not about whatever they say on Russian tv or media. This is a conflict between West and Russia. Ukraine is just a battleground. Just like Korea has been, how Vietnam has been. So nothing new here. Narrative is the same.
Perhaps in the alternative universe Russia joined NATO as Putin wanted to despite March 1946, and if this would be the case, we would be talking about bad and evil regimes of China and India right now.
So please spare me of this nonsense you just wrote, i already mentioned a good book to read that explains how narrative works and how it is designed, on what part of socium it works best.
Do i care about Ukranian people? I don't. But i'm aware of the fact that current president of Ukraine already sold his country to Turkey (Erdogan was gorgeous btw in that moment). I'm aware that each and every newborn in Ukraine already has a debt his country will not be able to pay off in many, many, many generations and this newborn, his children and chidren of his children will be paying this debt until they die.
Nothing new here, business as usual.
p.s. fun of fact. Some game has Ukranian flag as decoration that will cost a player ~ 2 USD. Each and every idiot who bought this decoration paid his own money to a russian game developer, and if to follow narrative of the last days, these idiots supported Putin's regime in war in Ukraine. Ain't that funny?
Similar threads
