Fox news is predicting much suffering for the American people if they don't get rid of President Biden right now, however they will have to wait for elections since those are the rules, and always follow the rules, although other methods have been tried, like media manipulation and meddling.

Of course if President Biden is removed from power, guess who takes over the reigns, and who will have the entire nuclear arsenal at her disposal?

My dear Russian friends: some old friends, some more recent, some I only know from afar, friends in soul and spirit. Times are tough for you too. Like those of all Ukrainians, your lives, never simple, have been turned upside down. Many of you are fleeing Russia. And many of you share with me a feeling of guilt and shame about what your country is doing, in your name, to Ukraine. — Olivier5

It's harsh, and in my opinion, very patronizing. If it is published somewhere it would make a good propaganda piece. I don't remember any letters to American friends from Iraqis.

Yup, good propaganda piece.

As long as somebody wins: looks like everyone is going to lose this time.

It's a risk, but if Russia survives politically and economically, Putin remains in power and Russia reorients its economy and just sells its resources to China and India and other developing nations. What's going to happen?

Total collapse of the US as a super power. — boethius

This looks like a plan, but it is very risk, and very aggressive. Risky for Russia and for the world.



Nice cartoons. At least they are discussing the possibilities.

Time to negotiate or fight to the last chicken.

But what about Will Smith slapping Chris Rock?! — Benkei

I was hoping no-one would bring that up, but since you did:

I suggest that the whole thing was staged to send the message that an unprovoked aggression by host Chris Rock (representing Putin) even verbally, of an innocent woman (representing Ukraine) will not be tolerated and will be met by a 'strike' by Will Smith (representing NATO).

Far- fetched? Well consider this: Chris Rocks initials "CR" match with the first two letters of "Crimea", and the military reference to "GI Jane"?

Now all we need is for the White House to come out and say Will did not mean to slap Chris.

Help is on the way.

By now you may have read about Knowledge-Based Trust, a Google research paper that describes a method of scoring web documents according to the accuracy of facts. Knowledge-Based Trust has been referred to as the Truth Algorithm, a way to assign a Trust Score to weed out sites that contain wrong information.

https://www.searchenginejournal.com/googles-truth-algo-5-facts-know/129103/#close

This graphic of where each news channel stands seems roughly accurate to me, since I know what conservative news and liberal news channels look like. For the time being, it is out in the open.

https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444

Maybe you mean Feminism?

Since the 1960s, both of these traditions are also contrasted with radical feminism that arose from the radical wing of second-wave feminism and that calls for a radical reordering of society to eliminate male supremacy; together liberal, socialist and radical feminism are sometimes called the "Big Three" schools of feminist thought.[14] — Wikipedia

It is a veritable information war. No need to go to the Ukraine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kyiv#So_what_is_the_neutrality_issue?

What's in a name? Some investigation into the name change from assumed - to - be trustworthy sources, including Wikipedia:

After Ukraine’s 1991 independence, regulations were introduced about the national guidance for transliterating place names from Cyrillic to Latin alphabets.

Nina Jankowicz, a fellow at the Wilson Center and former Ukrainian Foreign Ministry comms adviser, has spoken about the importance of correct pronunciation.

"How we describe Ukraine and Ukrainians and their cities is paramount to how the world perceives Ukraine," says Jankowicz, who wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post in 2019 and tweeted this video too.

"And part of that perception," she says, "is about youdescribing Ukraine as its own distinct entity, not as a part of this alleged sphere of influence that Vladimir Putin wants to resurrect, in which all Slavic countries are part of a giant brotherhood and he is the king of them."

https://www.scotsman.com/news/world/why-kiev-changed-to-kyiv-and-how-to-pronounce-the-ukraine-capital-name-3583903

I find all this faintly disgusting.

Wikipedia:

Kyiv
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Kiev)

In 2018, the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry launched #CorrectUA, an online campaign to promote the use of official Ukrainian spellings by countries and organizations, in place of "outdated, Soviet-era" place-names.[41][42]

The US media organization NPR adopted an on-air pronunciation of Kyiv closer to the Ukrainian, responding to the history and identity of the local population, in January 2022.[69][70]

Even more disturbing.

Thanks for pointing it out.

Propaganda anyone? Also, could anyone suggest a good drink?

Is anyone having a problem dealing with propaganda? I am.

2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause
also : a public action having such an effect

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda

I am having problems. So how do we get out of this? Maybe...

https://graniteandsunlight.wordpress.com/2022/03/06/propaganda-what-to-look-for-how-to-deal-with-it/

https://firstdraftnews.org/articles/a-guide-to-prebunking-a-promising-way-to-inoculate-against-misinformation/

The question is how do we get unfiltered news that we can then filter to fit our purposes?

In any case I am a little tired of hearing of President Zelenskyy's 'scoldings'. No offence, but really it looks like theatre.

Ah such easy questions to answer.

So, do you believe that organisations like CNN, Al Jazeera, the BBC, etc., are doing something other than reporting the news? That they have a conscious strategy to report on this story in a particular way, for a particular editorial purpose, and that they’re concealing or distorting facts? That they are disseminating propaganda? — Wayfarer

Let me offer proof. Go to any news site now, and look at their headlines and stories. They are all different. That in itself should tell you they are filtering the news. Would you like your doctor to give you a diagnosis based on a few selected facts or be told everything? What about your mechanic when you take the thing in for repairs? If different mechanics highlight different faults in your vehicle, what would you think? They a painting a picture of the world for you, with large gaps.

I think, since the last election, Fox News’ bias and wilful disregard of the facts regarding the validity of the 2020 election has been egregious and completely dishonest; — Wayfarer

I have seen Fox News, and Tucker Carlson in particular, get into an argument with the one of President Trump's lawyers, asking for the evidence regarding election fraud. There was none forthcoming from that source. Later on, Mr. Carlson implied that censoring or burying certain news items concerning Mr. Biden influenced the election: that is his opinion. Fox news has sensibly dropped, as far as I know, any talk of election fraud. I have seen them being selective, but that is news reporting today.

So do you really think that CNN, El Jazeera, etc, are likewise adopting a disinformation strategy, compared to that shown by Fox News, with respect to coverage of the events in Ukraine? That they are conspiring, somehow, to bamboozle the whole Western world - none of what they broadcast can be shown in Russia - for some nefarious motive? — Wayfarer

Consider their audience, not just the man on the street, but the middle class, the business people, congressmen, the military, and other decision makers. Once an item is broadcast on the news, it makes it very difficult, in my opinion, for that not to be treated as fact, since these broadcasters have the tacit approval of the powers that be. Why ban RT and Sputnik? They are not claiming to represent anyone other than the Russian government. Was RT going to affect foreign policy, the economy and public support for the 'war effort' and is this not a double edged sword?

If they banned RT because it did not suit them, would not allowing the other TV channels mean that they do no harm at least to their aims?

The entire subject of propaganda is a fascinating one, and becomes only more interesting as I dig deeper. Propaganda is a dismissive term, its frequent use may indicate that it is effective for its purposes. I thought I was immune to propaganda, but if the aim of this form warfare is to confuse and to create self-doubt, it is working very well. This is impressionism at its finest when it comes to information.

It may be useful to ask what the aims of the propagandists or I would prefer to call them news shapers or news manufacturers , what their aims are, and it becomes somewhat clearer. Looking at some actual headlines:

CNN:Zelensky: Ukraine ready to accept neutral status

BBC: Zelensky: Ukraine ready to accept neutral status

Al- Jazeera: (Headline cannot be copied and pasted)

CGTN:Ukraine insists on security guarantees in peace talks with Russia

Interesting. All together now... What is the purpose of these headlines and their timing? Am I to believe people are spending vast sums of money to inform me or to make more money?

Much of the context for the information receiving us will never be known. What was the purpose of President Biden's remarks? To put pressure on President Putin? Was he really unscripted? Are we to believe that President Biden is out of control, which also means he is a dangerous adversary who does not follow reason?

We shall never know. The effects are known, however.

That is exploring the lower bounds of propaganda. For me, it is too much to use schoolchildren as pawns in an information war.

This was more than 50 years ago, and the warning about the Military Industrial Complex takes in a little more context when your read these quotes:

I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity. — Dwight D. Eisenhower

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. — Dwight D. Eisenhower

Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/dwight-d-eisenhower-quotes

Russia exported Mig29s and such, but these were 'export versions' I think. I don't think they have a lot of allies to supply, and not a lot of bases, but I would be happy to be wrong.

I think everyone is sickened by the war so close to home, and also sickened by the profits made.

If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting. Curtis LeMay

Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time... I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.

That was the era when we might have destroyed Russia completely and not even skinned our elbows doing it. — Curtis LeMay

Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/curtis-lemay-quotes

He is reported to have said that "if in the end we have only two Americans and one Russian standing, we have won". At least his objectives were clear.

To the more powerless nations watching this thing, any outcome is acceptable, it has to be.

Putin is a response to Western society's shift to the left, in this instance its influence on European nations. The modern media a vector for emotion can't but help depicting patriarchs as bad guys. When Putin is gone the Left will be all conquering its ultimate victory and goal symbolized with the elimination of the last male on earth. The 'x' chromosomes attempt to eliminate the mutant 'Y' complete. — Gregory A

Who will save us from this fate? Democracy? War? Maybe there is a way to put us on the right side of history.

“We have the president of Russia mentioned the N-word... the nuclear word,” Trump said.“The nuclear word is a very dangerous, dangerous word and it’s being thrown around very cavalierly.” — RT

I have to agree. From the man who maybe invented cavalier.

dead Ukranians are good for business — StreetlightX

So is Cynicism

President George W. Bush got on with him, but so did President Clinton, I think. The mad swings of the pendulum from Democratic to Republican. From Left to Right.

Watching closely.

I am assuming he is a good Vlad.

Have you noticed that the 20th Century started with a pandemic and a world war? — frank

Have you noticed people have not killing in each other en masse, not making the commitment not to do so?

Militarism and Development in Underdeveloped Societies
Peter B. Mayer, in Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, & Conflict (Second Edition), 2008

Militarism is a word to which many different meanings are attached. The archetypal image of militarism is the equestrian figure of a ruler dressed in military costume, the Man on Horseback, the heroic, martial savior of the nation. Most commonly, militarism refers to predominance – political, economic, or social – of the military in government or society. Thus Prussia in the nineteenth century and Japan in the late nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century – both societies in which military ideas and ideology were predominant, the military class was extremely influential, and conscription was widespread – are often characterized by the term ‘militarism’.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/militarism

That has happened many times. Which is the good thing here. And that's why it's largely hypothetical the idea of "escalate-to-de-escalate". — ssu

Tell me, if you and your best friend were presidents of two opposing nuclear powers, how would you approach the subject? Total disarmament? "I found president X very disarming" or would you plan for the day one or both were replaced my madmen, 'neocons' or imperialists? Would you win any elections. I don't think there will be any peacenick presidents in our future.

Definitions for Peacenik

(noun) a person who opposes war or warlike policies
(noun) someone who prefers negotiations to armed conflict in the conduct of foreign relations


They are counting on there being wars in the future. Very optimistic, of course they assume they can 'win'

U.S. adversaries—China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and terrorist groups—will likely remain constant, but U.S. allies are liable to change, and the location of where the United States is most likely to fight wars may not match the locations where conflicts could be most dangerous to U.S. interests.

Above all, barring any radical attempt to alter the trajectory, the United States in 2030 could progressively lose the initiative to dictate strategic outcomes and to shape when and why the wars of the future occur.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2849z1.html

All wars are about the future as well as the past.

Switzerland is surrounded by EU countries that likely won't invade it or militarily pressure it. Why would it need it's army? Well, the argument is that we cannot know what the future brings us and once you have disbanded your deterrence, hard to get it back. Similar with nuclear weapons. If someone accepts to disarm totally the nuclear arsenal and then simply lies and others go through with it. — ssu

This is a good point. From "Russia is not the enemy" to the present day stand, people and events change drastically, so plan to keep your army and nukes because one day someone might need them or justify their unnecessary use.

I don't know if you have all seen the Oliver Stone documentary about President Putin. I found it very interesting and maybe useful in trying to gauge what President Putin is like. I have watched documentaries of President Reagan as well, and these world leaders fascinate me as decision making entities. In any case, we are looking at a commander in chief, like those of other powerful nations, with the legitimate power to declare war and cause death and destruction. In other words, a potential killer: they all are.

President Putin had not seen this movie before, they say, however he does look a little but uncomfortable, and remember he has a lot more intelligence (meaning information) than we do. Is the doomsday machine a reality?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvUP7KLI4bA

Interesting:

What few knew until recently is that in 1984, the Soviet Union actually did build a doomsday machine of sorts. They called it Perimeter. It's discussed in not one but two books released this month and in an article in the latest issue of Wired magazine.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113242681

Maybe that is why he looked a little embarrassed. "they were able to foresee some technical aspects"..
Oliver Stone must have known as well.

I support both sides. I accept the judgement that fate will give.

I've said all I'm going to say. I posted to this thread to register my outrage at what is being done to Ukraine, and I'm done with it. — Wayfarer

I welcome your outrage, but also be outraged at every innocent death caused in the name of wealth and national pride.

Also spare some outrage at those who are willing to vaporize thousands of children in their beds through a nuclear button.

Frankly I would like Biden to dump his nuclear suitcase in the Boston harbour and forget about it.
Something like it has happened before:

The only way would be if you would be sure that the other side will chicken out. — ssu

This thread has been a great learning experience for some I would think, steep learning curve and all that.

How about a nuclear agreement outlining how far each side would go before chickening out? Mutually Assured Commitment to Chickening out? The problem I have is I know how I would deal favor this as an adversary (mirror fallacy) but I do not know how President Putin or President Biden thinks, nor the forces behind them.

If several times the world has narrowly escaped being caught up in nuclear war, then is too dangerous to continue this sort of arrangement. President Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev had at some point total disarmament in mind, I have read.

Is there anything "morally wrong" about total disarmament? I am missing something here.

The Geneva Summit, the first meeting between U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, was held on November 19 and 20, 1985. The two leaders met to discuss the Cold War-era arms race, primarily the possibility of reducing the number of nuclear weapons. Hosted in Geneva, Switzerland, the meeting was the first American-Soviet summit in more than six years.

At Geneva, the two men quickly developed a rapport, even as they debated—sometimes quite ferociously—international issues of such grave importance. Gorbachev left a good impression on Reagan, who described the Soviet Secretary General as having “warmth in his face and style, not the coldness bordering on hatred I’d seen in most other senior Soviet leaders I’d met until then” (Gaddis 229).

It could be of course propaganda, but as a fiction, it is somewhat inspiring.

I do miss the 1980s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxlFMSPdcR4

If the question can't be answered it is o.k, but I am simply asking, would, in your mind, a 'limited response' 'even a conventional response' be any less effective deterrent than a 'total response?'

OK some answers here: https://nuclearnetwork.csis.org/limited-nuclear-war/

I posted a story about a 96 year old Buchenwald survivor killed by a Russian missile. This was labelled 'propoganda'. I expressed the view that Russia's invasion has already failed, in that no major city has been captured, and the Russian economy is going to contract to depression-era levels as a result of sanctions. This was also labelled propoganda. Any criticism of Russia's actions seems to be regarded as 'propoganda' by someone, but that seems to me to be apologetics for Russia's actions.

My opinion is that Russia's invasion is illegal, unjustified, unwarranted, totally destructive, a disaster and a humanitarian catastrophe. Some will label that 'propoganda' but as far as I'm concerned it's factual. I will post stories that draw attention to this from time to time. — Wayfarer

Selected pieces in support of demonizing the enemy is propaganda. Your view that the invasion has failed, etc, is opinion. I welcome opinion, however. Criticism of Russia is also welcome. How can they improve otherwise?

Russia's invasion is illegal - according to the ICJ that ruled the invasion of Iraq was illegal. Unjustified - all military operations have their justification, and it is simply not reasonable to call it unwarranted. In fact then, every hostile act towards any country, including sanctions due to a difference of opinion or decisions made by that government, that is also unjustified.

I acknowledge that the Russian TV , RT also puts out propaganda. They are stating that 1351 soldiers have been killed. Maybe. However, Ukraine stated earlier that over 1300 soldiers had been killed. Is this a coincidence? Did they add 351 to the total to make it sound right?

To date, 1,351 servicemen have died and 3,825 have been injured,” the deputy head of the Russian General Staff, Colonel General Sergey Rudskoy told a media briefing.

Kiev, however, remains tight-lipped on its own casualties. The most recent figure was announced by President Volodymyr Zelensky in mid-March, when he said that around 1,300 Ukrainian soldiers had died in combat.

https://www.rt.com/russia/552708-ukraine-conflict-military-casualties/

I am not riding this roller coaster until its over, and official figures on both sides are tallied, it is not going to affect the stand I take that both sides must come to an agreement and stop the killing.

The Biolabs thing looks somewhat of a circus.

Hunter Biden did fund Ukraine biolabs, emails published by media suggest

-RT

I would presume that people on a Philosophy Forum would back up those who are against authoritarianism and imperialism. — ssu

I can see an imperialist streak in NATO's expansion and authoritarianism in telling countries how to vote at the security council, whom to trade with, and whom to condemn. If that is what you mean, I am against it.

Mutual Assured Destruction, or the idea that after innocents are killed due to the use of a WMD that is totally indiscriminate it then is a great strategic step to kill more innocents, is fundamentally flawed. — Benkei

Could someone please enlighten me on this MAD strategy. If I was leading country, say Country X, having nuclear weapons, I would think the best strategy would be to publicly state the following plan:

1. Reduce nuclear warheads
2. Promise not to launch a first strike under any circumstances
3. If a first strike is launched against my country, upon verification, promise to launch a limited strike against a few military targets using nuke and conventional ICBMS and then seek to de-escalate immediately.
4. If de-escalation is not possible, take no further action. (If country Y wants to launch all its missiles and destroy country X there is no way to stop them)

This will avoid accidental response. This will avoid mutual destruction, while preserving the moral high ground by not responding in a way that destroys the entire world.

You are the opposing country, country Y. What is your response? I need to l know how other people think in order to evaluate this strategy. Is it mad? I ask because I have no expertise in this field at all.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/long-fuse-big-bang/202203/cognitive-bias-could-trigger-nuclear-war

One such judgment error is called Mirror Image Bias, where we assess motives underlying the behavior of another person based on our own experiences, beliefs, motivations, and values

Beebe goes on to say that our current strategy of thwarting Russian aims in Ukraine while “asphyxiating” their economy may succeed in humiliating Russia, but that, backed into a corner, Putin’s risk calculus could lead him to conclude that nuclear first strike is his only option.

By the way, I do not agree with that article: the devastation caused by conventional weapons in this war as well as in previous wars should have demonstrated that nuclear strikes are not necessary here. The fallout by itself from the neighboring country would be a disincentive, not to mention Russia forever losing its honor as a nation. President Putin must know that as I do.

Is it morally justifiable for us then to encourage our friend to fight, maybe by giving him a knife? — Baden

That's a good analogy, so let me take it further: you want to put paid to a 'mugger' by setting a trap but you don't want to take the risk of getting mugged, so you ask your friend to walk down the alley late at night promising to come 'stand by him'. When he is attacked, you supply him with a few guns to keep things going until maybe the mugger gets wounded and bleeds to death in the ensuing battle. It was worth it. Your 'friend'? Well, you could always take in his family for the 375 pounds or so the government is offering.

Whom is he working for? A former Putin ally who has fallen out and has an axe to grind?
When this is all over we will have a clearer picture.

Could Ukraine become a place where people wanted to go? — jorndoe

Not if they fight to the last man. I am more worried about President Zelenskyy's ambitions rather than of President Putin's.

these people are Europeans

The big question is, are Russians Europeans?

As someone mentioned, and from my consumption of mainly English language based information, there seems to be a feudal hierarchy in the world. I was looking for a list, but I found a simple arrangement called the G7. These governments call the shots and want to continue to do so, because they are better than everyone else? I do not know. Certainly get that impression, in any dispute with another country, that country is automatically wrong. All empires are the same.

The G7 is an intergovernmental association made up of countries that have the world's biggest, most developed economies.

The G7 was previously called the G8, until Russia was expelled from the group.

Russia was expelled from the group - previously known as the G8 - in 2014 in response to its annexation of Crimea.

"Russia was excluded from the G7 after it invaded Crimea a number of years ago, and its continued disrespect and flaunting of international rules and norms is why it remains outside of the G7, and it will continue to remain out," Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said at a news conference.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52885178

The G7 does not include some of the world's biggest economies, such as China, Brazil, and India.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/group-of-seven-g7-countries.html

I think it best to understand, sympathize, and work with the situation which is basically a worldwide military rule. For example, I wish no-one else gets expelled from the G-7.

I am sure the Romans of old looked down at everybody just because they had an empire. George W. Bush impressed me on the campaign trail by saying "Americans must be humble. We cannot tell the world what to do" . Then he got elected.

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. — George W. Bush

The Guardian uses tactics from the propaganda playbook: highlight a few horror stories from the war, to inflame public fury against the perpetrator of this unforgivable act. I don't recall any stories on other victims of war in other, less valuable places of the earth.

Maybe there's a difference between having no choice and thinking you have no choice. — Srap Tasmaner

You missed out the possibility that certain forces felt that they had no choice but to provoke Russia into this military operation as they say, and keep fueling it.

It all depends on what your end game is. If you like starting wars and keeping them going, like a sort of international pyromaniac then that is what you will do. Helps clear the forest.

Thanks for the article. Sure is long, but contains some great quotes by Aldous Huxley

For the unhappy few who know the complicated truth about Kosovo, the words of Aldous Huxley seem most appropriate: “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall drive you mad.”

What came down to us general populace was "Serbs were the bad guys".

I did some browsing to find the UN records - which have not been edited to prevent thought-crime - had to say about this. I rather trust the non-aligned parties views on the issue rather than the defense made by the perpetrators. The agreement is mentioned also in passing.

https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/kos%20SPV3988.pdf

Most recently, the parties were convened at an
international peace conference in Rambouillet, where they were urged to abandon their maximalist positions and accept an honourable compromise for peace. Ultimately,
the Kosovars demonstrated courage and vision by signing the Rambouillet peace agreement. The only holdout was the Yugoslav President, who refused to move from his utterly intransigent position. — UN Report - Canadian Representative

The NATO attacks have been made against my
country only because Yugoslavia, as a sovereign and independent State, refuses to allow foreign troops to occupy its territory and to reduce its sovereignty — Mr. Jovanovic (Yugoslavia)´:

The attacks against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia that started a few hours ago are in clear violation of Article 53 of the Charter. — Mr. Sharma (India):

I will go with that. Of course that applies to President Putin's actions as well, according to this much revered concept, although Russia did mention something about preventing genocide.

What happened to this:

https://defence-blog.com/ukraine-conducts-successful-cruise-missile-launch/