This only seems just because the conflict roughly ended at that point. History is written by the winners, as is morality.

The Western colonialists won the wars against indigenous peoples, but we generally don't think of the colonialists as the good guys (even as we know that the indigenous peoples were doing horrible things to eachother). — baker

I think it's objectively true that in WW2, America was fighting for the good side and Germany was fighting for the bad side.

What number? — Isaac

For instance the RSF Press Freedom Index.

Does economic suppression count? What about private buy outs of independent competitors? Do you have some good reason to relate 'dominance' to the use of violence as a tool?

Yes, I do. Violence eliminates dissenting voices. Economics don't.

Violence eliminates dissenting voices. Economics don't. — Olivier5

I mistook you for someone to be taken seriously, my mistake.

The crudeness of the method has no bearing whatsoever on the pervasiveness of the outcome.

Some recognition of reality here (i.e. they are losing, not winning, the war):

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/mar/27/russia-ukraine-war-latest-zelenskiy-calls-on-west-for-planes-and-tanks-biden-says-butcher-putin-cannot-remain-in-power-live

"Ukraine willing to compromise over the status of Donbas in peace deal, Zelenskiy says

Speaking more than a month after Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, Zelenskiy said no peace deal would be possible without a ceasefire and troop withdrawals.

He ruled out trying to recapture all Russian-held territory by force, saying it would lead to a third world war, and said he wanted to reach a “compromise” over the eastern Donbass region, held by Russian-backed forces since 2014."

To those who still insist the war is going 'disastrously' for Russia because they read that on CNN, ask yourself how Ukraine having the upper hand can be squared with a public admission they cannot take back their own territory and will likely have to give some of it away.

Maybe 'propaganda' is too emotive a term for some. But the basic definition is simply: "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view." That covers a wide scope. In some cases, it simply is giving people what they want to hear for profit. In other cases, it's feeding the government line for reasons of patriotism or whatever. And there's no reason it can't be both at the same time.

Maybe 'propaganda' is too emotive a term for some. But the basic definition is simply: "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view." — Baden

And clickbait is not an attempt to persuade or promote. It feeds off biases people already have. I put cable news sources in that category as well.

If a western government wanted to publish propaganda, they'd find their messaging diluted by floods of conflicting narratives, and this situation is amplified by widespread mistrust of the government (in the US anyway).

Since Putin's messaging can change on a dime, persuasion is obviously not his main concern.

For a lot of the misinformation in circulation right now, "propaganda" is not the right word.

In the US, some go all the way with this part ...

especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view — Baden

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

To those who still insist the war is going 'disastrously' for Russia because they read that on CNN, ask yourself how Ukraine having the upper hand can be squared with a public admission they cannot take back their own territory and will likely have to give some of it away.
4 hours ago — Baden

That the war is going disastrously for Russia, which it demonstrably is, doesn’t mean that Russia won’t succeed in imposing itself on some or all of the country, or dividing it up in some way. But again the cost on Russia is still to be fully realised. The whole campaign is an unmitigated disaster, regardless. If Russia didn’t have missiles - which it’s using to destroy civilian infrastructure - it would have had its ass handed to it on a plate.

Maybe 'propaganda' is too emotive a term for some. — Baden

it’s not that it’s emotive, but that can be used to discredit anything disagreeable. No doubt Russia will portray any realistic coverage of the situation on the ground as ‘propaganda’ while insisting that the ‘special military operation’ - not an invasion! - is going to plan. Now that is propaganda.

Meanwhile as the world was kvetching about Biden speaking his mind:

You may have heard about the six missiles Russia fired at the Ukrainian city of Lviv even as Biden was speaking just across the border.

But what about the reports of white phosphorus munitions being used by Russian troops on Saturday night—just as much of the Western world was in a tizzy over Biden’s assessment of Putin. Ukrainian forces in Avdiivka shared photos of the white phosphorus raining down, days after President Volodymyr Zelensky had warned the world that Russia was using “phosphorus bombs against peaceful people in Ukraine.”

Using a highly toxic chemical substance known for its ability to burn, as one chemical weapons expert put it, “very vigorously” through human flesh—that’s an escalation the whole world should be talking about.

Want another one?

The mayor of Slavutych on Saturday announced at least three civilian deaths as he said the northern city had been taken over by Russian troops. He said the decision to surrender was made to save civilian lives—and pleaded with relatives to come identify the bodies.

Imagine how many Ukrainians were agonizing over whether their missing loved ones were dead or alive while so many in the West focused on Biden’s speech, acting as if his comments might somehow drastically alter the trajectory of the war.

Their stories were pushed on the back burner as Western commentators speculated on how Russia might respond to Biden’s remark. — TheDailyBeast

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.

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? — FreeEmotion

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?

Let’s consider a case which I consider to illustrate that kind of approach: the Fox News support of Trump’s presidency (note that general comments on Trump should be posted in the Trump thread). At the very inception of Fox News, Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes made a strategic decision to pander to the so-called ‘conservative’ side of the US audience. This may or may not have reflected Rupert Murdoch’s own political convictions, but whether it did or not, it was still a commercial decision, i.e. that this ‘right wing’ audience was large and easily motivated. And Fox made a fortune out of doing that, from a commercial perspective it was wildly successful.

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; furthermore that this is largely driven by commercial considerations, that is, keeping ‘the base’ watching and so keeping the ratings up. (Note that many prominent journalists have left the organisation over this fact.)

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?

What was the purpose of President Biden's remarks? — FreeEmotion

I think he simply said what he thought. Apparently, a big diplomatic no-no, so the flacks are all ‘walking it back’. But he said it - he’s prone to gaffes. And I bet there are a lot of people who agree with it.

What, Christian School indoctrinating its students? Who'd a thunk it.

So, do you believe that organisations like CNN, Al Jazeera, the BBC, etc., are doing something other than reporting the news? — Wayfarer

How is this even a question? Of course they are. It doesn't necessarily require 'disinformation' - as in, the misreporting of facts, or disseminating false information, but it absolutely includes issues of how an issue is framed - what actors are assumed to have agency, what the actual problem is considered to be, what kinds of questions are asked (and not asked), who is interviewed, who or what counts as a legitimate source, etc. This is basic media literacy. How on God's green Earth do you think otherwise? CNN is particularly shit, basically propaganda channel for corporate interests and repeating democratic party talking points verbatim.

I mistook you for someone to be taken seriously, my mistake. — Isaac

Personally, I always knew you were a wimp.

To those who still insist the war is going 'disastrously' for Russia because they read that on CNN, ask yourself how Ukraine having the upper hand can be squared with a public admission they cannot take back their own territory and will likely have to give some of it away. — Baden

Just because no one is winning doesn't mean "it is going well for Russia." It's not a zero sum game.

How is this even a question? — StreetlightX

How is that question even a question?

You make your feelings very clear. You don't need to keep explaining them.

Let's not loose sight of the fact that tens of millions of people are being displaced, thousands of people killed, entire cities laid to waste, and all for no good reason. Here in our little sheltered workshop everything is very comfy.

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?

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

You mean CNN, owned by AT&T the fourteenth-largest donor to United States federal political campaigns and committees from 1989 to 2019, also funded the far-right One America, and run by William Kennard former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)?

Or the BBC? Run by millionaire, businessman and ex Tory party candidate Tim Davie, and millionaire Richard Sharp, previously of JP Morgan and 23 years a partner at Goldman Sachs.

Or Al Jazeera, owned by an hereditary constitutional monarchy that controls massive wealth from their substantial oil and gas reserves?

Or was it some of the many other news channels you were thinking of, collectively owned over 90% by just six companies and 15 billionaires between them?

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

basic media literacy. — StreetlightX

Yeah, I taught this to Chinese students as part of media literacy when they were studying at a British University. They had no major problem getting it, despite the fact, or maybe because of the fact they were bombarded with it on a daily basis at home.

It doesn't necessarily require 'disinformation' - as in, the misreporting of facts, or disseminating false information, but it absolutely includes issues of how an issue is framed - what actors are focused on, what the actual problem is consider to be, what kinds of questions are asked (and not asked), who is interviewed, who or what counts as a legitimate source, etc. — StreetlightX

Yes, e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies#Coverage_on_international_incidents

"During the Persian Gulf War in 1990–1991, CNN was criticized for excessively pushing human interest stories and avoiding depictions of violent images, the result being an alleged "propagandistic" presentation of news. A report by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) quotes an unnamed CNN reporter as describing "the 'sweet beautiful sight' of bombers taking off from Saudi Arabia"."

Suppressing the real effects of war and romanticising the killing machines that facilitate its progress is propaganda. That doesn't require direct falsities.

Of course, sometimes, shit is just made up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocity_propaganda

"Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990. On October 10, 1990, a young Kuwaiti girl known only as "Nayirah" appeared in front of a congressional committee and testified that she witnessed the mass murdering of infants, when Iraqi soldiers had snatched them out of hospital incubators and threw them on the floor to die. Her testimony became a lead item in newspapers, radio and TV all over the US. The story was eventually exposed as a fabrication in December 1992, in a CBC-TV program called To Sell a War. Nayirah was revealed to be the daughter of Kuwait's ambassador to the United States, and had not actually seen the "atrocities" she described take place"

Wouldn't waste your time with propaganda deniers on this thread though. That type of person simply cannot think beyond what their trusted media feeds them.

I am perfectly capable of recognising the biases in the media sources I read - CNN, SMH, ABC, and so on. It doesn’t alter the facts on the ground.

That the war is going disastrously for Russia, which it demonstrably is, doesn’t mean that Russia won’t succeed in imposing itself on some or all of the country, or dividing it up in some way. — Wayfarer

Yep.

The US can win every engagement and then lose the war. The Russians can fumble in nearly every engagement, sustain a lot of casualties and then win the war. A good historical example of that (which cannot be said to be propaganda as it's now history) is the Russo-Georgian war. Only that the Georgians were caught even more off guard helped the Russians win the war. And even if the Russians won the war, Putin started a large reformation of the army because of the dismal performance. Seldom a side that won a war is so critical about it's performance.

What should be noted that the dismal performance in the start of this invasion is mainly due to the poor assumptions that Ukrainians wouldn't fight, which was an intelligence failure. Russians seemed to mimick the 2003 Invasion of Iraq and the way US armoured columns pushed into Baghdad. (If the Iraqi defense would have been more concentrated and motivated, even then it could have been different.) But now we are over that stage.

I am perfectly capable of recognising the biases in the media sources I read - CNN, SMH, ABC, and so on. It doesn’t alter the facts on the ground. — Wayfarer

Just to say that Russians had a bad start is enough to be a "cheerleader" for Ukraine / the West for some. Or to note the civilian casualties.

Well, that was unresponsive. Seems like all you got from my post was that I am a "propaganda denier." Fine, carry on.

The fact that journalists who speak out against the dominant narrative in Russia are likely to be killed or imprisoned is a moral outrage. It doesn't, of itself, make their propaganda more dominant or pervasive than ours. That would be a separate question. — Isaac

"Dominance" is a matter of force. In the end, power is about the capacity to wield brute force. The narrative of a dictatorship is enforced, that is to say that you must agree with it publicly, or suffer the physical consequences in your body. This makes a very big difference with anything else that does not involve physical violence, including of course in terms of effectiveness: the murderers do this for a reason, because it DOES intimidate other journalists very effectively.

It doesn’t alter the facts on the ground. — Wayfarer

Wow, you've actually been to Ukraine to look for yourself? That's admirable. What were your impressions?

I wish the war was an 'unmitigated disaster' for Russia, but the fact that they're winning, despite their problems, mitigates the disaster somewhat for me from any reasonably objective perspective. It still puzzles me how you'd refer to the war if Russia was losing or looked like any of its major goals (Ukranian neutrality, autonomy for Donbass) were under threat. But, whatever, we'll just have to agree to differ on that.

> I didn't say it was 'required' did I? I said I had no reason to. Not liking cricket gives me no reason to play cricket. Is that the same as saying I'm 'required' to like cricket in order to play cricket?

No, my point is that there is a missing explanation! What is the logic link between being Russian or talk to Russians and having reasons to believe that the Russian aggression of Ukraine is immoral? You didn’t state it in that part I quoted and I didn’t see any. This answer of yours doesn’t compensate it either, actually it makes your position look even more pointless: you may have moral reasons to condemn Putin independently from your willingness, interest or liking to do it. And if we are not here to socialise but to discuss moral or strategic reasons about this war, who cares if you like cricket or dislike condemning Putin?!



> Only if I thought it would help. If I though it would cause more harm, how would that be the moral option?

After considering also your subsequent claims, I guess that your position would be less ambiguous if you stated not that you have no reason to morally condemn Putin but that you have moral reasons to not voice your moral condemnation of Putin’s actions even if they are immoral because this would hypocritically deflect attention from Western’s moral responsibilities in the genesis of this war, and would be taken to promote the immoral indirect interventionism of the West.



> recklessly endangering millions of people by knowingly provoking a ruthless tyrant without any meaningful protection for those he might attack is immoral.

Any demand that a ruthless tyrant of a nation can make against another nation (e.g. as Hitler made against Poland or Kim Jong-un makes against South Korea) that goes unsatisfied can be seen by him as a provocation, so should we meet his demands whatever they are to avoid a war and so endangering millions of people's life and wellbeing? And who is to decide that? What if his success would make him stronger in terms of resources and determination to oppress other independent nations with further demands? Is it immoral to fight for one’s own nation’s independence and/or for the freedom that one enjoys in such independent nation? Isn’t there any civic duty to fight for one’s own nation against the oppression of other nations’ tyrants? Don’t you really see any moral imperative in trying to contain the geopolitical ambitions of a ruthless tyrant even if at risk of total defeat? BTW do you consider the West immoral only when provoking a Russian ruthless tyrant or also when supporting his ruthless regime and ambitious geopolitical goals through economic ties?



> I assume it's because Putin is an immoral turd and would probably applaud them.

Well if Putin is such a moral turd then the moral responsibility of the West in the genesis or the continuation of this war doesn’t seem as morally questionable nor reckless as you claim. Not morally questionable, because an immoral turd doesn’t need any specific strategic provocation by the West to wreck Ukraine the way he’s doing in this war (the Ukrainian neo-nazi narrative could have worked just fine even in the absence of the NATO expansion narrative), except for playing it as a counter-propaganda against the West and its public opinion, to create division and so weaken Western governments’ resolve to counter Russian aggression against Ukraine. Nor reckless because the West may just have provided enough military support to Ukrainians to precisely withstand such eventuality, while reliably counting on its antibodies to neutralise Russian propaganda against the West. It’s worth noting that Ukrainians remember very well that Soviet Union under Stalin provoked a famine that killed millions of Ukrainians (and nobody was talking about Ukraine joining the NATO or the neo-nazi Ukrainian regime at that time), so the fact that Putin, ex-KGB, considers the collapse of Soviet Union “the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the century” and is deeply convinced that Ukrainians are not a distinct nation from Russians may sound quite threatening to them if they value their national identity. By consequence, Ukrainians may have a very good reason to fight by all means against the eventuality that such immoral turd has such a control over Ukraine that would enable him to repeat the Holodomor if he so pleases.
Therefore what you claim to be an immoral provocation by the West toward an immoral turd with strategically pertinent concerns about Russian national security, may be seen by Ukrainians with strategically pertinent concerns about Ukrainian national security and national identity preservation as a morally laudable support in preventing an otherwise unavoidable national capitulation to such an immoral turd.


> unless of course you are against advancing Western strategic interests. Are you? — neomac
Yes.

If you are against advancing Western strategic interests and any logic of containment of its competitors that would risk a war, then you are indirectly supporting its competitors’ strategic interests, indeed of those competitors who are more aggressive in military terms, and therefore you may be rightly judged complicit in advancing them at the expenses of the West.


> An interest some party might have about their security which actually relates to their security (as opposed to a connection made only for political rhetoric).
[…]
How can a non-nuclear power as Ukraine constitue a threat for a nuclear power like Russia in the first place? — neomac
By serving as a base for much better equipped allies like the US.

Then Putin’s aggression will result in a total failure if he will not at least put a pro-Russian regime, because the West is already military equipping Ukraine even if Ukraine is not yet a NATO member and still has a putative "neo-nazi" regime, and will likely do it even more so once Russia withdraws from Ukraine. Not to mention the fact that all other eastern countries that feel threatened by the Russians, including Sweden and Finland, will increase their military equipment to fight against any aggression from Russia.


> why are you so convinced that Putin acted primarily out of security concerns? — neomac
I'm not.

Then you can not be sure of Western moral responsibility in knowingly provoking Putin either. Can you?


> BTW if he so afraid of Russian national security why is he so quick and vocal in menacing the West to escalate to a nuclear war when nobody in the West or Ukraine is planning to attack Russia? — neomac
Because his concern is not an attack on Russia. A land invasion of one's country is not the only thing that comes under the umbrella of a security concern, obviously.

What?! I talked about attacking Russia, not about land invasion on Russia.


> why did he limit his demands to the denial of NATO membership to Ukraine, and the acknowledgement of the annexation of Crimea as well as the independence of a couple of Ukrainian regions instead of going for the annexation of the whole Ukraine or at least for a pro-Russian regime change to ensure that no other competing power could turn Ukraine against Russia? — neomac
Because those demands were more likely to be met.

Yet those demands do not seem enough to guarantee the national security of Russia from a now more likely hostile country.


> It was Yanukovych's attempts to create just such a relationship and the EU's refusal to countenance it that acted as one of the precipitators of this whole thing.

Yet Yanukovych’s fall didn’t compromise the economic ties between West and Russia as badly and probably long-lastingly as the decision of Putin to start and protract his aggression against Ukraine.

> all he’s proven with his war against Ukraine is that he’s willing to take military action if lobbying doesn’t suffice to reach his ambitious strategic goals that certainly go beyond national security concerns. — neomac
Not sure what the 'all' is doing there.

I meant that the lack of an actual immanent threat from a declared hostile country (as the US experienced during the Cuban missile crisis and dealt with without destroying Cuba or bring about a regime change), the aggressive geopolitical strategy beyond national security concerns (lobbying parties, trolling the mass media and hacking companies in the US and in the EU, and establishing a prominent military presence in the Middle East and in Africa), Putin’s official declarations against the current world order, and his being an immoral turd or ruthless tyrant make his national security concerns look less pertinent and more as a piece of propaganda to promote his ambitious geopolitical goals. Actually by acting as he did, he just compromised more and more rapidly Russian national security. Besides this war could seriously threaten his own regime too more than anything else has done so far.

the fact that they're winning, — Baden

Don't know why you keep saying that. Maybe we just have totally irreconcilable ideas of what that word means.

I have read recently that the Chernobyl disaster and the Afghanistan invasion were major factors in the collapse of the Soviet regime. I think there is good reason to believe that the invasion of Ukraine will lead to the collapse of the Putin regime. I don't expect that will be easy, quick, or painless, but I still believe that will be the outcome.

Wow, you've actually been to Ukraine to look for yourself? — Isaac

I read about it in the paper. It looks dreadful, what is happening. Millions of people displaced, thousands of casualties, cities laid waste by missiles.

https://news.sky.com/video/ukraine-war-drone-captures-mariupol-devastation-12573363