why (since no one had argued the contrary and it's blinding obvious) you felt the need to say such a thing. — Isaac

Is that your passive aggressive way of saying you agree with me?

There's a variety box media sources I trust. Generally, I check that they have some accepted qualification in the field they're talking on, check they have no glaringly obvious conflict of interest, then I see if their overall narrative is similar to mine and trust them, or not, on that basis. — Isaac

And I do the same, just better. Hence I don't need to travel all the way to Ukraine to get a good sense of what's happening there.

Your claim was that it is an actual established fact. — Isaac

Indeed, it is a fact, established by sources I trust.

Putin's Russia understands this even better. Hence you car read about how much humanitarian aid Russia has sent to the Donbass and Mariupol. After all, it's just a special military operation. — ssu

Everyone one either side understands that. The difference is that in Russia it is the government that is stifling criticism whereas in the U.S. for example, it is the government - licensed channels that set the cultural norms. Fox news, for example, has started to use pejorative terms for President Putin, which is why I immediately stopped watching. "Putin must be punished" etc.

Now Fox news is reporting that Ukraine claims oil field fire is a 'false flag'. I think something got lost in the translation. This does not even make sense: it is a big boost for Ukraine if they can hit Russian targets at this late stage in the game, however this seems a few weeks too late to be called a 'provocation'. Or is it? They are close to a deal, so what is the point?

Here we go:

Alleged strike on Russian fuel depot hurts peace talks - Kremlin — BBC

It would be impossible to makeup the following article as satire.

Western spy agencies weaponize intelligence in attempt to undermine Putin

Western intelligence agencies are waging a psychological war over Ukraine directly with Russian President Vladimir Putin, an expert at the genre, who is now effectively taking a dose of his own medicine.

The United States and its allies are painting a picture of a bogged down, demoralized and dysfunctional Russian military taking disastrous losses on the battlefield, and are simultaneously conjuring a vision of growing political tension inside the Kremlin. They claim the Russian leader is isolated, poorly advised and lacking real intelligence on just how badly the war is going. [...]

The willingness of Western governments to be so open about what they are seeing inside Ukraine and Moscow has surprised even some veteran spies.

"It makes intelligence professionals, even former ones like me, nervous, because, of course, it's so ingrained in us to protect sources and methods," Steve Hall, former chief of Russia operations for the CIA, told CNN's Ana Cabrera Thursday. [...]

So what exactly are Western governments trying to do with this novel use of declassified intelligence assessments? Especially given that in many previous geopolitical crises, intelligence was kept secret by routine? [...]

Intelligence, by definition, is a murky business. The information about the Russian operations in Ukraine and the apparent isolation of Putin in Moscow only tell the outside world what the Western intelligence services want to release. There is, therefore, no way for outsiders to know whether these snapshots give the full picture or a more selective one. — CNN

But my favourite is the whole basis for the "Ministry of Truth" and that we should take everything said by the CIA at face value as "totally not an information war" and just honest truth telling is:

Then hours before the invasion actually happened, the US issued a warning that the incursion was imminent -- and was proven correct. — CNN

... Calling an "imminent invasion" (that had zero impact in terms of helping Ukraine, as too late for full mobilisation) with all the satellites and resources the CIA has, is now not only master spy craft" ... but also somehow makes all further intelligence assessment basically infallible ... but also war's a murky business? And the CIA is giving Putin a taste of his own medicine ... which, according to the CIA, Putin's medicine is lying about everything?

We've gone next level.

Alleged strike on Russian fuel depot hurts peace talks - Kremlin — BBC

Nice precision hit. No civilian victims, just a slowed down enemy.

Is that your passive aggressive way of saying you agree with me? — Olivier5

No, it's my 'normal aggressive' way of undermining your attempt to imply people have said as much by writing as if you were responding to them.

I do the same, just better. — Olivier5

Cool. We'll learn from the master then. Your sources, background checks and conflict of interest assessments for the claim please...

the CIA is giving Putin a taste of his own medicine ... which, according to the CIA, Putin's medicine is lying about everything? — boethius

"We're playing Putin at his own game (but everything we say to the global media is, of course, absolutely true). Shh! Don't tell Putin - you're all spies now..."

just a slowed down enemy. — Olivier5

Can you not read, or do you not care? Hard to see another option.

Alleged strike on Russian fuel depot hurts peace talks — BBC

"We're playing Putin at his own game (but everything we say to the global media is, of course, absolutely true). Shh! Don't tell Putin - you're all spies now..." — Isaac

We better all keep it on the down low.

Our protectors just discovered a few weeks ago "intelligence" could be "weaponised".

What will they think of next!

Our protectors just discovered a few weeks ago "intelligence" could be "weaponised". — boethius

Or did they...?

God they're good at this. Next they'll be cutting eye holes out of newspapers to observe other spies*. The cunning devils.


*if you're a Russian reading this, we don't do that, they're just ordinary newspapers. No need to look very hard at them.

... Of course, there is some sort of internal consistency in the sense that the CIA, and other western intelligence agencies, discovery that intelligence can be used against an adversary is such a new concept to them that they simply couldn't keep this information secret as part of some covert operational doctrine ("covert" maybe a few concepts away once you've discovered "intelligence") ... so, they just had to come and tell us the god honest truth, as is their habit.

Institutions don't just suddenly change overnight! You can't ask spies to suddenly lie to us, learn Putin's wretched ways. It's unseemly.

[but for readers confused] If that harmonisation of the CNN article doesn't convince you, then the alternative is that the propaganda has become so obvious that they need "and that's why it's a good thing" article to directly instruct people to view propaganda as just "sticking it to Putin" and something that's needed, and to just categorise everything they say as true and everything Russia says as false even if they know both sides are waging an information war ... literally starting the article explaining Western spy agencies are using information as a weapon.

The problem is how do we actually conclude "Russia is bad" and "Ukraine is good" and "Western arms shipments to Ukraine even better" if we knowingly accept we're being fed propaganda and must spread it around ourselves, simultaneously believe it and also know it may not stand up to scrutiny so may not warrant belief to be active in shutting down all scrutiny in all contexts, to "help Ukraine and fight Putin" ... if we also know propaganda is by nature deceptive. If we agree to be deceived ... how do we know anything at all.

No, it's my 'normal aggressive' way of undermining your attempt to imply people have said as much by writing as if you were responding to them. — Isaac

I don't know about you, but when I write something down, it is not necessarily to refute something that was said by someone else.

So you agree with me that we have to trust SOME secondary sources. This may be an obvious point, but it is an important obvious point, because it follows from it that you too trust some sources, including journalistic ones. And that my friend, is a less obvious point here on this thread. It is not clear to me, in particular, which media you trust and which you don't trust.

You follow the reasoning? My problem is that, if I try to convince you that fact X is indeed established, I would need to refer to sources you trust. And I don't know which ones you happen to trust. Nor if I trust the ones you trust.

Now if you were kind enough to share a list, I could try and see if there's any professional credible source in there which I trust as well, and then we could use it to settled factual disputes.

Before the CNN article, I thought the following took the take for nonsense:

The heat, Ukraine crisis

Host: What’s behind president Zalenskyy’s move to ban 11 political parties in the country and shut down some TV stations.

Propagandist: Uh, there’s currently a war, there’s over 100 000 Russian troops, and, uh, 64 medical facilities have been bombed.

So, ah, in terms of banning things that are in the line of, ah, Russian influence. Uh, those are standard operating procedures during a war.

At this point we don’t even know how long broadcast television will remain in Ukraine, so long as those facilities are being bombed.

Host: So bottom line is you abandon democracy when you’re at war.

Propagandist: I don’t see, any pretence for that. We know that Ukraine has maintained elections throughout this 8 year war against it. Ah, and those, uh, and those elections have all been declared as, uh, as ah, fully recognised, ah, uh, by other, uh, countries. — The Heat: Ukraine Crisis

The very last minute of the clip there's this exchange.

Notice how proof that Ukraine's actions to ban political parties and press freedom is legitimate because of elections in 8 years of war ... in which it would be likewise legitimate to suppress any "Russian influence" without due process of any kind, in and around those elections ... indeed, would be just standard operating procedure to fix the vote to fix Russia fixing the vote to prevail against Russian influence.

And wouldn't anyone wanting to end the 8 year war and make peace with Russia to avoid a larger escalation of the 8 year war that just started last month, or anything the government doesn't like for that matter, be likewise presenting "Russian influence" and standard operating procedure would be to suppress or murder them? During these 8 years of so called war?

It is not clear to me, in particular, which media you trust and which you don't trust. — Olivier5

I don't trust entire media sources. As put it...

I think both sides here (the West, Russia) stick to the truth when the truth is beneficial to them. Then it's about noticing what is left out. Hence years ago Russia Today could do a great job in objectively covering the "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrations, because why not? — ssu

Sometimes I see no reason to doubt Reuters, sometimes I do. Depends on the story.

In this specific case, I've neither the reason, nor the necessity, to trust anyone. I believe that war should be avoided by exhaustive use of diplomacy. That view is not affected by the facts of how well, or badly, each side is doing militarily, nor is it affected by whatever each side's 'real' reasons are.

I tend to trust claims which no side are denying, so I trust that America are sending weapons to Ukraine and that they're not negotiating with their Russian counterparts (though I can see some reason why both sides might deny that). That's wrong, as per the principle above, and no facts about military positions changes that.

What I don't like is people advocating strategies based on facts which are clearly very difficult, if not impossible, to establish. For example, holding off on peace talks because Russia are 'losing'. I don't need to know if Russia are 'winning' to advocate for negotiation because I think it is always the best policy regardless, but unless people are advocating 'never negotiate', then they must base their advocacy against negotiation on some facts of the case.

So I don't see sources as being particularly relevant here. My counterarguments don't rely on some fact being the case (of the sort one might source), but rather are moral judgments based on widely agreed upon facts (such as - it's difficult to obtain accurate information in a war, diplomats lie sometimes, arms dealers profit from war, politicians are sometimes influenced by lobbying...).

If I need a source for any of my arguments (ie the facts are not largely undisputed), then I'll usually cite that source and have done so frequently throughout this thread. If you have an issue with any of those sources, feel free to raise it.

What are you trying to say?

So what qualifies as 'an established fact', according to you?

I don't trust entire media sources. — Isaac

BTW, this implies that it is absolutely not obvious to you that one has to trust some secondary sources.

Combined

BTW, this implies that it is absolutely not obvious to you that one has to trust some secondary sources. — Olivier5

You don't "have" to trust anyone.

And, of the people and sources you do trust, to the degree you decide to trust them, you may insist they earn it ... and likewise face the consequences of squandering that trust they earned when you find them to be lying to you, such as the consequence, in the least, that you personally trust them less.

We have to take this information with several grains of salt. Given how the war is going, how close Ukraine is to Russia geographically and culturally and just how badly they assessed this war going, gives us sound reason to suspect that Putin is very much in his own "Trump world". — Manuel

Yeah, I learn towards that position but I wouldn't be at all shocked if it turns out to be something I hadn't considered altogether.

I don't have a crystal ball so no clue really and I don't trust the news in normal times and actively distrust it in war times. — Benkei

Fair enough.

It is an established fact that the Russians thought it would be a ride in the park.

There are testimonies of arrested or kidnapped Ukrainians who report that their Russian captors argued with them about pretty much the same things argued on this thread: " But but but why are you resisting? We are only fighting NATO. Why do you hate us so much?" — Olivier5

I don't have a strong position on this issue, but I'm a skeptical when you say it's "established fact." I'm sure there are testimonies, and I'm sure some soldiers were convinced it would be a cake walk -- but does that include high commanders and Putin himself? Who knows. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that's the case, but I'm truly uncertain.

Doing nothing in effect gives free reign to the West to do whatever it wants wherever in wants and no regional power of any kind, will do anything about it. In effect, it sends a signal to other countries you'll take what we give you and you can do nothing about it.

Having said that, the miscalculation on this war is pretty insane and does not justify this scope or scale. Something much more reduced and quick, would have been the least bad realistic option.



Given what has happened, I think it's not illogical to assume Putin had very misleading info about what would happen in this war.

Sure, you can say, and are likely correct, that NATO was not the only factor that led Russia to do what it did. But it was one reason they kept pointing out, so if anything else, expanding NATO much beyond Germany was never going to be a good idea.

Yes this has strengthened NATO - for now. Once Putin is gone, who is going to be the big enemy, China? Or is Russia now condemned to being a pariah state forever? Long term thinking is usually not considered in these situations.

Ukraine certainly developed very good defensive capabilities, and that this was either overlooked or downplayed is surprising.

Some interesting debates in good left spaces about the best way to respond to events in Ukraine:

Alex Callinicos - The Great Power Grab: https://socialistworker.co.uk/features/the-great-power-grab-imperialism-and-war-in-ukraine/

Gilbert Achar - Six FAQs on Anti-Imperialism Today and the War in Ukraine: https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article7571

Gilbert Achar - A Memorandum on the radical anti-imperialist position regarding the war in Ukraine: https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article7540

Alex Callinicos and Gilbert Achar Debate - Ukraine and Anti-Imperialism: https://socialistworker.co.uk/long-reads/ukraine-and-anti-imperialism-gilbert-achcar-and-alex-callinicos-debate/

Stathis Kouvelakis - The war in Ukraine and anti-imperialism today: a reply to Gilbert Achcar: http://isj.org.uk/anti-imperialism-a-reply-to-achcar/

Kouvelakis is convincing even if cold:

"It is absurd to claim, as Western governments and the media never cease to do, that Putin is nothing other than a paranoid, “mentally disturbed” man who imagines being “encircled” by hostile powers. No, unfortunately this is not a fantasy, and was being put in place well before Putin, when Russia was completely bled out and on her knees before the West. Let’s also not forget that Putin came to power by positioning himself initially as a strict continuation of Yeltsin and his pro-western policies. This attitude of the Western bloc isn’t the result of an ideological blunder or a disembodied desire for power, but the outcome of its imperialist nature. In order to perpetuate itself, the West needs enemies. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it never accepted the idea of inviting the new Russian capitalist class to the table, because the idea of Russia as an eternal “Other” and a potential threat always prevailed. It also has to be underlined that the elites from the countries of the former Soviet bloc, or of the Soviet Union itself (including the Ukrainians, particularly after 2014), played this card to the utmost in order to consolidate the power of the new layers of oligarchic capitalists and legitimise their position with peoples who wanted revenge on the former custodial power.

One can’t play the game of scorned innocence and claim that the expansion of NATO was only a pretext or diversion invented by Putin, while, for years, the US and her allies have launched themselves into escalating the pressure and encirclement of Russia, considered more and more explicitly as a systemic enemy—while there is hardly any divergence in socio-economic terms with the West...

...Zelensky is certainly not the “Nazi” talked about by Putin, but he isn’t Ho Chi Minh either… The Ukrainian government is a bourgeois government, that serves the class interest of capitalist oligarchs, comparable in every way with those in Russia and other republics of the former Soviet Union, and which intends to align the country with the Western camp, without any concern for the predictable consequences. In her masterful 2018 study, Ukrainian critical economist Yuliya Yurchenko aptly analysed this regime as a “neoliberal kleptocracy”. At the same time as being the victim of an inadmissible aggression, Zelensky’s administration doesn’t represent any progressive cause, and it would be totally absurd for left-wing forces worthy of the name to plead the case of arms delivery. ...

This constant duplicity makes the sanctions put in place by the West for decades, indefensible; their capacity to impose them, serves moreover to confirm Western economic supremacy, China and Russia being only marginal at the origin of these kind of measures (3 percent in 2020). The task of the left is to denounce the political function of this mode of action and to show that it is, above all, a means of strangling a country ruffling the world order fashioned by US and Western domination, a measure that indeed differs little from an act of war. ...It is only by following this perspective that we can:

• Affirm an autonomous position of condemnation of Russian aggression whilst resisting the surging bellicosity of our governments;
  
• Preserve the possibility of a truly independent Ukraine and of an enduring peace in Europe;
  
• Convince the progressive forces in the Global South that, although their hatred of US imperialism and Western arrogance is absolutely justified, goodwill towards Putin isn’t;
  
• Re-establish an internationalism capable of confronting and defeating the forces of destruction and death that are arising from a world in the grip of capital.

Doing nothing in effect gives free reign to the West to do whatever it wants wherever in wants and no regional power of any kind, will do anything about it. In effect, it sends a signal to other countries you'll take what we give you and you can do nothing about it. — Manuel

Looks like doing nothing was not an option, well what was the best thing? A lot of lives could have been saved by other methods such as cutting off the oil supply, launching 34 cruise missiles, aerial bombardment exclusively, regime change (all these possibly 'illegal'), however, I am not going to second guess a President who has managed to run the country for 16 years or so. I will evaluate this when it is over, just like the Iraq invasion, where the evidence is now all in.

It makes sense to wait for the data, clearly.

As for least bad choice, well, the one in which least amount of lives are lost.

We still have a good idea of what is going on, in the future we may not even know if a war is taking place or not, they will be that good. Like 1984.

"Here's what we know" . Please correct me if I am wrong.

Russian forces have attacked Ukraine causing widespread damage and loss of life. The special military operation has not been successfully concluded. Kyiv has been surrounded. Negotiations are going on, and there seems to be good progress, especially since Ukraine is stating that they are willing to give up the attempt to join NATO. (For how long, no-one knows).

Widespread sanctions have been imposed on Russia, however not all countries are able or willing to stop trading with Russia. Russia has demanded that natural gas be paid for with Rubles.

There is widespread, if not unanimous condemnation of the SMO, however those countries that have refused to condemn Russia are nevertheless very troubled by the effects of rising fuel prices and shocks to the system.

Russian channels have been banned in several countries, and Russia, for its part, has put in laws that make it illegal to criticize the military, broadly.

The military and civilian losses from the conflict had been estimated before the conflict began, and these would have been available to the Russians as well. Ukraine and Russia have admitted to "1500" casualties.

For its part, the United States has ruled out getting involved in a conflict with Russia. Specific types of arms have been sent to Ukraine, for what purpose, we can only surmise. In the preceding months, when anything could have been shipped into Ukraine : cruise missiles, Mig 29s - the Ukraine had a wish list that was never fulfilled. Anyone is free to guess what the goals of this selective arms supply were.

From the rhetoric of the past few years it is clear, and epitomized by the Biden Regimes' thrice repeated statements that President Putin is a problem that they see the need to solve. Unsophisticated calls for regime change bring to mind to the rest of the world, whether civilized or not, the utterly criminal, humiliating, and even barbaric ways that Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and nearly Syria were attacked and destroyed. It would be difficult to find any world leader who is too dull to see the implications of these statements.

If the coming years bring a respite to the ugly succession of wars, and Arab falls and the regime changes, then it can only be welcome by the innocent peoples of this world.

Western propaganda continues to paint President Putin as the worst and only aggressor this century has seen, while the spread of group think pervades. The fact that nations maintain armed forces, and these nations use them, sometimes to serve their interests, sometimes in the interests of a chosen few, apparently sometimes in the interests of no-one in particular, is not a popular fact in these times.

How this will end is in question not because Ukraine seems to be thought of as expendable, and Ukraine has not yet been expended.

As for least bad choice, well, the one in which least amount of lives are lost. — Manuel

Russia would have lost less lives surrendering to the Nazis. There seems to be more at stake here, a flag perhaps?

At the end of Putin's second term, Jonathan Steele has commented on Putin's legacy: "What, then, is Putin's legacy? Stability and growth, for starters. After the chaos of the 90s, highlighted by Yeltsin's attack on the Russian parliament with tanks in 1993 and the collapse of almost every bank in 1998, Putin has delivered political calm and a 7% annual rate of growth. Inequalities have increased and many of the new rich are grotesquely crass and cruel, but not all the Kremlin's vast revenues from oil and gas have gone into private pockets or are being hoarded in the government's "stabilisation fund". Enough has gone into modernising schools and hospitals so that people notice a difference. Overall living standards are up. The second Chechen war, the major blight on Putin's record, is almost over".[154]

I'm sure some soldiers were convinced it would be a cake walk -- but does that include high commanders and Putin himself? Who knows. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that's the case, but I'm truly uncertain. — Xtrix

Of course one cannot know what is in the head of people, by it is an established fact that the troops thought it would be very easy. Hence 'the Russians' thought it be easy.

There's also the oped they pulled off after bloging it out by mistake, saying in essence 'it's over now after this short fight and Ukraine is reunited with Russia, God bless.'

You don't "have" to trust anyone. — boethius

You do if you don't want to turn crazy.

No issue with the rest of your post.

You do if you don't want to turn crazy. — Olivier5

Crazy according to whom?

There are people who have lived by themselves in the woods, sometimes for many decades.

We call them crazy, but maybe they call us crazy.

No issue with the rest of your post. — Olivier5

Glad we agree on some basics. And for sure a lot of the issues that have been discussed we don't "know". Maybe violent revolution in Russia will break out tomorrow, regardless of whether we on this forum think that's good or bad.

However, a lot of the "information war", which I don't keep mentioning is the "CIA" because I suspect the CIA, but because the literal director of the CIA goes on live television to explain the CIA's information war--which no one disputes Russia is also waging--is completely self-referential.

Why should we trust "our" information war?

Because "we're" winning the information war! And "winning" information-wars, means truth now all of a sudden.

Why is the Russian plan a debacle?

Because "our" information war tells us it is!

How do we know this information is all good?

Because spooks are intentionally leaking it to us?!? And we know "they're good" (despite several failed wars on false pretence) because they called Russian invasion, built up over a year, involving some 200 000 troops ... by a few days?

Invasion was chaotic and improvised precisely so CIA could only call it by a few days leaving Ukraine no time to just go and setup a line around the Crimea "border stop" and shell it to shit. Every plan has pros and cons: surprise invasion has the con of some conscripts that are there as part of normal run-of-the-mill training get lost in Ukraine (no one tells conscripts anything, I can promise you that).

Ok, doesn't resolve any of the questions of substance under discussion, but, as far as I can tell, this self-referential collapse of Western media is "our" fall of the Berlin wall moment.

Whether Russia be good or bad, that doesn't stop us from hurting ourselves either way.

Why is the Russian plan a debacle? — boethius

Because they are now pulling back, objectively.

Because they are now pulling back, objectively. — Olivier5

Sure, but pulling back because it's a debacle?

Or pulling back because they achieved their core goals through force?

Yes, at a cost, but also many goals achieved and the entire war fighting infrastructure of Ukraine has been severely degraded. It can't be rebuilt overnight.

(Not to mention the CIA was telling us yesterday the "pulling back" was a stunt and a lie and Russian ain't pulling back shit ... despite also losing and about to be routed ... any day now)