Some profiteering due to the war (brief summary, can't be bothered with graphs):

China ↔ Russia: bilateral trade 2022 ↑ 34.3%, $190 billion
China → Russia: export → import 2022 ↑ 17.5%
Russia → China: export → import cheap oil

Russia ↔ India: bilateral trade 2021 $13.5 billion, 2022 $30 billion
Russia → India: export → import cheap oil Dec 2022 1.6 million barrels / day
Russia → India: export → import cheap fertilizer

Russia → Turkey: export → import 2021 $29 billion, 2022 $58.85 billion
Russia → Turkey: rich people relocate

United Arab Emirates: residential property 2021 → 2022 ↑ 80%, 2022 $56 billion
Russia → United Arab Emirates: rich people relocate

Saudi Arabia: economy 2021 → 2022 ↑ 8.7%, 2023 $4.3 billion surplus

Qatar: 2022 $8.19 billion surplus

Kuwait: economy 2022 ↑ 8%

Norway: export commodities 2022 ↑ 200%, $89.3 billion

Australia: export coal 2021 → 2022 ↑ 186%, $45 billion surplus
Australia: export natural gas 2021 → 2022, $40 billion surplus

Uzbekistan → Russia: export → import 2022 ↑ 23%, $14.5 billion
Russia → Uzbekistan: rich people relocate

Georgia: economy 2022 ↑ 10%
Russia → Georgia: rich people relocate

Kazakhstan, Armenia, Algeria, Indonesia somewhat similarly

Haven't seen much (by way of conspiracy theories) pointing at this stuff, well, except for Norway perhaps sort of ^{(Mar 17, 2022, Feb 16, 2023)}. Not en vogue?

You can't improve on the classics.

“Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not.”

Haven't seen much (by way of conspiracy theories) pointing at this stuff, well, except for Norway perhaps sort of. Not en vogue? — jorndoe

They're "profiteering" of the sanctions, ironically. So there's not much of a mystery.

Norway: export commodities 2022 ↑ 200%, $89.3 billion — jorndoe

Do those exports happen to be natural gas?

If so, there's your conspiracy since they were implicated in the Nord Stream attack and also happen to be one of the world's largest exporters of natural gas.

They're "profiteering" of the sanctions, ironically. So there's not much of a mystery. — Tzeentch

The longer the war, the longer sanctions?

Not much of an implication. :D

By the way, normalizing conspiracy theories would be wretched, I'm certainly not proposing any, just looking at the landscape of existing conspiracy(-like) theories here. Not much "symmetry" for lack of a better word, hence en vogue...? Origins...?

Well, I suppose it had to happen some time...

Peace is now illegal.

No path to peace: Five key takeaways from Xi and Putin’s talks in Moscow
^{— Simone McCarthy, Nectar Gan, Wayne Chang, Matthew Chance, Darya Tarasova, Maria Kostenko, Xiaofei Xu, Anna Chernova · CNN · Mar 22, 2023}

On Tuesday, Zelensky said a ceasefire would “simply freeze” the conflict, giving Russia time to “prepare and come back again with their single wish, the wish of their leader - that is to occupy our country.”

What Russia-Chinese joint statement says about Ukraine
^{— Jonathan Oatis · Reuters · Mar 22, 2023}

The parties oppose all unilateral sanctions imposed in circumvention of the U.N. Security Council.

Except, not the rest of what the UN says. (And Xi smiling when not seen, loving the sanctions on Russia, "Just a few more years and Russia is our's" (this part is a conspiracy theory ^‡)?)

Too bad, not much new I guess, and the Ukrainians once again a (dehumanized) scorched footnote somewhere.

FYI, an essay of a traveler sub-titled "Almost unnoticed, a generation of Russians has come of age during his 23 years in power":

Putin’s War on Young People
^{— Lucian Kim · Foreign Policy · Mar 19, 2023}

Nobody can say what will come after Putin. Much depends on how he loses power—whether his departure comes as a natural death, a chaotic collapse, or a palace coup behind the Kremlin walls. It is possible, even probable, that another aging former KGB officer will take over at first. But sooner or later, there will be a change of generations. — Lucian Kim

(Or Putin burns his hands as a result of the destructive multi-pronged efforts, while China cashes in (this part is a conspiracy theory ^‡)?)

Generations of Russians are what Kim visited in his travels.

‡ :D

Interesting to that all the NATO countries wanting access to Russia's border, are all post-colonial countries; maybe one or two that are economically colonized by the United States and so bought and paid for. The other half of the world, the BRICS, are post-colonies and are now saying no to their past masters.

(my underlining)

The parties [Russia + China] note that in order to resolve the Ukrainian crisis, it is necessary to respect the legitimate concerns of all countries in the field of security — What Russia-Chinese joint statement says about Ukraine · Jonathan Oatis · Reuters · Mar 22, 2023

Well, the Ukrainians are not merely concerned.

Russia hits Ukraine with missiles, drones as 'dear friend' Xi departs
^{— Dan Peleschuk, Sergiy Chalyi, Peter Graff, Frank Jack Daniel, Cynthia Osterman, Philippa Fletcher, Andrew Cawthorne, Grant McCool · Reuters · Mar 22, 2023}

Yet, they're reduced to an aside in the margin. Neither Russia nor China are being invaded and generously sprinkled with destruction. Moldova Poland Romania Hungary Slovakia might have some legitimate concerns too.

The parties [Russia + China] stress that responsible dialogue is the best way for a sustainable resolution of the Ukrainian crisis, and the international community should support constructive efforts in this regard — What Russia-Chinese joint statement says about Ukraine · Jonathan Oatis · Reuters · Mar 22, 2023

Constructive is sometimes used as the opposite of destructive.

Putin and Xi pose as peacemakers while Moscow’s war in Ukraine rages on
^{— Rob Picheta, Simone McCarthy, Michael Conte, Kylie Atwood, Svitlana Vlasova, Anna Chernova, Duarte Mendonca, Xiaofei Xu, Wayne Chang · CNN · Mar 21, 2023}
Putin: China plan could end war, but Ukraine and West not ready for peace
^{— James Gregory · BBC · Mar 22, 2023}

Creepy. One might hope that the Kremlin won't be writing the history books here. What Putin + team want others to hear (statements speeches whatever) has gone vacuous/incoherent. And Kim Jong-un is taking notes. Oh well.

Not en vogue? — jorndoe

Well, we've finally seen the ugly head of inflation come up and take a place in the World economy. Hence the monetary policy and the spending during the pandemic, even without the war in Ukraine, has made it that natural resources have gone up in price, which then is good for the producing countries. Hence the Saudi's, Kuwaitis and others having their economies grow isn't just because of the Ukraine war. (Although the real estate boom in UAE does have something to with rich Russians leaving their country.)

Interesting to that all the NATO countries wanting access to Russia's border, are all post-colonial countries — boagie

?
Finland or the Baltic States, or Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Czechia, Slovakia, Crotia etc. have not had colonies.

The other half of the world, the BRICS, are post-colonies and are now saying no to their past masters. — boagie

Russia has been and one can argue is still a colonizer: there are parts that it annexed through force in the 19th Century just as other European colonizers were doing (starting with Chechnya, that was occupied as late as 1859). China has had some ports colonized, but never has been colonized (the Mongol Horde didn't have colonies).

Interesting to that all the NATO countries wanting access to Russia's border, are all post-colonial countries — boagie

?
Finland or the Baltic States, or Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Czechia, Slovakia, Crotia etc. have not had colonies. — ssu

"NATO countries wanting access to Russia's border"

Not, NATO countries on Russia's border.

The point is simply one about the varied nature of modern imperialism. It's no longer just about hard power, you need to update your models of international power. Try reading anything written after 1989.

This is horrific. We are just dying to race to oblivion, there is no end in sight.

The more this goes on, the bigger the risks of someone making a mistake, which we barely have any margin for.

given the clash between the US/NATO and Russia — neomac

What clash? I thought the US were barely involved and it was all about the Ukrainians? — Isaac

No you didn’t. Besides, your irony doesn’t apply to me. I never downplayed or overlooked the clash between US/NATO and Russia, I focused on it on several occasions. What I found questionable is downplaying or overlooking Russian responsibility and threat after it started this war, and the Ukrainian agency in legitimately pursuing self-defence.

your militant rhetoric and intellectually miserable tricks are manipulative, typical of the worst propaganda. This is a literally accurate description of your attitude in most, if not all, posts you addressed to me and not only. — neomac

Anyone who disagrees with you must be spreading propaganda. Saves you the bother of actually having to argue the case. — Isaac

The problem is not disagreement and not even propaganda itself. The problem is intellectual dishonesty. Some are pushed to such dishonesty by their intellectual self-esteem, others more by their urge to fix the world. Like in your case. That’s why I didn’t accuse you to just spread propaganda, but to talk and argue as the worst propaganda.
Besides I made my arguments and clarified them several times, and I’ve also been accused of writing text walls for that matter. Indeed, I’m here precisely because I’m interested in intellectually honest and rationally compelling arguments, not in fixing the world or persuading people through sophisms or by caricaturing their objections. So I don’t need to save myself from arguing. That’s the game I came to play here and welcome opponents’ arguments to the extent that they participate in the same game honestly and compellingly.

I’m relying on the Western media system for the simple reason that is free and pluralistic enough that any truth against the government has more chances to become mainstream than under any authoritarian regime media system. — neomac

That makes no sense at all. The choice is between mainstream media and independent media. No Russians need be involved. Substack is not (last I checked) attempting to annex California. — Isaac

First, I said I do not feel pressed to choose between Hersh’s article (as an example of independent media) and NYT/Washington Post’s treatment of Hersh’s article (as example of mainstream media). That’s the freedom of thought I wouldn’t enjoy in Russia or China. So I’ll enjoy it here and welcome its protection.
Second, I don’t find this choice generalisable the way you do: both independent and mainstream media can have people with their self-interested marketing or political agendas to pursue. Their competition would be physiological in a free market of information and potentially fruitful if it wasn’t exploited just to spin political polarisation (which Hersh apparently wanted to avoid, the irony).
Third, Russia (and other authoritarian regimes) can infiltrate and pollute the wells of both mainstream and independent media in Western democracies. Indeed, certain Western political polarisations may very well be instrumental to foreign powers at the expense of Western democracies, and so worth surreptitiously nurturing.
Fourth, I do not have any specific aversion to Substack whose editorial principles I find promising on the paper and therefore I welcome its being part of our media environment (as Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc.). BTW there are also Substack articles criticising Hersh’s Substack article: https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/blowing-holes-in-seymour-hershs-pipe (which of the 2 Substack articles do you want me to rely on?)

You repeatedly solicited interlocutors to take our politicians accountable for their blameworthy foreign policies about the war in Ukraine (and not only) and passionately made that as your main if not exclusive argumentative focus. That shows your militant urge. — neomac


I love this! It's now "militant" to hold one's government to account. "Just shut up and do as you're told". — Isaac

Yes it is, if you participate in this thread with the spirit of fighting for a just cause by whatever rhetoric means. And no it’s not matter of "Just shut up and do as you're told”, it’s matter of you deciding to bring here in this forum the worst propaganda style of arguing that anybody can easily find on partisan posts of popular social networks. You could be more rationally compelling just by removing all paraphernalia of the worst propaganda without distorting the content of what you want to express (including criticising the government), if there is any substance to it, of course. Unless this goes against your militant compulsion.

To make it more explicit: people that are fanatically opposing a regime (thanks to their putative superior imagination and noble intentions), more easily find support on alternative sources of information critical of the mainstream narratives which they too oppose, of course, no matter if such sources are questionable in turn, often for the same reasons such fanatics question certain mainstream narrative (spinning political propaganda to serve cynical, if not ideologically obtuse, interests). — neomac


The clarity wasn't the problem. I was quite clear on what you were claiming the first time you said it. What was lacking was any evidence whatsoever that your claim was actually the case. — Isaac

Evidence for what? Never heard of the battles against fake news and conspiracies involving social networks like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube? I mentioned Substack too as a popular place for anti-mainstream narratives (remember you talking about Hersh’s article on Substack by any chance?). You are asking me for evidence as if you come from another planet.

reason why I rely on my speculations more than yours is that they are arguably less unilateral and simplistic than yours. — neomac

OK, crack on then. Make that argument — Isaac

.

I made many arguments over several pages since the beginning of our exchanges. And repeated them too. So I won’t repeat all of them again. But if I were to summarise in a few words why I find your (and others’) understanding of this war (and related disputes over media coverage) unilateral and simplistic is that ultimately all evil comes exclusively/predominantly/primarily from one single root (the US) and for one single motivational factor (it’s all about money for a bunch of American plutocrats).

I didn’t infer “is not” from a “may”. In clarifying my assumption, I talked in hypothetical terms when the subject I was referring to was “news platforms” (e.g. “news platforms, mainstream and non-mainstream (like icij or propublica), may scrutinise…”). Then I talked in actual terms when the subject I was referring to was the assumption itself: it’s not just matter of selling newspapers and newsworthiness. — neomac

Right. so nothing more than speculation then. They may scrutinise more, or they may not. Good to know both possibilities exist. Thanks for clearing that mystery up — Isaac

.

We are reasoning under uncertainty, aren’t we? But my speculation is not the product of some fervid imagination (nurturing powerful simplistic and unilateral speculations like yours), but of very realistic circumstances. Indeed Hersh himself talked about issues with the editorial process of mainstream media like NYT and Washington Post. Besides my speculation is not about clearing mysteries but pointing at a specific one: since we don’t know what editorial issue Hersh has encountered with the NYT in the past or might have encountered if he had approached NYT or Washington Post to publish his article, we are left with the doubt that either such mainstream news outlets are overly constraining at the expense of the investigative value of Hersh’s article (as Hersh suggests) or Hersh wants to be free to take greater risks at the expense of the investigative value of his article (after all there have been OSINT people questioning Hersh’s articles accuracy in the past and present, like Oliver Alexander and Bellingcat who are also independent self-publishers like Hersh and also risk their lives for that: https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/01/12/christo-grozev-russias-most-wanted-list-intv-ebof-intl-vpx.cnn).

the point is that mainstream publishers may choose editors and follow editorial guidelines to their liking not to Hersh’s liking. And if that’s the case, that’s a relevant difference. — neomac

Relevant how? You were claiming they had mechanism in place to better check sources. Now you're just saying they might choose editors Hersh doesn't like. How does 'Hersh not liking them' make them better at checking sources? — Isaac

Then you didn’t understand what I was saying. I wasn’t assuming or arguing that mainstream media have better fact-checkers than the independent ones. But that some editorial fact-checking for reputational and legal reasons are common practice for investigative journalism. And that if the journalist can self-publish, he is more free to take greater risks (e.g. by taking one anonymous source or leak as enough reliable by only his own judgement). And that’s not a problem only if one is already heavily relying on Hersh more than mainstream media. But I don’t, so I’m fine with keeping my doubts as long as it takes.

they all look too much like attempts (however self-defeating) to convince people, as political propaganda is supposed to do. Unfortunately trying to deny it may also be part of the job. — neomac


I know... fucking mastermind, aren't I? Although I'll deny that too (but only by repeating it sarcastically)...triple bluff... or is it?*

*(it isn't)** — Isaac

My imagination can’t go that far, I’m afraid.

I don’t think the truth of that claim can be rationally challenged, of course. — neomac


Wow. So you think it is literally impossible that Hersh could have been unable to sell his story to some Western mainstream news outlets. You think the claim "Hersh could have sold his piece to some Western mainstream news outlets" is impossible to be false. Western mainstream outlets are what... somehow compelled by the laws of physics to by Hersh's story? — Isaac

You got misled by the way you chopped the following line “Hersh could have sold his piece to some Western mainstream news outlets (not given his scoop to somebody else for free or without acknowledgment)”. That line was just the beginning of my argument, and the point I was making is that I was speculating over the possibility of selling Hersh’s piece to some Western mainstream news outlets, and not over the idea of Hersh giving his scoop to somebody else for free or without acknowledgement as you seemed to suggest (That decision having been made, he's hardly in a position to sacrifice it by giving the scoop to someone else). Again I’m not speculating over my own speculations.
Additionally, as a starting point, that possibility was definitely epistemically plausible given that, in the US, Biden’s administration has plenty of powerful enemies like Trump who is also against NATO, has already supported anti-Biden’s narratives (remember https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory ?) and is currently suffering from legal problems that could hinder his next year presidential campaign (so big troubles for Biden’s administration might be a big help, most of all if true!), and like the whole editorial world gravitating around Trump, starting with Murdoch whose mainstream outlets were very much interested in Hersh’s article. Not to mention the load of articles against Biden administration’s responsibility in this war and against NATO one can find in mainstream media. In other words, if means, motives, and hawkishness are factors that make the US an epistemically plausible suspect of the Nord Stream 2 sabotage, then the same holds for the epistemic plausibility that Hersh’s article could have been published by that part of the mainstream world that is adverse to Biden.
Conclusion: it’s not hard to offer a plausible argument to support the idea that Hersh could have published in some American mainstream outlet (and I’m just simplifying because I didn’t consider only American mainstream outlets, there are other platforms for independent investigative journalism, etc.) given the current American political and editorial environment. What’s harder to offer is a plausible argument to support the idea that, given very specific circumstances, Hersh was unable to publish his article other than by self-publishing on Substack or equivalent: in that interview, Hersh is explaining why he chose to self-publish on Substack, but he limits himself to talk about approaching NYT or Washington Post (but they are not the only mainstream outlets, and given their political leaning, less likely adverse to Biden), which he didn’t even try (why not? NYT or Washington Post even support op-ed pages where authors non affiliated with the publication's editorial board can publish, a and he could have also made a sensational case of his rejection as you are trying to do for him), because there might have been editorial issues related to his anonymous source (that’s all vaguely and anecdotally stated). Is Hersh's explanation enough compelling? Hell no.

if one is self-publishing, then he is more free to take greater risks, obviously. — neomac

How so? Are the self published immune from prosecution? Do they get some kind of special redundancy payouts if their projects fail? What is this safety net that independent journalists have which the mainstream outlets lack? — Isaac

Another objection that shows a very poor understanding of what I’m claiming. Unless you’re playing dumb, of course. If one wants to self-publish, then he is expected to be the only one paying the consequences of potential legal/economic/political/reputational issues, if not even risking life. For that reason, he is more free to take greater risks by self-publishing, if he wishes so, than by publishing with a more risk-averse publisher.

the fact that Substack (whose editorial principles sound promising on the papers) has become a haven for “anti-mainstream narrative” authors like him and posting a mainstream outlet denouncing substack articles is exactly illustrating the point I’m making. And, if you need it (coz I don't), similar accusations can be found elsewhere too: — neomac


So just repeating the same circular argument (sorry - I mean "self-defeating attempt to parody the very notion of epistemic reliance as I understand it.")? — Isaac

I didn’t make any circular argument. You clumsily attributed one to me (“mainstream media must be right because people not on the mainstream media are wrong because the mainstream media says so”) as if it was a compelling objection. In reality it’s not only completely off-target (because my claim was simply about Hersh being in good company of anti-mainstream narratives supporters on Substack, and if Substack can be used to criticize mainstream media the reciprocal holds as well) but it’s also easy to retort (indeed I can as arbitrarily attribute to you the belief that “mainstream media must be wrong, because people not on the mainstream media are right because the people not on the mainstream media say so”). Not to mention that I too rely on non-mainstream and self-published content in English (like Perun, B. L. Slantchev, Peter Zeihan ) and non-English language.
Concerning the links, I simply wanted to widen the options of critical views about Substack by citing also non American corporate mainstream news outlets. So e.g. Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) are non-profit NGOs. Mashable was a mistake though.

NATO countries wanting access to Russia's border — boagie

The point is simply one about the varied nature of modern imperialism. It's no longer just about hard power, you need to update your models of international power. Try reading anything written after 1989. — Isaac

Or countries on Russia's border wanting access to NATO? Right now in particular, apparently. NATO can't colonize (like land grab), it's a defense pact among member countries, not a country. Countries may or may not apply for NATO membership.

As an aside, meanwhile in the evil imperialist West ...
SISȻENEM will be the first land returned to a First Nation
^{— Chadd Cawson · Penticton Herald · Mar 23, 2023}

But, hey, let's just cast the war against the Ukrainians as "the partyline versus the rebels", go by that so as to pick a side, and toss patronizing insults about, instead. :D

, yeah, horrific. And an open-ended threat.

[...] they could level Poland, Finland, Moldova, Belarus, Slovakia, or ..., just the same. Perhaps the UK, though the distance is greater (they have mentioned/joked so, too). This is an open-ended threat. — Mar 21, 2023

According to some, the Crimea grab was part of a geo-political-military plan (followed by the invasion) — power. (@Tzeentch mentioned something...)

And Kim Jong-un is taking notes. — Mar 23, 2023

As mentioned before, their efforts are well underway creating a country of distrusting haters.

Kremlin Says These Countries Can't Be Part of Ukraine Peace Talks
^{— David Brennan · Newsweek · Mar 21, 2023}

Divide et impera. Old.

The point is simply one about the varied nature of modern imperialism. — Isaac

Best example of it being Russia's attack on Ukraine. :smirk:

Or countries on Russia's border wanting access to NATO? Right now in particular, apparently. NATO can't colonize (like land grab), it's a defense pact among member countries, not a country. Countries may or may not apply for NATO membership. — jorndoe

Some just absolutely love the rhetoric coming from the Kremlin.

Russia has been and one can argue is still a colonizer: there are parts that it annexed through force in the 19th Century just as other European colonizers were doing (starting with Chechnya, that was occupied as late as 1859). China has had some ports colonized, but never has been colonized (the Mongol Horde didn't have colonies). — ssu

Russia has been an empire since before there was The Russian Empire, and through all its name changes. It continued expanding its domain through 1940s, when it swallowed up some lands to the west and effectively colonized others. And then the empire collapsed in 1980s-1990s, when first the Warsaw Pact countries broke off, followed by the Soviet Union republics. (It should be noted that Russia, led by Yeltsin, was the main driver of the Soviet Union's demise. But that sentiment didn't last, and soon ressentiment prevailed.)

Now Russia is fighting a classic imperialist war of aggression. Empire nostalgia is rife in the Russian public sphere, and Putin likes to compare himself (favorably) to Catherine and Peter, and revels in his territorial conquests.

I remember seeing a broadcast of Putin at some meeting answering questions from his fawning underlings. One of them, a retired prosecutor, had a rather long and convoluted question with a self-serving proposal wrapped inside. Putin, looking bored and distracted, obviously wasn't paying attention. But he perked up at the mention of "new territories," and when it came his turn to speak, he latched on to that. With a twinkle in his eye, he remarked how the Sea of Azov was now Russia's inner sea, an achievement that eluded even Peter the Great.

This is clearly not an "imperialist war".

The Russians have stated from 2008 onward that they considered Ukraine joining NATO to be an existential threat. They were promptly ignored, and the US only intensified their efforts to incorporate Ukraine.

It takes some special kind of tunnel vision to simply ignore that.

You people have been binging on too much propaganda.

The Russians have stated from 2008 onward that they considered Ukraine joining NATO to be an existential threat. — Tzeentch

Do you think that's incompatible with imperialism?
(not saying it is or isn't, just asking; existential threat or not is separate, by the way)

Now Russia is fighting a classic imperialist war of aggression. Empire nostalgia is rife in the Russian public sphere, and Putin likes to compare himself (favorably) to Catherine and Peter, and revels in his territorial conquests. — SophistiCat

And this is the reason why you get a country like Sweden to throw away it's 200 year neutrality, that it has avoided both WW1 and WW2. Finland tried long and hard to keep good relations with Russia, but that doesn't matter to Putin.

This is clearly not an "imperialist war".

The Russians have stated from 2008 onward that they considered Ukraine joining NATO to be an existential threat. They were promptly ignored, and the US only intensified their efforts to incorporate Ukraine.

It takes some special tunnel vision to simply ignore that. — Tzeentch

It takes extreme tunnel vision and lack of reading comprehension not to understand that Russian imperialism has always been defined as a defensive measure. And not understanding that nearly all imperialist actions are sold as defensive measures. Catherine the Great's so apt saying that "I have no way to defend my borders but to extend them." puts in a nutshell the deeply internalized Russian thinking of empire and security, that hasn't changed for hundreds of years. Also to simply ignore the militaristic imperialism of Russia is quite a feat to do. But of course, one can simply skip everything that happens in Russia.

Anyway, to "defend Russia against Western attack" goes perfectly with joining Novorossiya to the country where it belongs to.

Do you think that's incompatible with imperialism? — jorndoe

In this context, yes.

Catherine the Great's so apt saying that "I have no way to defend my borders but to extend them." puts in a nutshell deeply it is internalized in Russian thinking, that hasn't changed for hundreds of years. — ssu

I've yet to read something more presumptuous in this thread.

I've yet to read something more presumptuous in this thread. — Tzeentch

How about

This is clearly not an "imperialist war".

and

Do you think that's incompatible with imperialism? — jorndoe

In this context, yes. — Tzeentch

It only shows you've not read much about Russian history, Russian politics or Russian security policy.

Like the fact that in Russian military doctrine no.1 threat has been, hence obviously an "existential threat", NATO enlargement far longer than from the year 2008. So that idea that only in 2008 was this so is misinformed, even if obviously someone has said that in an interview etc.

It only shows you've not read much about Russian history, Russian politics or Russian security policy. — ssu

Nice joke.

Dunning-Kruger hard at work, I see.

Would you want to give us the reason why you think this isn't an imperialist war and why it is incompatible with imperialism?

Sure. After I've read enough about Russian history, Russian politics and Russian security policy to be able to condense it into a single platitude "that hasn't changed for a hundred years." :rofl:

So you won't give own reasons, why you think as you said above?

And yes, in many ways there is this longue durée in Russia security policy thinking starting from basic facts about Russian geography. Would there be a sea between Europe and Russia, or the Ural mountains between Poland and Russia, then there would be logical defensible border for Russia, a place easy to define where Russia stops. But on a steppe, you can easily travel with a horse or a tank.

"Propagandists" ... ? :)

Where Are Russian Critics of Putin Featured in “Putin and the Presidents” Now?
<sup>— Julia Ingram · PBS · Jan 31, 2023

Vladimir Kara-Murza is in prison is Russia (interview)
Yevgenia Albats is now in the US (interview)
Gennady Gudkov is in Bulgaria</sup>

, Putin revels (decadently) in more than that. :)

The United States has been not only a superpower since the second world war but has been the greatest imperialist power the world has ever seen. It believes in might makes right with the greatest war machine the world has ever seen, and its ambitions are no different than those of the Third Reich. It should have learned its lesson in Vietnam that in a game of chess, you cannot play checkers, their day of reckoning is here. America, the world has your number.

This is horrific. We are just dying to race to oblivion, there is no end in sight.

The more this goes on, the bigger the risks of someone making a mistake, which we barely have any margin for. — Manuel

It's the fanaticism that scares me, there seems to be some connection between 'divine purpose' and Armageddon, like the Branch Davidian cult - we all go to hell so that they can ascend to heaven.

your irony doesn’t apply to me — neomac

It wasn't meant for you.

The problem is intellectual dishonesty. Some are pushed to such dishonesty by their intellectual self-esteem, others more by their urge to fix the world. Like in your case. That’s why I didn’t accuse you to just spread propaganda, but to talk and argue as the worst propaganda. — neomac

A reiteration of your opinion is irrelevant to the argument. You paint all opposition as propaganda and fail to see your own biases. It's either monumentally naive or messianic. You're not some kind of zen master rationalist, no matter how much you'd love to see yourself that way. You're an ordinary human - biased, culturally embedded, and cognitively as limited as any human. Your hypothalamus steals control from your prefrontal cortex under stress the same as the rest of us. In short, you are biased, you succumb to the same cognitive failings, you defend beliefs on the basis of how well established they are, your assessment of truth is embedded in a narrative which itself is unexamined...just like everybody else.

The difference with you, and a few others of similar ilk, is that part of that unexamined narrative is the idea that there is no unexamined narrative. When it's pushed (if it's pushed hard enough) it reaches this brick wall where there's no part in the story, there's no role. It's what you do then... that's the interesting bit.

which of the 2 Substack articles do you want me to rely on? — neomac

We're not talking about your reliance. You're free to do what you want. we're talking about the effect of having mainstream media in the thrall of governments and corporate interests. That's what this is about. Hersh's articles went against those interests and as such is was summarily either ignored or smeared. That treatment is a danger to freedom of thought because the implied authority of the mainstream media amplifies their voice. As such, if that voice is captured by minority interests, it harms debate - it skews public discourse in favour of those minorities artificially. Since independent journalists are manifold and (as you say) present a wide range of opinions with a low centre of authority, the issue is one-way. A handful of companies own virtually all mainstream media, and can be shown to directly influence it. That's the issue here.

it’s matter of you deciding to bring here in this forum the worst propaganda style of arguing that anybody can easily find on partisan posts of popular social networks. You could be more rationally compelling just by removing all paraphernalia of the worst propaganda without distorting the content of what you want to express (including criticising the government), if there is any substance to it, of course. Unless this goes against your militant compulsion. — neomac

Yeah, this is just an incredibly weak 'dispassionate rationalist' trope. Firstly, it's bollocks on its face. I've written plenty of dispassionate, well-sourced, rational arguments without a trace of 'militancy'. It makes fuck all difference. They are ignored, insulted or dismissed in equal measure with my most polemic rants. It's a common myth. I challenge you to find a single example from this thread, or any other, where a calm dispassionate expression of strongly anti-mainstream views has been met with respectful considered responses. It simply doesn't happen, because people are frightened of being challenged, whether that's a choleric fanatic or a Jain monk. Take a look at a figure like Jordan Peterson. Unpopular opinions (many of which I strongly disagree with), delivered always in a calm rational manner. Has it helped? Not in the slightest. He's as vilified as any load-mouthed preacher.

Never heard of the battles against fake news and conspiracies involving social networks like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube? — neomac

The existence of battles indicates a belief in the state you describe. It doesn't prove the truth of it.

ultimately all evil comes exclusively/predominantly/primarily from one single root (the US) and for one single motivational factor (it’s all about money for a bunch of American plutocrats). — neomac

So, the dozen or more times that I and others here have repeated the notion that we argue against those agencies over which we have some responsibility...they've just fallen on deaf ears? You didn't understand them? Or, more likely, they just don't fit you preferred narrative, so you just ignore them.

we are left with the doubt that either such mainstream news outlets are overly constraining at the expense of the investigative value of Hersh’s article (as Hersh suggests) or Hersh wants to be free to take greater risks at the expense of the investigative value of his article — neomac

Again, in your limited world-view, we are left with only those two options, yes. But not in the view of others. You are, again, confusing your personal belief system with the actual truth. Hersh simply doubts their integrity. You can't because it just doesn't fit the role they play in the story you have.

that some editorial fact-checking for reputational and legal reasons are common practice for investigative journalism. And that if the journalist can self-publish, he is more free to take greater risks (e.g. by taking one anonymous source or leak as enough reliable by only his own judgement). — neomac

..without a shred of evidence to that effect. Where is your evidence that editorial fact-checking limits single anonymous sources? https://fair.org/home/anonymous-sources-are-newsworthy-when-they-talk-to-nyt-not-seymour-hersh/ https://fair.org/home/journalisms-dark-matter/

Again, you just assume, because it's part of your foundational narrative - it's unexamined.

it’s not hard to offer a plausible argument to support the idea that Hersh could have published in some American mainstream outlet — neomac

...which is not that same as claiming it is a true claim which cannot be rationally challenged.

What’s harder to offer is a plausible argument to support the idea that, given very specific circumstances, Hersh was unable to publish his article other than by self-publishing on Substack or equivalent: — neomac

He didn't trust the mainstream media. It's not complicated. Mainstream media are owned by corporate interests who influence editorial policy. Hersh wanted to avoid that influence. you may not agree, that's normal, rational adults disagree sometimes. What's abnormal is you claiming that your opinion is literally the only rational view to hold and everyone else is dishonest. And you don't even get that that's weird.

f one wants to self-publish, then he is expected to be the only one paying the consequences of potential legal/economic/political/reputational issues, if not even risking life. For that reason, he is more free to take greater risks by self-publishing, if he wishes so, than by publishing with a more risk-averse publisher. — neomac

You haven' given any reason why the publisher is more 'risk-averse'. You haven't given any reason why being the one who takes the brunt makes one 'more free'. A journalist writing for a newspaper can write an incendiary piece, be protected by the huge legal team and deep pockets of his paper, whilst his editor, if he's even fired, will walk out with a huge pension fund and a golden handshake. What exactly is the comparable risk you're imagining?

I can as arbitrarily attribute to you the belief that “mainstream media must be wrong, because people not on the mainstream media are right because the people not on the mainstream media say so”) — neomac

You can't because I'm not arguing that the mainstream media are wrong.