Therefore, the correct procedure comes from selecting generally trustworthy sources, good quality sources of data, journalists who don't make it their duty to lie to their audience but rather look for the truth and say it as they see it, with of course some perspectives and biases as we all have but genuine, and then -- only then -- triangulating these good quality sources to check for possible biases. — Olivier5

If you can find me a single person who admittedly gets their information from non-trustworthy sources, bad quality data or journalists who make it their duty to lie your comment might have been something other than vapid condescending bullshit.

Otherwise, the same arguments about the truth of some position or other simply get shifted to the trustworthiness of some source of other with no more conclusive objectivity than before.

If we can disagree about some fact then we can disagree about the trustworthiness of a source (that being a fact). It's ridiculous to suggest there's some 'correct procedure' by which one can find 'the truth'. The sources you trust will deliver the truths you prefer - that's why you chose to trust them in the first place.

But if I'm wrong, then simply explain how the trustworthiness of a source is not itself a fact - otherwise your argument is circular.

At least they are not arresting people, only publishing arresting headlines. — FreeEmotion

Well, yeah. That's the point. One cannot defend free speech with one breath and then condemn demonisation with the other. Demonisation is, after all, a form of speech (in the widest sense).

I don't think it's particularly healthy for a society to have too many barriers to the discussion of ideas, but I don't believe reasonable grounds is too high a threshold to meet, nor do I think that this freedom is top of any list of freedoms society ought to try to ensure, like freedom from oppression which some speech act might impinge on. It's a useful freedom, but it's not by any stretch the most important one.

In our recent exchange, for example, you might think those accounts that Facebook froze were not, in fact, fake at all, but just genuine Russian accounts and Facebook lied - nothing implausible about that, but you don't have reasonable grounds to say it, and that's not too restrictive a threshold to expect.

In your "Neo-Nazis parading in the streets" example, such tolerance can lead to oppression (that being the raison d'être of such groups) and I can't think of a single reason why their freedom of speech should be more important that another's freedom from fear.

It's useful, but not the be all and end all.

As far as banning RT and Sputnik, I don't know enough about those outlets to form an opinion. I've never read either and I've no idea if there's a trail of shoddy journalism in their wake or not. I can see a perfectly legitimate case for banning both in Ukraine - they're at war with Russia and enemy propaganda can be damaging in war, so even suspected sources of it are legitimate targets for suppression, but in Europe and the US, I suspect it's just virtue signalling, I can't seriously see enough people getting their news from Russian media to sway anything.

You straight admitted that you don't care about the truth. Do you need that quoted back to you? — frank

Who said anything about truth? It's just a shit argument.

Lmao its like an entire page of dummy spitting and self-adulation. — StreetlightX

Well it seemed that way to me too at first, but I realise now I'd missed this...

It all starts with an inability to understand how media works and what to trust and what not to trust. Thank Odin I have an actual education on "media decyiphering" or whatever the correct translation would be. — Christoffer

We have an actual expert in. Someone with, like, an actual education, in media decyiphering (though one which apparently didn't stretch to the correct spelling of deciphering).

So let's take the opportunity to iron this out once and for all. We can finally learn from our resident expert how we decide what to trust and what not to trust?

Note that Isaac, @StreetlightX and others are constantly contradicting themselves — Olivier5

Has the quote function broken? There seems to have been a flurry recently of posts referring to what I'm apparently saying without making use of it.

Twitter has censored stuff before, so I think its credibility is in question. OK, so Twitter says they removed fake accounts which were spreading lies. Of course it is up to me to believe Twitter or not. In any case Twitter have to make a subjective judgement as to what is acceptable or not, what is true or false. That is understood, but I have that right as well. — FreeEmotion

Absolutely. I probably wouldn't trust what Twitter say either, and I don't see any problem saying as much - so long as we're clear about it. I think "Social media companies have removed pro-Russian accounts which they claim are fake" is about the surest ground we have on that particular story.

Thank you for linking the Greenwald article. — FreeEmotion

No problem. It's a good read.

I hope that wasn't too painful. — Olivier5

Like a needle in the eye, but hey...

The West has never started genocidal wars for resources and are totally disinterested goodies fighting the Russan baddies. — StreetlightX

Indeed, I heard they already have the plans showing the weak spot in Putin's death star and just need to deactivate the force field...

Oh, hang on, am I getting the plots mixed up...

Crimea has much hydrocarbon resources, and it it true. Therefore it does stand to reason that Russia is trying to stop Ukraine from becoming a competitor in the oil and gaz trade to Europe.

Had Ukraine been allowed to replace Russia as the main gaz supplier of Europe, Russia would have lost a humongous revenue, which they use to build their army... — Olivier5

Yeah, because only Russia are interested in hydrocarbon resources. The rest of the work have a very much more 'take it or leave it' attitude.

I agree with here. You do need to track your sources back a little further

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/28/1083401220/facebook-uncovers-disinformation-and-hacking-campaigns-targeting-ukraine?t=1646811637713

Unless we're going to start speculating about deep conspiracies, those accounts were fakes and so deserved to be taken down. There's enough real information. We don't need to fake it.

You could, for example, try this, from an award-winning investigative journalist

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/war-propaganda-about-ukraine-becoming?s=r

Have the Kool-Aid "crafted Kremlin lines" dominate the airways, go viral, be spread, the news du jour, and they just have to keep the rest under wraps, minimal, inconsequential. Standard procedure, propaganda, control narratives, "seed" population, much better than shooting people is to have them on their side, — jorndoe

Isn't it just.

Don't know how effective some such is in Russia; others have tried, though. — jorndoe

They have haven't they...

https://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6?op=1&r=US&IR=T

https://www.webfx.com/blog/internet/the-6-companies-that-own-almost-all-media-infographic/

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2020/nov/13/australia-newspaper-ownership-is-among-the-most-concentrated-in-the-world

https://trofire.com/2017/04/11/big-pharma-owns-corporate-media-americans-waking-fighting-back/

https://www.freepress.net/issues/media-control/media-consolidation/who-owns-media

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2020/12/ftc-sues-facebook-illegal-monopolization

... Oh, you were probably only referring to the 'bad guys'...

Our whole justice system depends on accurately blaming parties and meting out punishment. — RogueAI

And you believe there are no political ends there? Who makes the laws?

What kind of punishment do you think Putin deserves for his decision to invade Ukraine? If he was on trial, and you were the jury, what sentence would you give Putin for the crime of invading Ukraine? — RogueAI

What a bizarre question. Juries rarely sentence and the ICC don't use them. The ICC has a theoretical maximum sentence of 30 years, so I guess I'd go for that, but I'm not a Judge.

What percent of the blame do you think Putin deserves for invading Ukraine? — RogueAI

Blame is not something people deserve. It's a tool. Censure, condemnation... It's a political weapon to bring about political ends. Who I blame depends on who I'm talking to, who I think I've got most chance of influencing.

Right now, tyrannical dictators in their bomb-proof bubble of yes-men aren't very high on that list. My government and their allies are pretty near the top, so that's where I'm focused.

If you're wanting some kind of grand summing of all the actors from WWII on, I honestly haven't a clue.

Right now, for us lowly pundits, all that matters is what movements we put our support behind and the virtues and consequences of that support. I live and work in England, so the movements available to me are all English-speaking, Western world ones. Right now there seems to be a strong momentum to egg on the Ukrainians as if they were the Rebel Alliance in a terrible Star Wars remake. I think that's really dangerous, for the Ukrainians now, and because of the whitewashing of American imperialism it involves, in the long term, so I push back against it.

Would you still support Russia if they escalate and detonate a tactical nuke in Ukraine? — RogueAI

What makes you think I support Russia? As I said to @Christoffer, the site has a quote function for a reason. If there's something I've said that you want to ask about, find it, quote it and then ask your question. I'm not into amateur dramatics, I'm afraid.

Obviously, Zelensky is a professional actor, but unless this is some kind of US-UK deception, it looks like Zelensky – or the oligarchs behind him – has more sense than some “philosophers” on here. — Apollodorus

Thank fuck someone even remotely professional is in charge and has the head to think above the clamour of adolescent LARPers we have the privilege of sampling here.

And you define that as not being a bite into Ukraine? — Christoffer

You didn't just say 'a' bite, you said "one bit at a time" as if it were a process inevitably ending in the subsuming of all Ukraine. I'm just saying there's no evidence that's going to happen. On the table is a Russian Crimea and an independent Donetsk and Luhansk and no membership of NATO.

No — Isaac


Should be enough as an answer. — Christoffer

If you want to avoid the issue, yes. The point is that you simply assume the choice is between authoritarian oppression and a some kind of hippy love-in version of Enlightenment era Europe. We have nothing but your speculation to support this, you've not provided a shred of evidence, nor cited a single informed analyst.

How do you know that people won't self censor under the boot? — Christoffer

The measures are calculated by the United Nations Development Program. I know it must be confusing for you, but those sections of my writing in red are called 'citations'. It's how we demonstrate that we're not just full of shit. If you click on them they take you to the source of the information. Another concept I see you struggle with, but the 'source of information' refers to some outside expert, we use rather than just making any old shit up and then posting it.

Or have the UN been fooled by Putin's propaganda too, he's crafty isn't he!

If Russia and Belarus keeps this up, they will fall on those indexes like the Rubel has done. — Christoffer

No, they won't. They'll get better.

See how this whole citation thing works. We could go on like this forever... or you could cite someone with actual expertise in the field to support this claim, then we've actually got something to talk about other than just pulling speculations out of our arses and expecting them to be taken seriously.

Sure, for everyone licking Putin's boot, everyone else will be silenced, including people under the power of Lukashenko. You think those voices will be included into the indexes? — Christoffer

Yes. as I said, the indices I cited are produced by the United Nations Development Program, they've no cause to submit to dictatorial pressure.

The people speak for themselves, you can make conclusions based on listening to the collective voices from everyone. You don't have to do a referendum for any of this. Talk to the refuges, do they complain about Zelenskyy, do they complain about the fight? What do people say in Ukraine? — Christoffer

There are 41 million people in Ukraine. In what sense does a chat with a specific group of half a dozen of them have any statistically robust value? Have you any idea how large a sample you'd have to take to even have a robust estimate, let alone a mandate. Seriously. Imagine if the UK went into the war in Iraq on the grounds of having chatted to some people on the street and then claiming they spoke for the whole of the UK.

nothing to support anything you say about the people of Ukraine not supporting Zelenskyy — Christoffer

Where have I made any such claim. This habit you have of just ascribing opinions to me is unacceptable. The site has a quote function. If you can't quote me saying the thing you're responding to that should be a good indicator that I didn't say it.

Turn on the news for once! Check social media accounts from Ukraine, listen to interviews etc. etc. etc. — Christoffer

Seriously? Social media. 41 million people's opinions and you think a sweep of social media is going to give sufficient mandate for something as serious as war.

Method? You mean defending against the aggressor? Your method is to kiss their boots and give up their freedom to the glory of Russia. — Christoffer

No, my method is to engage in peace talks with a view to achieving a realistic solution, the same method that's resolved hundred of conflicts.

And they are willingly dying for their country and freedom. Are you calling the Ukrainians willing to defend their nation, stupid? That they can't think for themselves, that encouraging defense means luring them into situations they didn't choose for themselves? Are you calling them unable to decide for themselves? If so, when you talk about what the people want, you also mean they cannot decide that either? So Zelenskyy and his authorities can't assess what the people want because all it takes is a little encouragement and you have fooled the entire nation into defending the country and no single one of them can think for themselves? — Christoffer

Arming civilians without clearly identifying them as military targets is against the Geneva convention. It's that simple. It's against the Geneva convention for a reason, or do we just chuck that out of the window too because it complicates your hero narrative.

It's the Ukrainian civilians' own choice to fight. No one is forcing them to fight as civilians and most civilians who choose to fight get equipment to do so. — Christoffer

It's not about whether they're forced. It's against international law to have combatants who are not clearly uniformed or otherwise identifiable as military targets. If you're advocating breaking international law then on what grounds are you going to condemn Putin. Pick and choose which laws you want to apply as you feel like it?

Because this is what they've done since 2014. — Christoffer

No, what they've done since 2014 is annex Crimea and assist separatist movements in Donetsk and Luhansk. The rest is speculation on intent.

Would you give up your home and your life as you know it to bend down to authoritarian control? — Christoffer

No, but as I've indicated, measures of well being in Belarus are no worse than in Ukraine. Crimea recieved s huge boost in public infrastructure investment after 2014, and reports of satisfaction are at least mixed https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2020-04-03/russia-love.
There's no indication that the Eastern regions will suffer some kind of authoritarian nightmare compared to their current situation.

Do you actually call Ukraine authoritarian compared to what Russia is today? — Christoffer

No, I said democracy is not the only measure of human flourishing. As I've shown there aren't any conclusive indicators that life for the average Ukrainian would be overall worse as a Russian protectorate than their current state.

You mean that the Ukrainian authorities shouldn't do what the people want? — Christoffer

No, I mean the Ukrainian authorities will not and could not possibly assess what their people want because they lack both the time and the facility to carry out any sort of referendum or election. We are all assuming what they want because nobody can ask in any statistically robust way. A few vox pops on the street is not a mandate.

listen to what they are actually saying — Christoffer

From what source? Which source gives me robust data on what 'the Ukrainians' are saying?

what we support is standing up against an aggressor taking freedom and independence away from a people who just want to be their own nation. — Christoffer

The question isn't one of support for the goal (which we all agree with), it's one of support for the method.

if the west listens to what Ukrainians want to do and supports their choices and backs them up on their choices, how is that bad? — Christoffer

The dispute is over the 'if'. One could say "if Putin just wants to protect pro-Russian groups in Donetsk, and if he can't see any other way than war, then he's doing the right thing, how's that bad?". We would dispute them over the 'if'.

So all the Ukrainian civilians who want to fight for their nation, even those flying home from all over the world just to fight for their nation, that's the Ukrainian authorities' fault? — Christoffer

If they're encouraging it, yes. Arming civilians is fraught with legal problems in war, namely...

To protect civilians, combatants – and anyone directly participating in hostilities – must distinguish themselves from civilians in all military operations by wearing identifiable insignia and carrying arms openly.

And...

Parties to an armed conflict must "at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives".

Both from https://www.icrc.org/en/document/ihl-rules-of-war-FAQ-Geneva-Conventions

Couldn't resist. It was practically gift-wrapped.

By taking a bite out of Ukraine one bit at a time. — Christoffer

What evidence have you that they'd do this and is it sufficient to justify continued bloodshed?

Relocate yourself into an authoritarian regime, is that something you would like to do? — Christoffer

I provided the latest indices of corruption. Russia scores marginally higher than Ukraine. Democracy isn't the be all and end all of human flourishing. Freedom from Russian puppet-mastery doesn't mean freedom from all forms of authoritarianism.

And how about Russia then falling back, gathering strength, and invading again at a later date, how do we know Putin won't do that? — Christoffer

We don't. Shall we sacrifice an entire generation of young men on the off-chance?

What little measures there are of such things indicate the average Ukrainian will be no worse off in a Russian puppet state than they are currently — Isaac


How can you even confirm that? And do those Ukrainians not have a say in this? — Christoffer

It has nothing to do with average Ukrainians' wishes at this stage, there will be no referenda no election manifestos, this is about what the current sitting Ukrainian authorities should do based in the information they currently have. Continued war in the vain hope of winning, or give those regions independence and risk them coming under Russian influence. That's the choice.

No one is cheering anything. You seem to use that argument all the time when someone stands on the side of Ukrainians fighting for their right to independence and freedom from Russia. — Christoffer

Yep. Is it the word 'cheering' you take offense to. I might have said 'supporting'. Equally unjustified. The average Ukrainian is fucked either way. Yoke of Russian authority, yoke of Western financial indebtedness. The difference is that one way doesn't have half of them die first.

And if civilians are getting killed, that's pure brutal terrorism from Russia — Christoffer

No, it's as much Ukrainian decisions to arm civilians, egged on by the Star Wars version of warfare painted in the media. Funny how when Israel kills civilian Palestinians its all a complex issue muddied by the blurred line between resistance fighter and civilian in Palestine, but when Russia do it the line suddenly becomes crystal clear. Where's the call for sanctions against Israel?

The only thing that helps is to have no positive outcome for Russia — Christoffer

Great. How do we ensure that? And exactly how many lives is it worth in trying?

Armchair geopoliticians and wannabe generals tend to overestimate their own capacity to predict the future and see things coming. — Olivier5

So true...

The Russians obviously can't win this one. They are being bled to death, their army is humiliated, and the country is soon going to be bankrupt. — Olivier5

How could you know my qualifications, or his for that matter? He could be just another clown, for all you know. — Olivier5

You've told me yours before and his are written in the article, and the quote source.

Yep. So many ways this could have been avoided, all the way from Russian appeasement one one side of the spectrum to bulwarking Ukraine on the other. It's hard to see anything other than malfeasance. Even with gross incompetence you'd expect some of their actions to have gone in Ukraine's favour.

Never heard of him. Any good? — Olivier5

Any good at what? He's more qualified than you or I.

You've failed to provide any sources to back up your claim that the Russians are in the throws of a humiliating defeat.

The point I was making, into which you interjected, was that facing an enemy against whom defeat is likely, and turning down peace terms which, objectively, lose very little in terms of the welfare of the average Ukrainian is unethical.

Except that Belarus has just recently become a primary puppet state of Russia. That's not independent, which was the definition I asked about. — Christoffer

Then no, I don't mean 'independent' like Belarus, but if it turns out that's what the Russians mean then I don't see how that changes things. What little measures there are of such things indicate the average Ukrainian will be no worse off in a Russian puppet state than they are currently, so why anyone would cheer on the idea of continuing a bloody war just in the vain hope of avoiding such an outcome is beyond me.

it is a setback for the Russians so far, if not a total humiliation. — Olivier5

Here's US national intelligence officer Christopher Chivvis

scores of war games conducted for the US and allied governments and my own experience as the US national intelligence officer for Europe suggest that if we boil it down, there are really only two paths toward ending the war: one, continued escalation, potentially across the nuclear threshold; the other, a bitter peace imposed on a defeated Ukraine

Personally I think it makes sense to say the truth again and again in the face of all the liars, so I will keep on. — Olivier5

Which liars? Who is suggesting that Russia should not lay down arms immediately and go home? Who is arguing that their invasion is justified? Who is suggesting they're not the aggressors here? I don't know who you're arguing against. I haven't read every single post, but most of your comments seem to come after someone had been critical of Ukraine's strategy or US/NATO culpability or has been critical of 'White-Knighting' the Ukrainians. None of these comments are about Russia.

Again. No one here is supporting Putin, so there's nothing to respond to in which Putin's obvious moral bankruptcy would even crop up. No one is suggesting Russia's invasion is a good thing, so there's no situation in which the fact that it isn't need ever be mentioned... other than virtue signalling.

This is a discussion forum, not an interview for an ethics committee.

I suppose the same as yours — Olivier5

Can't be. All the sources I've read reveal a mixed picture that's difficult to call at this stage. Here's an example https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-02-27/putin-is-both-winning-and-losing-in-russia-s-ukraine-invasion

Many Russian boys within draft age are fleeing their country. — Olivier5

Fantastic, good luck to them.

Soon the economy will tank — Olivier5

Again, sources. Most I've read are saying it's too difficult to call. Sanctions are having an impact but the exclusions and Chinese routes are keeping it a float. Where are your sources assuring us that it will soon tank?

It is in fact a real tragedy for Russia as well, not just for Ukraine. — Olivier5

Very true - one thing we can agree on.

---

But all of this is, whilst interesting, is beside the point. There's a deal on the table which could end the war. The question is whether Ukraine should take it.

Since there's no one here suggesting that Russia should continue it's aggressive invasion, I can't see what relevance it has that Russia is losing soldiers too. If someone were to suggest Russia should press its advantage, I would say the same to them, but since no one is, I'm not. The discussion is about what Ukraine should do because that's the matter on which people seem to differ.

Everyone already agrees Russia should immediately lay down its weapons and go home so there's nothing more to say on that front. Pointless to just keep repeating it over and over...

... Pointless, that is, other than serving the modern obsession with waiving one's little virtue flag in everyone's faces every five minutes.

The Russians obviously can't win this one. They are being bled to death, their army is humiliated, and the country is soon going to be bankrupt. — Olivier5

Well that's great news! Could you link me the sources from which you got this information?

Independent... like Belarus you mean? — Christoffer

Yes. If need be.

Belarus, ranked 53 on the United Nations Human Development Index https://hdr.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/BLR

as opposed to Ukraine, ranked 74 https://hdr.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/UKR

Terrible if those states were taken over by Russia (ranking 120 on the Global Corruption Index), as opposed to still being run by Ukraine (ranking 123). What a loss to democracy.

So explain to me again why the ethical choice is to keep encouraging young men to throw themselves at an enemy they've little hope of defeating rather than accept the terms by which the war will end?

https://truthout.org/articles/arms-industry-sees-ukraine-conflict-as-an-opportunity-not-a-crisis/

...oops, I must have pasted that completely unrelated link by mistake.

On the same page you're arguing that Russian military capability is so vast no-one would dare attack it, then praising the sending of 18 year old boys out to fight it. — Isaac

I'm not praising anyone here. (Perhaps I ought to)

And if you think the Ukrainians are attacking Russia when they are combating Russian forces inside their own country, you are simply totally delusional. The fighting is in the outskirts of Kyiv, not in the outskirts of Moscow. — ssu

It's the same military. Or do Russia have one force for if they're attacked and a different force for if they're defending?

So explain to me the ethics. A force so mighty that "No one is attacking Russia", yet throwing 18 year old boys at it is the "smart move" because it looks good? What higher goal is being served here that young men's lives are a lesser one?

And you've dodged the question - does Ukraine have a choice?

Oh and you also dodged the question of if Russia has no legitimate fear of being attacked because it's a global nuclear superpower, then why has NATO a legitimate fear of being attacked?

Zelensky government has effectively created the image both to Ukrainians and to the outside world of a unified country — ssu

But...

Of course this will, as you say, increase the casualty figures — ssu

How on earth can you weigh the 'image' of Ukraine against an increase in civilian casualties and decide the former is the 'smart move'? What the fuck?

On the same page you're arguing that Russian military capability is so vast no-one would dare attack it, then praising the sending of 18 year old boys out to fight it.

The point is that Ukraine has a choice - take that risk or lose more civilians. Anyone thinking the latter is the best choice should seriously review their ethics. — Isaac

No. — ssu

What do you mean "no"? Are you suggesting they don't have a choice? Why not?

Russia has the most nuclear weapons in the World. Nobody is attacking it. — ssu

So countries with substantial nuclear arsenals have no legitimate strategic interest in not being attacked? So the missile defense system in Poland to defend against attacks from the middle east is not legitimate? NATO has the best nuclear weapons in the world. Nobody is attacking it.

This is the simply the Russian playbook. They use these puppet regimes. If you want to believe the puppetry, I don't care. — ssu

I don't have to believe or not believe anything, it's irrelevant to me personally. The point is that Ukraine has a choice - take that risk or lose more civilians. Anyone thinking the latter is the best choice should seriously review their ethics.

Nato is a defensive alliance. It has never attacked anyone. — Olivier5

What a daft thing to say. NATO has attacked loads of people. Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya, Afghanistan... It's attacked them under the auspices of peacekeeping goals but it still attacked them, so Russia still has a perfectly legitimate strategic interest in not being in a position to be attacked by NATO. The fact that you personally trust their judgement of what counts as 'peacekeeping' is irrelevant in international relations.

It just has clearly stated that it wants large chunks of Ukraine to itself — ssu

How on earth are you reading...

they need to recognise that Donetsk and Lugansk are independent states.

...as "large chunks of Ukraine to itself"?

it nurtures the lie that muddies the waters of what is propaganda and what is not. — Christoffer

What makes you think that?

lots of people who never talk philosophy or politics etc. keep mentioning the grain of truth as if it validates anything of what Putin is doing. — Christoffer

Do you have any examples?

Control? — jorndoe

Isn't the threat of being shot control enough?

's with small sentences like "...has a grain of truth somewhere" that propaganda thrives on. — Christoffer

What makes you think that?

indeed this is not what he asked so you do no need to overthink about it any more: https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-says-russian-military-action-will-stop-moment-if-ukraine-meets-2022-03-07/ — neomac

Yes, I'm aware the situation has moved on, but the principle is still the same. whether it's the far-right, the independence of Donbas, or the activities of NATO, we get absolutely nowhere by just saying "you're wrong" and then suppressing all discussion of it, that just makes him sound right (to his population). Most of the propaganda has a grain of truth somewhere, denying that fans the flames of such propaganda, it doesn't quash it.

Then what are you talking about? — neomac

Christ Almighty! If you've still no idea I think it best we call it quits there. There's only so much reiteration one can sensibly assume might clarify.

a public acknowledgement of the neo-nazi justification by Ukraine, EU and/or NATO may be totally irrelevant for his own real goals, especially if we consider how easily such a demand could be easily dismissed or retorted against him. — neomac

No-one's talking about a public acknowledgement of the neo-nazi justification, so I really can't see how this is relevant.