Russia's War Against Ukraine

[GDS_Starfury]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1708799678626591074

[JasonPratt]

"Today, a heroic Russian pilot braved withering anti-aircraft fire to clear a minefield for offensive operations!" -- Putin-ganda, probably.

[Jarhead0331]

then what are we, the US, supposed to do when things like the Ukraine happen?  or Taiwan?
the worlds far to interconnected to become isolationist.

This is a very complex question that mixes elements of ethics, morality, law, diplomacy and economy. I think the answer is, more often than not, "it depends." What I do know is that the feeling of wanting to "f*ck Russia", "f*ck Putin" or "f*ck China" cannot serve as a legitimate basis to spend billions of US taxpayer dollars, risk broader armed conflict or even all out nuclear war.

I'm not suggesting that "doing nothing" is the right answer either. But these are extremely serious decisions that result in extremely costly and consequential outcomes. They deserve and require open discourse and debate and full transparency when weighing policy determinations.  The problem with this is that such transparency and open discourse is almost non-existent, with the government's increasing control over messaging and the factual narrative given by the mainstream media and its open efforts to censor and restrict independent outlets, it is growing increasingly more difficult for the average person to obtain accurate, truthful and balanced information.

[GDS_Starfury]

I dont need the msm spin on things to know that if russia isnt stopped here they will look for more avenues to expand and try are recreate their idea of a new russian empire.  in the cold math of real politik this war is
costing next to nothing to lay low one of the worst social and political entities thats existed in the last 100 years.
we get to clean out our closets and resupply them with brand new kit which in turn leads to more manufacturing
jobs.  I know its not that simple but its close.  I crossed checked it with Daffy Duck. 

[FarAway Sooner]

This is a very complex question that mixes elements of ethics, morality, law, diplomacy and economy. I think the answer is, more often than not, "it depends." What I do know is that the feeling of wanting to "f*ck Russia", "f*ck Putin" or "f*ck China" cannot serve as a legitimate basis to spend billions of US taxpayer dollars, risk broader armed conflict or even all out nuclear war.

I'm not suggesting that "doing nothing" is the right answer either. But these are extremely serious decisions that result in extremely costly and consequential outcomes. They deserve and require open discourse and debate and full transparency when weighing policy determinations.  The problem with this is that such transparency and open discourse is almost non-existent, with the government's increasing control over messaging and the factual narrative given by the mainstream media and its open efforts to censor and restrict independent outlets, it is growing increasingly more difficult for the average person to obtain accurate, truthful and balanced information.

I agreed with every word you wrote until you got to the italicized part, and then I disagreed with almost everything you said after that.  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, which we'll both agree is the cornerstone of democracy.

I think we have lots of alternate mainstream media companies, which feed us each carefully palatable and confirmation-bias-driven news content in an effort to sell us more advertising.  The government doesn't have the talent or the reach to run this sort of thing.  I think it's market driven. 

Clicks sell.  News that doesn't generate clicks goes out of business or gets acquired by news that does sell clicks.  I don't think there's any need to attribute to malice or government conspiracy what can be a fairly predictable outcome of the market-driven economy we've all agreed is the worst form of economics (except for all the rest!). 

Just my $0.02, obviously.  We agree on where we've ended up, just not how we've got there.

[GDS_Starfury]

its still almost fantastical to see this.

[GDS_Starfury]

 

[Jarhead0331]

This is a very complex question that mixes elements of ethics, morality, law, diplomacy and economy. I think the answer is, more often than not, "it depends." What I do know is that the feeling of wanting to "f*ck Russia", "f*ck Putin" or "f*ck China" cannot serve as a legitimate basis to spend billions of US taxpayer dollars, risk broader armed conflict or even all out nuclear war.

I'm not suggesting that "doing nothing" is the right answer either. But these are extremely serious decisions that result in extremely costly and consequential outcomes. They deserve and require open discourse and debate and full transparency when weighing policy determinations.  The problem with this is that such transparency and open discourse is almost non-existent, with the government's increasing control over messaging and the factual narrative given by the mainstream media and its open efforts to censor and restrict independent outlets, it is growing increasingly more difficult for the average person to obtain accurate, truthful and balanced information.

I agreed with every word you wrote until you got to the italicized part, and then I disagreed with almost everything you said after that.  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, which we'll both agree is the cornerstone of democracy.

I think we have lots of alternate mainstream media companies, which feed us each carefully palatable and confirmation-bias-driven news content in an effort to sell us more advertising.  The government doesn't have the talent or the reach to run this sort of thing.  I think it's market driven. 

Clicks sell.  News that doesn't generate clicks goes out of business or gets acquired by news that does sell clicks.  I don't think there's any need to attribute to malice or government conspiracy what can be a fairly predictable outcome of the market-driven economy we've all agreed is the worst form of economics (except for all the rest!). 

Just my $0.02, obviously.  We agree on where we've ended up, just not how we've got there.

Sure, we can agree to disagree, but that doesn't change present reality and the unassailable facts upon which my opinion is based. Anything else is, with all due respect, naive at best, and willfully ignorant at worst. People simply cannot deny this truth anymore or bury their heads in the sand. Otherwise, the cornerstone of democracy of which you speak will be lost. This is not hyperbole.

It can no longer seriously be challenged that the federal government has colluded with media and big tech to censor dissenting opinions and views and in order to drive a very specific narrative.

https://www.courthousenews.com/biden-censored-pandemic-skeptics-in-collusion-with-social-media-firms-judge-rules/

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/media/reps/dr-paul-highlights-government-collusion-with-social-media-platforms-to-censor-americans/

https://apnews.com/article/social-media-protected-speech-lawsuit-injunction-148c1cd43f88a0284d5a3c53fd333727

https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/documents-reveal-fbi-colluded-compromised-ukrainian-intelligence-agency-0

https://nypost.com/2023/07/10/fbi-facilitated-social-media-takedown-requests-made-by-ukrainian-spy-agency-report/

This is real and Orwellian by any measure. I'm not sure why one would deny it. All peoples across the entire ideological spectrum have an interest in combating this.

[FarAway Sooner]

Now you're sounding as certain as Starfury, my friend!  I hear you, but at this point, I think we operate in a different fact universe.  Hopefully, we'll both stay skeptical and critical and eventually find ourselves at the same truth!

[GDS_Starfury]

so we can haz R&P agains? 

[Jarhead0331]

so we can haz R&P agains?   

No. But you're right.

[GDS_Starfury]

No. But you're right.

see Slash, I was right! 

[Sir Slash]

There's always a, 'first' for everything Star Old Buddy. At least that's what Daffy Duck says. Just tonight I heard about a Bill before the Canadian Parliament supported by Trudeau that would REQUIRE all Pod Casters to register with the Federal Govt. to combat, "Mis-Information" on the Internet. There's some sort of financial limit to the legislation but the Bill would affect practically all Pod Casters in the country. We can only guess what the government would consider misinformation.

I came of age when questioning Authority was good thing. The Vietnam War, The Civil Rights Movement, the Kennedy Assassinations were all questioned extensively and the questioners were pooh-poohed by many in authority. Many who were later discovered to be complicit in causing or ignoring things that caused much tragedy. Authority should always be questioned in a Free Society. "The Truth can never be the enemy of a truly Just Cause" a very wise Fortune Cookie once told me.

[Skoop]

Here's a novel concept. It's possible to be pro-Ukraine, anti-Russia and anti-war, all at the same time. I find commentators who are pro-Ukrainian, but anti-war to be the most reliable and legitimate sources of accurate information.

Neville Chamberlain was antiwar and thought he could negotiate for peace.  You of all people I would think would understand that you can't negotiate with the Hitlers, Stalins, or Putins.  They only know blood, and much will be spilled until Putin can be forced to negotiate.  Thinking you can deal with Putin is delusional.  Putin is betting on the soft alt-right cutting off aid to Ukraine, thus giving him a more favorable political situation. It would be tragic to hand Putin a political victory after all the suffering Ukraine has endured. 

I like willy oam too, but I would ask him the same thing, do you really think you can negotiate with a douche like Putin ?  I see no end to this without more killing, so lets suck it up and arm the Ukrainians with what they need to end it decisively and soon.  Pussy footing around is only prolonging the war and costing more lives. 

[JudgeDredd]

Here's a novel concept. It's possible to be pro-Ukraine, anti-Russia and anti-war, all at the same time. I find commentators who are pro-Ukrainian, but anti-war to be the most reliable and legitimate sources of accurate information.

Neville Chamberlain was antiwar and thought he could negotiate for peace.  You of all people I would think would understand that you can't negotiate with the Hitlers, Stalins, or Putins.  They only know blood, and much will be spilled until Putin can be forced to negotiate.  Thinking you can deal with Putin is delusional.  Putin is betting on the soft alt-right cutting off aid to Ukraine, thus giving him a more favorable political situation. It would be tragic to hand Putin a political victory after all the suffering Ukraine has endured. 

I like willy oam too, but I would ask him the same thing, do you really think you can negotiate with a douche like Putin ?  I see no end to this without more killing, so lets suck it up and arm the Ukrainians with what they need to end it decisively and soon.  Pussy footing around is only prolonging the war and costing more lives.

Trump done it. Actually, was there a "dictator" he didn't cosy up to?   

As for cutting off aid to Ukraine - the seeds of such a thing seem to be in the making. Slovakia. Hungry. Even Poland, a stalwart for pushing support to Ukraine - alot of which was not sanctioned initially - has rumblings of discontent.

I agree with FarAway Sooner here - I think it's media that controls government - not the other way about. I can clearly see which MSM outlets support the government in the UK and which do not.

Sure - they *might* try and get rid of the ones that don't support their agenda. At least - at the moment - we're not seeing any reporters falling out of windows.

But in the UK there were plans afoot, and we should certainly not close our eyes. The UK Government, in it's desire to go further right than I have ever seen a Conservative Party go, tried to grab hold of the powers of the BBC. How? By suggesting the funding is changed. Not for the benefit of the tax payer (which they argued) but to basically let it dwindle into insignificance.

Of course we could argue how "unbaised" the BBC is, but we an surely agree that for the Government to try and take control and/or dismantle it seems one step closer to Chinese News.

And in fact, when that didn't work, they slipped one of their political donors in as the head! The phrase from the old movie Braveheart comes to mind..."if we can't get them out, we'll breed them out"

The problem with the internet is every wanker has a voice - yeah, including me. Can any of us believe anything we read? Even those links you provided JH - I don't know their agenda.

I imagine this is of course only going to get worse with AI.

I was going to say gone are the days when we could believe what we read - but that's never really been a thing. I was just naive when I thought that.

I think the best we can do is sniff around to try and get confirmation on things we read. - and perhaps there's some truth in the fact things like that may thin out in the years ahead.

But also, fuck Putin.