SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
It's on their border, and there is a high probability some of that Ukrainian shelling may have crossed over, all bets are off in your phony little "morality" play here. You really are quite the desktop warrior, eh?
There's this insistence on the "high probability" of a possible act that could tenuously be considered provocation for some sort of Russian military action, followed by absolutely no real world evidence of Ukrainian shelling over Russia's border (during the pre-2022 era) in the huge number of posts that followed. This was a common tactic in the thread, introduce arguments and then never mention them again - after they fall flat, though there were a few loyally carrying the Ukrainian nazi argument to ludicrous levels. The real argument was a repeated baseless accusation that I was somehow repeated mass media claims, or western propaganda and lies. And of course, the usual idiotic conceit that if they had ever presented a rational, well-informed argument, it would go unappreciated on me, the sole reader of SoylentNews.
My take is that when all the terrible reasoning and arguments are on one side, maybe it's because the side is deeply flawed in some way. I think for this war it's because the pro-Russian side can only hold its viewpoint via a complete abandonment of reason and morality.
Second, for an example of what we can learn from biased media sources, the Kherson counterattack appears to be happening - both Ukraine and Russia have claimed it is ongoing with very different spins on how well it's going down. But there's a few things I can figure out from this even in the presence of such a fog of war. First, it's a hugely telegraphed and slowly implemented attack by the Ukrainians. That's usually a very strong indicator for failure. If the Russians can't take advantage of that, then they are really terrible even by their past performance in this war. Also, the Russians must really be in a weak position, if it's even possible to get to this point where a snail-paced counterattack can go this far. They might really be terrible enough for the attack to succeed.
We're also starting to see signs of terribleness elsewhere. For example, the US is thought to be running low on supplies of ammunition that they're providing to Ukraine like the HIMARS rockets. I think this illustrates the terrible nature of US military procurement. I think other countries face similar trouble. The military industrial complex is great for sponging up public funds, but not so great for supplying a significant war. Maybe this war will clean out some of the glaring weaknesses in various western militaries, including Russia's, but I'm not hopeful.
Added: Ukraine is tight-lipped now (September 2). My bet is that if they were rolling up Russian lines easily, they'd be non-stop talking about it. So this is an indicator that things probably aren't going well. Absence of propaganda is another way one can use a propaganda source to glean genuine information.
Finally, there's the lunacy of Russia's actions have disrupted the world and status quo in ways that harm billions of innocent people: threatening the food supply and bringing humanity to the brink of nuclear war. My premise is as follows:
- There were peaceful, beneficial ways for Russia to pursue its interests. But that would run into the inherent contradictions of the Putin regime, such as trying to build a powerful Russia while simultaneously robbing it blind.
- Just because someone has an existential concern, doesn't make it a serious one. It should pass a rational person test - would a rational person believe the same in the circumstances. For example, it has been claimed that Russia needed to invade Ukraine before it was invaded by NATO - to avoid the "Stalin mistake" of not invading Nazi Germany before Nazi Germany invaded them. Well, that fails the rational person test. Even now, with Ukraine fighting with NATO weapons, there's no move to invade Russia.
- Threatening with nuclear weapons over penny ante shit. Sure, if Russia had a reasonable existential concern, then they could at least have a reasonable pretext for such a threat. But just mooching some Ukrainian land? That's garbage.
On that last bit, do we really want to live in a world where nuclear threats are an automatic i-win button for stealing shit? There should be consequences else we're just paying the Dane (no offense to modern Denmark, but some of your ancestors were a bit scruffy). - Is it too many to expect that rivals play smart and employ peaceful means to overturn the status quo/unipolar/hegemony rather than kill large numbers of people in venal and often counterproductive conflict?
You can whine about how unfair the mass media, western propaganda lies are, but well, there's this serious problem that we need to do something about before it tears apart our world. My take is that with a focused effort on development, most which doesn't even need to involve government action at all, we can make everyone in the world vastly better off. But the Russian invasion and its tremendous fallout helps hold that back. It makes the world a more terrible place.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Thursday September 01 2022, @11:09AM (7 children)
I'll do the work you're too dumb to do. That lists a bit over 14k deaths (note the component totals add to more than the total estimate does). Just under half is pro-Russian forces (it almost adds up to 7k), including actual Russian forces in the mix. The rest are 3.4k civilians and 4.5k Ukrainian soldiers. It also doesn't include the 289 people who died when that airline was shot down.
So no "predominantly". I find it interesting how you even link to a real source and get it wrong.
I don't take the morality of such choices seriously, when the two other primary choices are Stalin or hope nobody finds and executes you for not being on a side.
I see he can't actually articulate what that neutral, realist position is - probably because it doesn't actually exist. When someone commits evil unilaterally as Russia did here, there's no moral, neutral position. Opposition is the only moral position.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2022, @02:15PM (6 children)
Could you clarify for those of us who can only aspire to your level of genius; Would those be predominately ethnic Russian civilians living in a predominately Russian speaking area?
The enemy of your enemy is not your friend.
Get back to us on that when the European winter is through... unless the EU finds a way around their own energy sanctions. [oilprice.com]
Yet you support the position of one set of squabbling psychopaths rather than those civilians who suffer because of it? Great moral position you have there, you are a master contortionist!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2022, @02:53PM (1 child)
Geez, did they not have enough $$$ to finish your propagandist certification? That post is the whiniest least convincing bunch of letters mashed together.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2022, @07:41PM
"propaganda" [nitter.net]
Endless "propaganda" [transparency.org]
If only we'd listened to all those climate change activists! [thehill.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 01 2022, @09:39PM (3 children)
I already that most of the deaths aren't civilian. And I can't say what the ethicity of the civilian deaths are. They could be predominately some other ethnicity that doesn't get the survival consideration ethnic Russians would get.
So what? Politics isn't about friends. It's about interests. And if you're an oppressed ethnicity in the USSR at that time, you have a common interest with Hitler.
They're building up stores of natural gas. We'll see if you're right or not. But interesting that you're resorting to these threats.
Sure, opposing Putin will hurt people - that's how parasites work. A successful parasite like Putin can't be removed cleanly. It will hurt. But it will hurt more to let those parasites devour us. I support a moral position that will reduce suffering in the world. Your nihilism merely refuses to acknowledge that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2022, @11:22PM (2 children)
The Crimea was transferred to Ukraine by Khrushchev in 1954, do Crimea's ethnic Russians have a common interest with Putin?
The threats are real [youtu.be] but it's not me making them.
47 million people dying of starvation is a price Putin, the French Agriculture Minister and you are prepared to pay to achieve your political goals. We are not the same.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 02 2022, @01:46AM
I bet it's a lot less common interest now, heh. I don't really get the argument that ethnic Russians want to be oppressed by an ethnic Russian tyranny rather than not oppressed by a Ukrainian democracy. And sorry, I don't buy that's supposed to be western propaganda.
One can have all kinds of fun with fallacy of composition. For example, did you know that Putin, the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders, and you are killing tens of thousands of people in Ukraine right now? "We are not the same" - derp, derp, derp.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 02 2022, @01:48AM
I disagree. You're hyping it up. My take is that this winter might be difficult, but they'll have it figured out next winter.