Or a bit like this.
3 Likes
Currently having a repairman doing my bathroom remodelling over the weekend and itās a nice chap from donetsk. I asked him briefly whatās his take on the situation and he said that most people in donetsk actually support putinās movements and that they all despise zelenskiy for murdering their own people for years leading up to this. I heard a similar thing from a coworker in mariupol. I wonder why these opinions arenāt on the news and instead the west tries to portray zelenskiy as some saviour of mankind. These lads from eastern ukraine actually hope he will be killed or assassinated at the end of this whole situation.
āĪŗĪ¬Ī»Ī»Ī¹Īæ ĻĪæĻĻĪŗĪ¹ĪŗĪæ ĻĪĻĪ¹ ĻĪ±ĻĪ¬ ĻĪ±ĻĪ¹ĪŗĪ® ĻĪ¹Ī¬ĻĪ±ā (basically better the Turks than the Pope), and we all know how this went for the Byzantinesā¦
1 Like
For what itās worth, I think people are actually well aware that Donetsk and Luhanskās areas are very much pro-russia so Iām not surprised by this nice chap.
The donbas situation was less covered because it was a small-scale civil war, and itās been already several years this was ongoing. Of course itās no comfort for those suffering there, but from an international newsā perspective, itās just not that ānewsworthyā.
Itās no surprise that a full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia gets much much more attention. Itās not civil war, itās a real war, between large countries, in Europe.
4 Likes
But itās an integral part of the ongoing war (the one going since 2014). I donāt understand how it can be omitted because itās essential context. It was one of the major reasons for the invasion. Itās like if in WW2 they were showing how The Evil Soviets are surrounding berlin in 1945 and the events leading to a loss for germany while completely ignoring and disregarding that how in 1941-1944 the entire city of leningrad (now st. petersburg) has been blocked from all external sources and how people were eating each other inside just to survive. You just canāt ignore the chronology of things, and Iām baffled as to why the global media does so.
Edit: not that I draw a comparison between these events, itās just to show that the context paints the situation. Removing the essential context leads to a complete misunderstanding of the events.
1 Like
Media outside of Russia would probably have continued reporting about he civil war, if Putin sent troops only to Donetsk and Luhansk. But now that civil war is completely overshadowed by Putinās invasion and the ensueing humanitarian crisis.
I suppose that from Putinās perspective, that civil war is a valid reason for the invasion, but most media and countries choose to not go along with his story. Why would they help spreading Putinās propaganda for him?
I think there is even reason to doubt if a majority of people in Donetsk and Luhansk want to join Russia. In the 1991 referendum, even in those areas a solid majority voted for independence: 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum - Wikipedia
That percentage may have shifted in the mean time, because of Russiaās support for the separatists since then, but itās hard to get unbiased current information from those areas.
1 Like
After a major event, for example a world war or a local re-shuffling (see Balkans for example), borders are established. Nobody likes the agreement but they have to play along. From that moment on, whatever someone believes of another country, as long as there is no rupture of borders, the situation is palatable and improvable. There will always be some minor events back and forth, but the āborderā, the agreement, the promise holds. The first country who breaks this rule for whatever reason, is the bad guy (in the eyes of the public).
What about this angle? The international public may have indeed followed the news on Ukrainian politics since 2014 and didnāt like the details much, but chose to stand with the Ukrainians exactly because of the Russian invasion (the break of the āpromiseā).
2 Likes
Youād be surprised by what most people donāt know ā¦ just saying ā¦ for example:
Letās take an american source:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2022/russia-ukraine-conflict-photos-2014/
14000 dead and displacing 360.000 people due to shelling (according to the UN) is NOT a āsmall scaleā anything. and that is between 2014 and now.
However, we are hearing claims that just in 17 days tens of thousands of troops have died from both sides.
For context, the ministry of Defense claims that in 7 and 13 years of WAR it lost 4431 and 2352 troops.
Here is the source from the Department of Defense:
And here it is in image, because most people wonāt click in a pdf:
You think people āknow all thatā? I highly doubt it, even though it just takes you two minutes to find.
On the contrary people seem to believe that in 17 days of war tens of thousands of troops have died from both sides, where the American data show that this is highly unlikely (unless the official data is wrong, which is a possibility)
I donāt understand how it can be omitted because itās essential context.
It is very easy. We are trained to consume āfast food outrage mediaā without context.
We are trained to not look for sources, even though never before in the history of our species was information so readily available. Funny eh?
Most people in popular platforms would think that this post is a āwall of textā and will be ātoo boredā to read it and even laugh while writing ātl;dr; hahaā ā¦ this is what happens when you let things like twit-ter train people to āchinese cookie saying length postsā 
You just canāt ignore the chronology of things, and Iām baffled as to why the global media does so.
Because it works.
If something works, you get the option to do it.
Removing the essential context leads to a complete misunderstanding of the events.
As if people care about that. Here is context:
But it is 1 hour long ā¦ who is going to watch it? Much easier to go with the flow.
1 Like
Hypocricy much? 
https://www.usgo.org/news/2022/03/korea-go-report-saudi-arabia-includes-go-in-government-project/
One of the visionās components, the āQuality of Life Programā (QLP), was launched in 2020 with a huge budget of 35 billion USD and aims to enrich the standard of living of Saudi citizens by creating new opportunities for cultural, arts, and sports activities. In this regard, the government has selected the mind sports Go, chess, and bridge to be part of the QLP.
"Alarmed by the rise of a group they believed to be backed militarily by regional Shia power and rival Iran, Saudi Arabia and eight other mostly Sunni Arab states began an air campaign aimed at defeating the Houthis, ending Iranian influence in Yemen and restoring Mr Hadiās government.
The coalition received logistical and intelligence support from the US, UK and France."
1 Like
Itās not only the civil war, but indeed it is one of the major reasons. The other major reason being the NATO expansion and the meddling from the US and EU. I linked somewhere above the timestamp where he lists that as a āmajor threatā to the security of the country. And itās a sound reason, not a āstoryā.
Thereās some information about it in the videos I post below, I suggest you click on the first timestamp and listen to that bit. This is exactly what putin was saying in his video a few days before the invasion. This is a conclusion that can be drawn by having the access to all the factual information regarding the ongoing war. Also Iām not talking the civil war, but the russia-ukraine war that started in 2013-2014 and that sparked the civil war. Whatās happening right now is the new turn in that same war.
Iām afraid the information from the 90s is close to irrelevant right now. After the collapse of the USSR, the 90s here (and ukraine+belarus+caucasus+central asia) are seen as the most volatile and the lowest of the lowest of times this region has ever seen. During that period the slavery of 16th-18th century of russian empire was seen as a better time to be alive than the 90s post-USSR bloc. Of course it would be most natural that everyone voted to become independent with the aim to joining the european bloc, who at the time was relatively much more prosperous and a safe haven (or even heaven). Russians too wished to have lived elsewhere. Entire generations of people were ruined by what was happening in that time period. However 2022, or even 2005 really, is a much different time, and a much more stable time.
But the crucial missing bit is why does nobody discuss the reasons why the what you call a āpromiseā was broken? People just call putin a lunatic, russians docile leeches and move on to the āwar pornā news with the bombings, explosions and murders.
Here, I invested 20 minutes of my time to look for the reasoning that the english media provides (first N links from googling āreasons for russian invasion 2022ā.
https://theconversation.com/why-did-russia-invade-ukraine-178512
Putin invaded, and this time his plan is to take over the entire country. Ukrainians are now fighting the Russian army, trying to defeat what they say is an occupation.
This is plain misinformation. Putin never expressed any desire, not in february 2022 nor before that, to take over ukraine. And weāre in the process of not doing that. Executing a complete coup would be done from the inside, starting with the assassination of the elites, taking over the government positions, and then making the country legally join russia without any battles.
Speaking of which this is exactly what china did to myanmar in 2021, while the world was occupied by the corona news. This is a much bigger international atrocity than the current events in ukraine involving russia by the way, not that Iām trying to derail this point.
The United States and much of Europe are on the side of Ukrainians. They believe Ukraine should be able to decide its own future.
This is also misinformation. In fact it was the US that decided the future of the ukraine, leading up to this.
This one has too much to quote but basically this is a nice summary.
Still, at the centre of this tragedy lies one man: Vladimir Putin. He has embarked on a murderous and criminal war that also appears almost certain to be judged a colossal strategic blunder ā uniting Europe, galvanising Nato, destroying his economy and isolating his country. What happened?
They are presenting valid points and relevant evidence but they colour it extremely anti-putin, as if thereās only 2 actors in the world - the putin and the world. Presenting him as a conqueror, stating his delusiveness is because heās on a āwinning streakā in other wars, etc. This is all very watered down and coloured.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/events-leading-up-russias-invasion-ukraine-2022-02-28/
This is the most objective and unwatered version I could find, on the 3rd page of googleās ānewsā tab. Aside from for some reason stating that zelenksiy used to be a comic actor, all of this seems to be correct and valid. However, objective as it is, there are no conclusions or reasoning.
Itās getting hard to find the real summaries and explanations behind all the milking that the journalism does with daily reports of the events. But so far for me, after just 20 minutes, itās 1 out of 3. That is touching only the journalistic entities, not even all of mass media.
This bit at 24th minute (lasting ~3min) is pretty much what the global media seems to be purposefully ignoring. Such an easy to explain thing.
https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4?t=1489
This bit is good too (33:00 ~ 37:00)
https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4?t=1980
I googled around on youtube and turns out heās still up and presenting his analysis of the situation. The most recent video seems to be from just a couple days ago. Iām surprised he isnāt getting āremovedā by the authorities, if not physically then at least on the internet.
3 Likes
The discussion of āwell, sometimes an invasion against another country and war and people getting killed is just a matter of perspective 
āā¦ Iām not surprised, but Iām disappointed.
inb4, same goes for when US does it, or China does it, or the Vatican does it, or Tinkerbell does it.
2 Likes
Well as I said itās the matter of contexts. Not to draw a comparison to this situation, but imagine a bully and the bullied, which is a common situation in schools and communities worldwide. The bully is bullying verbally only, and for the effect of it letās say heās saying something very nasty, like insulting the bulliedās dead parents or something very āgraveā. The āauthoritiesā (teachers, school staff, etc) ignore the bully. Then the bullied fights back and injures the bully in a major way. Is the position that youāre taking in this situation āWe are against all violence. Punish the bullied immediatelyā? When taken out of context, the bullied assaulted another person. When taken with the context, the action was very justifiable, if not justified.
War is different of course and itās unjustifiable that people are dying and thereās no āperspectiveā (other than religious I guess) to peoplesā death. However there is a much better perspective on the war itself than the sole focus on the deaths, as per my bully metaphor above. Taking the stance āwhoever is fighting is a bad person because it disturbs the peaceā is just unreasonable. Not to mention there have been no peace prior to that.
And in case it reads that way Iām not trying to devalue the fact that there are mortalities.
2 Likes
Thereās a difference between fighting back when someone bullies you on the spot and plotting to invade their house at night and kill them for revenge.
Itās a known cheap defense tactic and the response is easily āmillions of victims managed to not become perpetrators themselves, it can be done ā.
Also, in your metaphor, Russia, the humongous country with vast resources is the bullied victim?..
Really, Putin couldnāt sleep at night, worried about helpless victims of Ukraine, and exhausted every other measure before deciding, with a heavy heart, to invade another country to save those victims?
Thatās the narrative?
Deaths are not a by-product to sweep to the side, they are the main issue. I guess we donāt see it the same
9 Likes
I guess we donāt, because deaths arenāt why wars are waged. Nobody starts a war to just kill. Not even hitler did that. In fact a āwar to just killā is called a genocide, not a war.
It is a byproduct of the war. The people are getting killed for political reasons. The main issue are the political reasons. Focusing on deaths alone is treating symptoms instead of the root cause.
1 Like
My issue is people donāt even have a ceiling for how many deaths are āacceptableā if they can find a political reason to hide behind.
1 Like
Itās easy to argue for peace but itās also easy to argue against peace. What if disturbing peace is a mean of preventing an even bigger catastrophe? Who is playing the judge in a situation with the death toll of a few thousands that had to take place in order to escape a situation with the death toll of a few hundred millions?
Weāre all go players here and we know from our own experience that wishful thinking is unreliable. That damage can be mitigated and turned smaller than it could potentially be. A peaceful resolution does not always mean a deathless resolution, it could also mean a compromise to avoid even more deaths.
1 Like
What if disturbing peace is a risk of creating an even bigger catastrophe?
5 Likes
Yeah, unfortunately you cannot be that simplistic on geopolitical issues and feuds that span decades and even centuries.
The Greek āversionā of the Mearsheimer video is also more than 1 hour long and it begins explaining the conflict way even before the dessolution of the Soviet Union.
Also, VERY suprisingly, in the description, they are providing FULL SOURCES and within those is this:
So, @Cchristina so much for āpromisesā eh?
Letās just be somewhat honest here and admit that most of us are not willing to put in the work and just like to stay on the surface of things and just point fingers. Nothing wrong with that. Just let us at least admit where we are standing on.
Exactly. It also explains that it is not an issue of āmadnessā as a lot of media are trying to pass it as, implying that it is somehow a personal issue of mental health, instead of a geopolitical hard line that has been there for 30+ years. But that is not good clickbait, alas 
Also, at that point the professor is talking about the Monroe Doctrine.
@qnpnpmqppnp Which of us here knew about that? I admit that I had heard it in passing decades ago (in regards to the Yugoslavian war) and had totally forgotten about it and most people donāt know it even exists.
I said this again and again on other topics, if you have the wrong data, you get the wrong decisions.
It is as simple as that. You can all dislike this as much as you like, but it is how logic works.
I googled around on youtube and turns out heās still up and presenting his analysis of the situation.
His current video/excerpt is much smaller and more palatable possibly:
(there is a full video of that with other speakers, but this is 22 minutes long so, hopefully, this might make it easier for some people to watch it)
Iām surprised he isnāt getting āremovedā by the authorities, if not physically then at least on the internet.
He is apparently a āheavy hitterā in intellectual circles:
āHe has been described as the most influential realist of his generationā
So, he is a bit hard to not take into consideration.
Can you pause for a minute and think how other people might view things?
Russia is ONE country with 140 million people with a military budget of 61 billion USD
NATO is a 30 country coalition is with 946.59 million people with a millitary budget of 1000+ billion
Ukraine is ONE country with 44 million people with a military budget of 6 billion USD (just clicked on the wikipedia source to get to it, so all the links are similarly sourced)
So Russia spends 10 times more in weapons than Ukraine.
And NATO spends 20+ times more in weapons than Russia.
And letās not even compare the GDPs, eh?
Let us not forget that despite these facts WE play scared all day long in the news and our politicians tell us that we need to FURTHER INCREASE our military spending because we are āweakā 
ā¦ the only thing that is weak is our minds, getting scared so easily.
So let us not get sensational even on googlable facts. 
He provided some timestamps on Mearsheimerās video ā¦ collectively they are 7 minutes.
Thatās the ānarrativeā (and actually presented from OUR side and 7 years ago, so it is not current āin the heat of the momentā propaganda ), feel free to watch them if you are interested. 
1 Like
What if these risks were weighed and it was still the most reasonable path?
1 Like
From you of all people 
The rest of it itās once more the usual schtick, not interested
1 Like