War Propaganda 101

Your letting your imagination fill in the things unsaid.

Why didn’t she say what she meant, instead of leaving her intentions to be implied.

a reply to: malte85

originally posted by: PurpleFox

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: PurpleFox

Do tell?

I’ll just say they Russia and Putin aren’t the bad guys you’ve been made to believe.

So the premise with that is western politicians are corrupt and profiting off the conflict?

Yet the good guy is the one richer than any politician in the world, and he changed the laws so he can rule indefinitely? I’m sure that guy is looking out for his citizens’ best interest.

What am I missing?

some background

The project -- to combine breakaway regions of Ukraine into an independent, pro-Russian state known as New Russia, or Novorossia -- appeared to breathe its last with an announcement by a top separatist official. Oleg Tsarev, speaker of what separatists call the joint parliament of the self-declared Donetsk and Luhansk "people's republics," announced on 20 May 2015 that the activity of all Novorossia structures had been "frozen" in apparent compliance with the Minsk peace accord aimed at ending hostilities in eastern Ukraine.

a reply to: firstofAkhet
They have one, everyone else has one?????? It aint the ones you have to worry about. Russia, at the moment has just under 6000 nuclear warheads. The USA has about just under 4000 war heads. THAT'S the problem, it wont be one going off but multiples, if it happens.

None of you seem to get any of it. Ukraine is virtually lost and it's only NATO (well USA and if you all think that NATO is not ultimately controlled by the US you're seriously deluded) that keeps pushing and pushing a lost cause and the only way, and I'll say THE ONLY WAY, to prolong this proxy war is to put NATO boots on the ground. THEN it's all cards off the table if they do that.

a reply to: crayzeed

I am not concerned with whatever is you were just telling me about. But rock on.

a reply to: Quintilian

Russophobia - "An intense and often irrational hatred of Russia."

You seem to confuse opposition to Vladimir Putin and his fascist regime as a hatred of the country and people of Russia , they are not the same thing.

I think this girl needs some history lessons.

Perhaps you should give yourself a history lesson on how Russia has changed since Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin took power in Russia , those he has killed and the actions he has taken to maintain his grip on power , meanwhile ordinary Russians are being imprisoned or killed for their opposition to Tsar Putin.

a reply to: firstofAkhet
You should be worried because if they start flinging multiples about no where and I mean no where in the world will be safe.

a reply to: crayzeed

I guess I'll act all concerned. You seem to want me to.

Anyways have a nice night. ...

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: PurpleFox

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: PurpleFox

Do tell?

I’ll just say they Russia and Putin aren’t the bad guys you’ve been made to believe.

So the premise with that is western politicians are corrupt and profiting off the conflict?

Yet the good guy is the one richer than any politician in the world, and he changed the laws so he can rule indefinitely? I’m sure that guy is looking out for his citizens’ best interest.

What am I missing?

I’m not saying Putin isn’t a bad dude. However in this specific situation, Russia isn’t the bad guy.

Imagine if you will Canada setting up military installations all across our northern border and then started killing American citizens and taking their land. How would you expect the American government to respond?

a reply to: PurpleFox

We are in a defense agreement with Ukraine to protect their sovereignty. We didn’t do anything when Russia took Crimea, and still we’re only providing weapons.

When was the last time a major power was taking other countries land and absorbing it?

“Russias not the bad guy”, right, they just have an indefinite leader who became one of the richest people in the world who’s currently taking land from neighboring countries, but his hand was forced. People are waking up, that’s why such admirable countries like North Korea, Iran, Belarus, and China are helping him out.

People are just playing contrarian when they say Russia isn’t being hostile.

originally posted by: TDDAgain
a reply to: Quintilian
It is known that the Japanese due to their mindset never would have given up and if so, it would mean death by sword. It is a cultural thing we in the West can not really comprehend. US landing on Japanese islands would have led to much higher death tolls because the Japanese would have fought tooth and nail.

This deserves it's own thread, and is an aside to the main point. I'll just briefly explain certain comments but it's one of many myths in the WW2 "narrative" IMO.

In short, i find the above weakly supported. What is known (and was known at the time) is that Japan had already lost and important elements of the leadership were looking for a way to surrender (using the Soviets as mediaries) which makes the rest mute.

The above simply reflects the narrative the west has been indoctrinating its people with ever since WW2. As they say, the winners write the history books.

This post hoc reasoning was used to justify what was really a 6 month long war crime against the Japanese civilian population after the fact. The ante hoc evidence that the US leadership were motivated by this, or ever seriously considered it before the nuclear bombings seems weak.

The Soviet declaration of war and over running of Manchuria, the amphibious invasion of Japanese held South Sakhalin (to pave the way for an invasion of Hokkaido) was always going to lead to Japan's surrender. An invasion on two fronts with the probability of at least partial soviet occupation no doubt had them tripping over themselves to surrender to the US. Who wouldn't? Especially for an "Emperor" already fending off a coup, hoping to avoid war crimes and to keep his position (no doubt aware of what happened when the bolsheviks came to power).

If you think Stalin was there for any other reason than to secure territory and increase his influence in the region and his bargaining prospects, good luck with that.

These links will help me be brief, as I agree with almost all of it. I'm not trying to persuade you with them, or pretend no one has offered rebuttals, as much as give you some insight into my position. It would make for an interesting thread in it's own right in the history section. The bomb (and Roosevelt's passing) changed US diplomacy hugely and historian Peter Kuznick is correct that the use of the bombs started the cold war.

US leaders knew we didn't have to drop nuclear bombs on Japan to win the war - we did it anyway.
The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan : Stalin Did.

The Atomic Bombings on Japan Were Based on Lies.


I find the narrative of the Normandy invasion as unrealistic and think it holds no water either, but that's another topic altogether.

Ursula von der Leyen is old elite. Don't think for a second she is uninformed or dumb. Every word she says is calculated.

Of course these people have all manner of analysts, researchers and speech writers to craft their words. I certainly don't think she is uninformed. Govts also have quite clever psychologists to advise them. This hardly detracts from my point (it would seem to reinforce it).

You may be giving too much credit to politicians in general. There have been some interesting psychological essays about why the more intelligent among our population aren't drawn to politics. It's obvious that you can have very average intelligence (at best) while also suffering moderate dementia and still rise to what many would say is the most powerful political office in the world.

I think she fits in well with the C+ intellects that abound in western politics.

Although I see a difference between genuine intelligence..... and the ability to be cunning, devious and manipulative, corrupt, to jettison morals and be a convincing straight faced liar when ideology, a narrative or self interest requires it.

Throw in the requisite lack of empathy and a healthy dose of narcissism... and these are the traits required to excel in politics. Not necessarily all together, but in general traits normally associated with what is known colloquially as psychopathy (which itself isn't a clinical term). It is unfortunate our that our political systems selects for such traits.

IMO words are far more important than most believe. In fact communication and language form the basis of human consciousness itself and the ability to manipulate the (mental) metaphors that language is based on can have profound effects.

This is obviously anti Russian propaganda and an attempt at "dehumanising". It also cheapens the suffering of an awful lot of people and overlooks (or reasigns) culpability by omission and the twisting of historical fact. I find something disgusting in its use this way and while most will see straight through it, as part of a wider propaganda campaign this stuff has a track record of being effective, unfortunately.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: PurpleFox

We are in a defense agreement with Ukraine to protect their sovereignty. We didn’t do anything when Russia took Crimea, and still we’re only providing weapons.

When was the last time a major power was taking other countries land and absorbing it?

“Russias not the bad guy”, right, they just have an indefinite leader who became one of the richest people in the world who’s currently taking land from neighboring countries, but his hand was forced. People are waking up, that’s why such admirable countries like North Korea, Iran, Belarus, and China are helping him out.

People are just playing contrarian when they say Russia isn’t being hostile.

We don’t even protect our own sovereignty, screw Ukraine to be honest.

The only reason this is our problem is because the current government is trying to protect the crimes they’ve committed in Ukraine.

a reply to: PurpleFox

The only reason this is our problem is because the current government is trying to protect the crimes they’ve committed in Ukraine.

The last admin was the first to provide lethal aid. Trump also said Biden wasn’t doing enough a few months in.

But let’s pretend it is just one side here who wants this conflict, wouldn’t it be better if they just let Ukraine disappear. Aren’t they kind of preserving it by keeping it out of Russian hands?