[lovelyviking]

send message and then what? the propaganda there would tell that west is using any chance to put russia down and here is another example.

People in the west are too naive to realise that in russia no body asks what people think. The level of propaganda is so strong that people would believe whatever they are told.

The idiocy of those in the west who think that russians can decide something once they face sanctions is overwhelming. In the very long therm it may be but thus completely inadequate measure in the moment.

Another idiocy is to think that claiming that NATO isn’t the part of the conflict can prevent them to actually become a part of the conflict. The moment russia will decide they will invent the cause to attack just as they did with Ukraine.

[Etherlord87]

As someone who is poorly informed on the subject, I already learned to not make such definitive statements. Before russian invasion I heard a lot of opinions that Russia will not attack Ukraine, as it makes no logical sense or because true invasions are surprise attacks, and yet the reality verified this kind of thinking.

Now we hear how sanctions will not change russian opinions, but it seems these already started to change, as some cracks appear: some politicians speak against war, some oligarchs criticize putin, some Russians are also migrating to Finland [1], as well as a protest started in Nizhnekamsk [2].

This is not to say that you're entirely wrong, it indeed is very hard to convince someone as heavily indoctrinated as russian nation, but I think it is possible.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pHglSTvgbI [2] https://twitter.com/ilya_shepelin/status/1500073553055657986...

[will4274]

> no body asks what people think. The level of propaganda is so strong that people would believe whatever they are told.

In my experience, these statements are contradictory. When nobody asks what the people think, the people notice, believe little, and keep their own thoughts close.

[justin66]

> Another idiocy is to think that claiming that NATO isn’t the part of the conflict can prevent them to actually become a part of the conflict. The moment russia will decide they will invent the cause to attack just as they did with Ukraine.

To their credit, the NATO officials and European leaders who are normally prone to think this way are backing up their deescalatory talk with defensive troop movements and jet fighter deployments.

[freetanga]

By your description seems idiocy is in the East, more than the West.

They cannot think, so we are stupid for not adjusting to their limitations / conformity?

[severino]

> the propaganda there would tell that west is using any chance to put russia down and here is another example

Aren't we?

[lovelyviking]

russians have worked very hard to deserve such attitude. let’s not swap the cause and effect.

btw sending ballistic rockets to bomb Kiev’s population is hardly justified by anything anyway.

[mlindner]

No we are not. And this absurd fake news that the west is responsible needs to end.

[severino]

Well, I asked because in the face of similar events, I never remember a reaction as strong as the one that we are adopting against Russia. So I think it indeed has something to do with Russia, and not with the event itself.

[justinpowers]

Similar events? Please specify at least a couple of the similar events you have in mind…

[severino]

2003 invasion of Iraq, just to give a recent example?

[mlindner]

2003 invasion of Iraq happened largely in the desert. It was also done relatively quickly and didn't level huge portions of the cities like is being done in Ukraine right now. This is what Russia is doing to several Ukrainian cities right now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grozny,_the_capital_city_...

[tragictrash]

You are too naive to think the people can't see what's going on.

Putin brought this on his people for some idealogic crusade. Not everyone will understand but some will.

[thr0wawayf00]

Sure, some will. But we've seen how well propaganda works here in the US over the last 6 years, I feel less and less and certain that we'll be able to agree on a common reality here at home.

The number of people that still argue about how the last election was stolen just blows my mind.

[dkn775]

Look at how uniform the Ukrainian coverage is if you think we can’t agree on a common reality. In principle I am pro Ukrainian I guess, although the gas prices are pissing me off, it’s too obvious to see the uniform lack of anything but one side story being told everywhere online and in media

[thr0wawayf00]

Can you elaborate on this? I've seen a lot of reporting across various outlets on how Ukraine is impacting the markets. What is the side of the Ukraine conflict that you're not seeing being reported right now that you wish would be?

Edit: some examples

Fox News: https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/gas-prices-ukraine-russi...

CBS: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gas-prices-5-dollars-gallon-rus...

CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/03/how-the-ukraine-russia-confl...

USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2022/03/03/gas-prices-u...

This isn't exhaustive but I tried to cover the main political spectrum here.

[dkn775]

Thanks for the links. Mainly mean that a uniform perspective of the situation is being communicated to US citizens. I don’t know if Russia has any legitimate reasons (maybe rational is the better word) because everything is painting the invasion from one perspective. Therefore most us citizens likely believe one form of reality on the issue.

Just makes me feel a little uneasy to see everything from every news source having the same general point of Russia bad Ukraine good. Because it illustrates the power still held over US citizenry.

The unease is because said uniformity makes me believe there is a form of propaganda inlaid with the news US citizens are receiving on the issue - even if I am unsure of the characteristics of it.

Hopefully my point makes sense.

[thr0wawayf00]

I understand what you're saying. I honestly think that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of a field of variables (full disclosure: I used to work in software for a news org).

Firstly, there are reputable outlets out there covering alternate angles of the Ukraine conflict, like Aljazeera[0], but they can be hard to find. One of the biggest problems I see with curation generally is that it makes people lazy and not take the effort to find the outlets that are providing counter commentary. Just because you're not seeing a particular perspective being covered doesn't mean that isn't. I think there's a much bigger discussion to be had around the efficacy of curation because it very easily leads to this bias.

Second, media companies are businesses, and like any business, they give and receive influence based on a variety of internal and external factors. For example, it's well-known that organizations like AIPAC lobby on a variety of fronts to push particular agendas, which can easily skew perspectives on certain issues (like the double standard between how we see Ukrainians and Palestinians). This is a consequence of America's embrace of lobbying.

Third, media companies are becoming more reactionary than ever because they now have data on what kinds of stories get clicks in ways that they didn't 20 years ago. In an ad-driven world, you bet media companies are constantly looking to see what kinds of content drive the most traffic to their site.

I think we are seeing patterns emerge that do drive homogeneous, coordinated behaviors on the part of media companies, but I don't think it's as simple as nefarious government-driven propaganda. I think there are many interests, public and private, which vie for particular narratives and stories via lobbying in the exact same way that companies bid on ad space via Google Ads, because its perfectly legal to do so.

One could argue that public relations firms are professional propaganda creators depending on your viewpoint.

0: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/27/western-media-cover...

[richiebful1]

I don't see how letting Russia run roughshod over Ukraine with no Western response would fix the gas price issue. Oil markets price in wars as higher oil prices, especially when big oil producers get into major wars.

[boplicity]

The vast majority of Republicans approve of Trump. In other words, they approve of perpetual, blatant dishonesty, or at least don't think it is important enough to change their opinion. Very disheartening.

[BuyMyBitcoins]

>”In other words, they approve of perpetual, blatant dishonesty, or at least don't think it is important enough to change their opinion.”

Or it’s the case that they see the other side as being perpetually and blatantly dishonest.

Edit: Which is more likely, one political faction is objectively correct and the other is objectively wrong, or that partisan people view the world in such a way that their own side isn’t lying and the other is?

If you wonder how such people can approve of lies and blatant dishonesty it’s because they fundamentally don’t see such things as lies to begin with. They see it as the truth.

[boplicity]

> Or it’s the case that they see the other side as being perpetually and blatantly dishonest.

That's a logical fallacy. One's honesty has nothing to do with whether or not other people are honest. It turns out you can actually disapprove of all dishonest people, no matter whether other people are dishonest too.