Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
The west and its hypocrisy shouldn't go unchallenged!
Don't want to derail but I do love how no one ever mentions the obvious caste system in Arab countries.
What does that mean, cap?
so Ireland announces up to 200,000 and the USA announces half that. Nice
I can see him wife shopping whichever orphan looks most like ivanka
But for sure part of Trumps pitch is going to be
Vlad wouldnt have dared to invade if my trigger was on the button (whilst also talking about what a stable genius he is)
Somehow linking it all to hunter bidens corruption and laptop
and of course saying anything and everything (including taking in refugees) was wrong.
Im not sure he will wait till 2024 though... I think he will be pretty vocal around the mid terms as well
If the republicans have a good mid term he will claim credit - if not he will say its because he wasn't officially involved
Many arguing that the "leaked" casualties are likely bogus but definitely uncertain.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html
A comprehensive list of confirmed losses on each side.
Also a map made by Kofman which has aged well regarding the likely scope and positioning of Russia's invasion (February 24th).
Compare it to the current state of affairs modeled via Google Maps by Ukrainian/Russian scholars:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewe...&ll=49.068443179501074,32.816406818474945&z=7
Its a Ukrainian heavy district in the suburbs of Cleveland. I was only half joking of course. The 100k will go wherever they want to, although a good number will obviously cluster into existing Ukrainian communities. A lot of Ukrainian descent people also live in Chicago.
We are exceptional.
Central America? I didn’t know is a war down there, refugees should be from war areas and not from countries controlled by the most corrupt politicians on earth. Besides that how many more Central Americans crossed the border since Biden is the president? Is a limit how many people any country can accept without problems.
The name made me think it’d be full of Italians. Misleading!
Thread
Aren't demographics working against him?
Also, I imagine this war is also a opportunity to divide the Republican party (and their voters) even further into two camps. I remember Trump's first campaign identified undecided voters, segmented them into those who could be converted and those who couldn't and aimed to turn the latters into non-voters by antagonizing Clinton. Maybe that is on the cards as well.
They couldn’t even get Shoigu on a video call and had to resort to blatantly faking it (the video snip where he still looks alive here is from end of the January, apparently).
A common tactic. Israelis are expert at it. Internal consumption versus external consumption with external consumption atomised into different grades of propagandistic likelihood of effectiveness.
This part I don't agree with. I agree media literacy is a problem, but that it is a problem for the West with respect to the West. Then outside actors must be taken into account. The collectivizing narratives (and narrative strategies) pursued by the US and other western governments gives me as much cause for alarm, primarily because despite what people think, the West is in actuality far better at propaganda than the Russians or the Chinese. The axiom is that the freer the society the more heavily propagandized its people.
But overall, yes, the Russians are obviously running propaganda campaigns. Consider Israel's courting of far right anti-Semites in America. They do it because they've lost support among left and left-leaning voters and so promote different images of what Israel is depending on who they want to sway. Most countries do it, really, but those which engage in war do it more often and with more sinister purposes.
Wasn't Shoigu the only member of the government that was said to still be close to Putin at the beginning ofnthe war? And wasn't he also one of the siloviki?
Wonder how that came to be.
Yes, to the extent that many in the west don't even perceive the propagandistic value behind their information. This has been well understood for a century, when propaganda underwent its rebranding in the form of "public relations". The old adage that people in totalitarian societies are less likely to believe their government's propaganda (political correctness versus reality in the USSR) holds true.
Historians and sociologists are well-placed to provide media literacy classes and they should be on every syllabus.
Useful links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Lippmann
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
Last edited:
Not far. We are definitely more recipient to our governments propaganda than Russians are. I personally consider that most of our governments propaganda is good propaganda. But not all of it.
The myth about Israel being a democracy and how this myth survived countless reports on apartheid (HRW, Amnesty..) is a good example.
Israel is a democracy, really, it's just not democratic in those areas (WB) which are de facto Israeli but de jure Palestinian, hence apartheid. The Knesset is really a model parliament if there weren't an apartheid situation in WB/Gaza (and so Israel as a whole, or "Greater Israel, from the Jordan River to the *Med Sea" which includes the Palestinians under Israeli occupation/siege but excludes them from representation). The myth, or propagandistic value, being that the situation of apartheid is reinforced via omission (selectivity).
Last edited:
Possibly quite simply because he told Putin what he liked to hear about his army he was in high regard. And that crashed as soon as Putin realised it was all fake.
Just a guess on my part, but I suspect most of them were against the invasion (with the possibly exception of Patrushev).
You can't just throw in some Wikipedia links as if that's any kind of argument. There's no doubt there's western propaganda, but it's honestly ridiculous to claim that the west is "far better at it" than Russia or China, one authoritarian and one totalitarian country, where people currently believe there's not even a war going on (reminder of what thread we're in).
I don’t know where to begin with this. Why do dictators usually eliminate freedom of the press and media?
So it’s definitely not the liberal democracy that our free media keeps telling us it is.
And you didn’t even mention the Palestinians that are permanently banned from entering their homes in Israel and are instead confined in refugee camps in Gaza or abroad.
That's the condensed history of Western propaganda from which Chomsky and Herman formulated their propaganda model.
You can watch that in an easy to engage with 3hr format here (covers most of the territory):
https://archive.org/details/manufacturing_consent
Red Cross has had a mare:
But the people in those societies are well aware that the press reflects the totalitarian government's point of view. Pravda in USSR is a good example. The readership knew it was heavily censored. The point being that Western (mainstream/corporate) media is heavily censored according to different logics. The video above is a good introduction. Not trying to move off point, anyway, just an interesting conversation with respect to Russian efforts outlined above.
(For example, why did Russia have to arrest protestors if they believed there was no war?)
Don't really see anything wrong with the Red Cross there. They say the exact same thing in every conflict.
Like that recent time when the US Govt claimed that it had blasted an ISIS vehicle IED and its driver to smithereens, then the largest newspaper in the country published that in fact they had murdered an aid worker and children. That sort of heavy censorship?
Having banter with one of the architects of this war and the ensuing humanitarian catastrophe, then in your press release describing said war in very sympathetic, Russian apologist terms is a terrible look.
I’ll certainly think twice before choosing to support them over other humanitarian agencies in the immediate future.
Again, I'm not talking about like-for-like propaganda, or saying that dissent doesn't get through. It's a broader argument best understood via the sources I've cited above (as I could go like-for-like and demonstrate clear examples of press censorship, but "censorship" itself is too narrow in the western context).
I know what manufacturing consent is, I just don't think your comparison to authoritarian/totalitarian countries is correct. The Chinese in particular are victims of an extremely dense system of propaganda. Now, you might argue that western propaganda is more subtle (because it has to be), but it's definitely not more effective.
Thanks for the link though, I'm sure someone who hasn't seen it will take a look.
Edit: it's on YouTube in better quality
What do you think of the UK's D Notice system?