Russia - General Discussion.

[Ananda]

believe the Western media you refer to have plenty of pundits in Ukraine

So does Patrick Lancaster, are you going to agree he is not bias ? So does Chinese media, so does RT, so does some Venezuallan media. All have people in the ground. Also that's the reporters not pundits that stay in Washington and London, and claim to be experts by those western mainstream media. So why can't Indian media call their own expert that sit in India ?

We can put one example to another. However not changing the fact each media will report on what relevance to their own thinking and agenda. That's biases and different then 'inaccuracies'

 

[Gooey]

Anaanda

Simply, it is a crock to compare the free Western media in the same category as RT or China (oops sorry CCP)!

Of course there are bias editorial policies, ala The Sun v The Guardian, but to draw the false equivalence like you have been doing is utterly wrong.

Sorry mate.

IMHO.

 

[Leftyhunter]

I understand the proxy concept, I just don’t see it’s necessity in this situation. The US was not attacked by Russia. No US ally was attacked by Russia. The US does not have to fight this proxy war. The fallout and risks to the US can not be fully known at this time but could be substantial.

Just give Putin time and we will be next . Think of the three little pigs but the first pig in his house of straw is stabbing the big bad wolf and making him bleed so he can't go after the third pig which is the US. Never wait for a bully to throw the first blow if you can throw it first. The Ukraine makes an excellent ally . Might as well take the opportunity to destroy the Russian Federation and run with it.
Leftyhunter

 

[Big Slick]

We can speculate on how the Ukraine war could influence China in regards to Taiwan. If the proxy war is successful China could conceivably rethink their approach. Possibly alter their schedule, approach or preparations? Possibly. Would they alter their goal of reunification? I doubt they would. If the Russians accomplish their goals or are victorious what effect would this have? Would this embolden China to take action in Taiwan? Possibly. Has China gained any advantages from Ukraine war. I’d say yes. Russia has been pushed into a closer relationship with China. Many nations are unhappy with the U.S. lead economic/financial war and are looking for alternatives to the current international order. Regardless of what the outcome is in Ukraine I don’t see China altering their plans in regards Taiwan in any substantial way.

 

[Ananda]

it is a crock to compare the free Western media in the same category as RT or China (oops sorry CCP)

That's doesn't make Western media not bias ? Some in West now call HK based SCMP already in control of CCP as HK does. Basically people on each sides going to say my media better.

All this not hide the fact each media has their own agenda and biases. Even in Western mainstream we can see on the extreme difference between liberal ones like CNN and right wings ones like FOX.

So in this Ukraine war, I'm afraid their biases are getting closer to be comparable as extreme biases to another. No wonder people tend to go to those 'independence' onlines channels.

 

[seaspear]

The Chinese media you refer to face government censorship The Unintended Consequences of China’s Stance on Ukraine – The Diplomat
Patrick Lancaster seems to have his own business in promotion of propaganda for Russia
Meet the US ‘Journalist’ Helping Spread the Kremlin’s Propaganda (vice.com)
If I wanted to read media reports from India on the Ukraine war I could read the Hindustan times

 

[Leftyhunter]

We can speculate on how the Ukraine war could influence China in regards to Taiwan. If the proxy war is successful China could conceivably rethink their approach. Possibly alter their schedule, approach or preparations? Possibly. Would they alter their goal of reunification? I doubt they would. If the Russians accomplish their goals or are victorious what effect would this have? Would this embolden China to take action in Taiwan? Possibly. Has China gained any advantages from Ukraine war. I’d say yes. Russia has been pushed into a closer relationship with China. Many nations are unhappy with the U.S. lead economic/financial war and are looking for alternatives to the current international order. Regardless of what the outcome is in Ukraine I don’t see China altering their plans in regards Taiwan in any substantial way.

China can't look for alternatives to the US has its trade with the US alone is several times the size of it's trade with Russia same for Chinese trade with the EU. By the same token who can nations such has Brazil, South Africa and India substitute for the US and or the EU?
https://oec.world/en/profile/countr... September 2022, China,and Australia ($11.7B).
Per one chart 16 percent of Chinese trade is with US vs less then two percent with Russia. Russias GDP is arguably a little less the the State of Texas.
Leftyhunter

 

[Leftyhunter]

We can speculate on how the Ukraine war could influence China in regards to Taiwan. If the proxy war is successful China could conceivably rethink their approach. Possibly alter their schedule, approach or preparations? Possibly. Would they alter their goal of reunification? I doubt they would. If the Russians accomplish their goals or are victorious what effect would this have? Would this embolden China to take action in Taiwan? Possibly. Has China gained any advantages from Ukraine war. I’d say yes. Russia has been pushed into a closer relationship with China. Many nations are unhappy with the U.S. lead economic/financial war and are looking for alternatives to the current international order. Regardless of what the outcome is in Ukraine I don’t see China altering their plans in regards Taiwan in any substantial way.

China's Top Trading Partners 2021
Per this chart in 2021 China's exports to the US was 521 billion USD which accounted for 17.2 percent of total Chinese exports vs Russia at 59.5 billion USD which is two percent of Chinese exports. Yes China can risk that all on behalf of trying to conquer Taiwan or support Russia but it's not a great economic decision to do so.
Leftyhunter

 

[Volkodav]

We can speculate on how the Ukraine war could influence China in regards to Taiwan. If the proxy war is successful China could conceivably rethink their approach. Possibly alter their schedule, approach or preparations? Possibly. Would they alter their goal of reunification? I doubt they would. If the Russians accomplish their goals or are victorious what effect would this have? Would this embolden China to take action in Taiwan? Possibly. Has China gained any advantages from Ukraine war. I’d say yes. Russia has been pushed into a closer relationship with China. Many nations are unhappy with the U.S. lead economic/financial war and are looking for alternatives to the current international order. Regardless of what the outcome is in Ukraine I don’t see China altering their plans in regards Taiwan in any substantial way.

Many nations are unhappy with the US, but the reality is, the compromises of being allied to the US are far less onerous than the alternatives.

The US can be sanctimonious, they can be both demanding and dismissive of friends, their internal politics are a shit show. The US has many disturbing social and societal issues. The US has treated friends badly and has done over other nations in what can fairly be described as unjust wars.

On the flip side though, they are still a much better option than all the rest. Why, because you can be critical of them and they will still be your friend. Also, the alternatives, no matter how you twisted and distort it, will never be your friend, and the only reason they are not at war with us is because of their fear of the western alliance that pivots on the US.

 

[Todjaeger]

I understand the proxy concept, I just don’t see it’s necessity in this situation. The US was not attacked by Russia. No US ally was attacked by Russia. The US does not have to fight this proxy war. The fallout and risks to the US can not be fully known at this time but could be substantial.

I agree that the fallout and risks to the US/NATO member-states and EU are both not fully known and potentially significant but consider the opposite side of the question as well. What would be the fallout and risks to the US, NATO members, and the EU if Ukraine were to be overrun, annexed, or otherwise fall to Russia?

Given the apparent changes in Russia society, gov't and business over the last 20+ years, I can certainly understand people who do not see themselves as being "Russian" not wanting to live in areas under Russian control. Honestly I can even see why people who do see themselves as "Russian" not wanting to live under the control of the Russian gov't given the current systems in place.

With all that having been said, as horrible as it is to continue supporting the conflict currently taking place in the Ukraine, and as much as the people in the conflict areas (Ukrainian, Russia, and any/all others) are suffering, a proxy conflict is likely a "better" option than a direct conflict between the US/NATO members/EU and Russia.

By and large Ukraine lacks the sorts of long-ranged PGM's and launching platforms needed for strikes on strategic targets inside Russia far from the pre-conflict borders. The US alone has a robust conventional strategic strike capability and a unified NATO command, like would be activated as a result of Article 5, would have an even greater capability. How long would it be before such a conventional conflict would morph into one using WMD's? Given that there have been statements from or within Russia about potentially using tactical nuclear weapons to overcome current conventional Ukrainian forces, I suspect a direct conflict would already have things on a razor's edge.

 

[STURM]

Russia did the same to the US and it's allies in Korea and Vietnam so now it's the Wests time to return the favor.

A lot of the kit provided to the North Koreans was from China and the Americans [with massive help/contributions from the Saudis] returned the favour during the Soviet war in Afghanistan.

 

[Leftyhunter]

A lot of the kit provided to the North Koreans was from China and the Americans [with massive help/contributions from the Saudis] returned the favour during the Soviet war in Afghanistan.

Yes but nothing like today's war in Ukraine. Estimated Soviet casualties in Afghanistan range from 15k to 17k KIA with approx 45k WIA but the actual numbers have not been released. US losses in Korea and Vietnam where of course much higher. This is the time to seek revenge.
Leftyhunter

 

[vikingatespam]

Just give Putin time and we will be next . Think of the three little pigs but the first pig in his house of straw is stabbing the big bad wolf and making him bleed so he can't go after the third pig which is the US. Never wait for a bully to throw the first blow if you can throw it first. The Ukraine makes an excellent ally . Might as well take the opportunity to destroy the Russian Federation and run with it.
Leftyhunter

The world let Putin get away with Crimea with a mild hand slap. We should set an example of how bad behavior is punished.

However, that is not the same thing as destroying Russia. I dont want the chaos of the early 90s again when we all had to worry about Soviet nukes going to the black market.

 

[STURM]

We should set an example of how bad behavior is punished.

"We" as in the West or the international community? I'm all for punishing "bad behaviour" but it must not be selective or hypocritical.

I dont want the chaos of the early 90s again when we all had to worry about Soviet nukes going to the black market.

I doubt if the conditions which were prevalent then and which led to nuke worries in Russia are present today. Also in the 1990's the main fear was stuff [either the hardware or components] making their way out from places like Kazakstan and the Ukraine.

 

[Leftyhunter]

The world let Putin get away with Crimea with a mild hand slap. We should set an example of how bad behavior is punished.

However, that is not the same thing as destroying Russia. I dont want the chaos of the early 90s again when we all had to worry about Soviet nukes going to the black market.

I am thinking more of the RF splitting into it's ethnic components and a series of new independent ethnic states similar to post break up of Yugoslavia. While I would hope to see a new independent democratic Russian republic that is a tricky proposition. On the other hand the current RF is a threat to the West.
Leftyhunter

 

[STURM]

I am thinking more of the RF splitting into it's ethnic components and a series of new independent ethnic states similar to post break up of Yugoslavia.

The Tartars in the Urals having their own state? Chechnya, Dargestan and other places in the Caucasus going independent? What about ethnic Belarussians who are Russian citizens - relocate them to Belarus or they get a self governing necklace? Ethnic Turks who have long lived along the Georgian border - we resettle them too? What happens to those who don't want to be resettled? What happens if it sets a precedent with other countries demanding the same?

As it is we've had so much issues with partitions and artificial borders and here you are suggesting Russia be broken up. You need any reminders as to how bloody conflicts in the post Soviet Union were in places such as Abkhazia, Transnistria and other places? Let's not even mention the former Yugoslavia.

 

[Ananda]

Patrick Lancaster seems to have his own business in promotion of propaganda for Russia

I put Patrick Lancaster as sarcasm on your comment of Western Media has people in ground. Having people in the ground has nothing to do in biasness of any media.

wanted to read media reports from India on the Ukraine war I could read the Hindustan times

Off course you will do. Hindustan Times is one of the most pro western (relatively) on Indian Media circle. Thus not mean that any non western media has more bias then western media especially in Ukranian - Russian conflict.

Western media has more dependability relative to Russian and Chinese on other issues, however not in Ukranian war. In this issue both sides reporting already reek on political standing and agenda on each sides. That's full recipe on biases.

Western media and the war on truth in Ukraine

Deception is at the heart of all warfare.

www.aljazeera.com

So feel free on your believe on Western Media, but anyone else especially from non collective west has right to not believe and question Western Media level on dependeabilities. Especially on West-Russian proxy conflicts like in Ukraine.

 

[Todjaeger]

I put Patrick Lancaster as sarcasm on your comment of Western Media has people in ground. Having people in the ground has nothing to do in biasness of any media.



Off course you will do. Hindustan Times is one of the most pro western (relatively) on Indian Media circle. Thus not mean that any non western media has more bias then western media especially in Ukranian - Russian conflict.

Western media has more dependability relative to Russian and Chinese on other issues, however not in Ukranian war. In this issue both sides reporting already reek on political standing and agenda on each sides. That's full recipe on biases.

Western media and the war on truth in Ukraine

Deception is at the heart of all warfare.

www.aljazeera.com

So feel free on your believe on Western Media, but anyone else especially from non collective west has right to not believe and question Western Media level on dependeabilities. Especially on West-Russian proxy conflicts like in Ukraine.

Something which is important to note, and IMO it seems that some are either failing to note this, or not distinguishing the difference, is that there is a difference between the bias a source will have (all sources have some inherent bias to one degree or another) and having a directed narrative, particularly when that narrative is being directed by a government. Media that is working towards a directed narrative is promulgating propaganda, which might very well bear no real resemblance to factual information.

This is IMO one of the real concerns about Russian and mainland China media sources, as these do not operate independent of gov't. However, that same concern exists about media sources from anywhere, so it really is not a Western media vs. non-Western media issue. Instead, the question from my POV should really be, does the media source operate independently from the gov't, or is it answerable to the gov't to any reall degree. If a media source is independent of gov't control, then it's content can be looked at to try and determine both the bias and to what degree, however if there is significant governmental control, then content largely needs to be treated as propaganda until proven otherwise, unless the content confirms opposition information. An example of what I mean happened in mid-April, when Ukrainian claims began circulating about the sinking of the Moskva. Given some of the sources, I considered the claim as suspect, until Russian sources began reporting the sinking of the Moskva. It was at this point that I then felt comfortable believing the Ukrainian claims that the Moskva had in fact sunk. The details on the how and why were still in question, but those were details.

 

[Delta204]

I put Patrick Lancaster as sarcasm on your comment of Western Media has people in ground. Having people in the ground has nothing to do in biasness of any media.



Off course you will do. Hindustan Times is one of the most pro western (relatively) on Indian Media circle. Thus not mean that any non western media has more bias then western media especially in Ukranian - Russian conflict.

Western media has more dependability relative to Russian and Chinese on other issues, however not in Ukranian war. In this issue both sides reporting already reek on political standing and agenda on each sides. That's full recipe on biases.

Western media and the war on truth in Ukraine

Deception is at the heart of all warfare.

www.aljazeera.com

So feel free on your believe on Western Media, but anyone else especially from non collective west has right to not believe and question Western Media level on dependeabilities. Especially on West-Russian proxy conflicts like in Ukraine.

Perhaps we should all be more open about our biases? I'll go first: As a westerner, my top priority from this current war is to preserve the international order that has existed over the last 40 30 years. Because if this international order does collapse I worry that there will be more wars with greater destruction - to the west, and many other parts of the world. This war, IMO, threatens global security (or western interests if you prefer) unlike any other conflict in the last 80 years and the west should embark all possible efforts to halt it - short of a nuclear exchange.

Peace for Ukraine's sake is important to me as well but it is secondary... short term peace for Ukraine that results in continued threats to western security is not satisfactory. I understand the tremendous toll Ukrainians have paid for this war... but I believe ensuring this is the Putin's last war is more important than simply bringing the war to an end.

....having said all that I believe you have failed to understand some of the insights that western media have provided into this war. Insights that come from sources within government and detailed investigations that require substantial sums of resources. These cannot be found as readily - or at all - in "independent" or neutral sources. I personally use western main stream media reports in conjunction with twitter users (like Michael Kofman as one example) to get a better understanding of the current state of the conflict and the strategies being used along with western response options to the war. Simply dismissing all these reports as western propaganda equivalent to what's being published by Chinese or Russian sources is a disservice to yourself.... but I guess you can continue to preach to us all how you remain bias free??

 

[Big Slick]

I agree that the fallout and risks to the US/NATO member-states and EU are both not fully known and potentially significant but consider the opposite side of the question as well. What would be the fallout and risks to the US, NATO members, and the EU if Ukraine were to be overrun, annexed, or otherwise fall to Russia?

Given the apparent changes in Russia society, gov't and business over the last 20+ years, I can certainly understand people who do not see themselves as being "Russian" not wanting to live in areas under Russian control. Honestly I can even see why people who do see themselves as "Russian" not wanting to live under the control of the Russian gov't given the current systems in place.

With all that having been said, as horrible as it is to continue supporting the conflict currently taking place in the Ukraine, and as much as the people in the conflict areas (Ukrainian, Russia, and any/all others) are suffering, a proxy conflict is likely a "better" option than a direct conflict between the US/NATO members/EU and Russia.

By and large Ukraine lacks the sorts of long-ranged PGM's and launching platforms needed for strikes on strategic targets inside Russia far from the pre-conflict borders. The US alone has a robust conventional strategic strike capability and a unified NATO command, like would be activated as a result of Article 5, would have an even greater capability. How long would it be before such a conventional conflict would morph into one using WMD's? Given that there have been statements from or within Russia about potentially using tactical nuclear weapons to overcome current conventional Ukrainian forces, I suspect a direct conflict would already have things on a razor's edge.

This argument and many like this relies on the presumption that Russian victory in Ukraine results in a high probability or inevitability of conflict between Russia and neighboring NATO countries. Since the start of the war there has been the widespread assertion that Russia has designs on Eastern European NATO countries. I challenge this assertion. Russia clearly has security interests in Ukraine and Belorus but to extend their ambitions to Poland, Romania Etc looks to be a stretch. Incursion into those countries would most definitely bring article 5 into play and Russia has shown a lack of capability to this point to deal with Ukraine much less the NATO members. For 4 decades a far more formidable Soviet Union menaced Western Europe yet the west was able to create an effective conventional and nuclear deterrent. Draw the line at the current NATO frontier. Strengthen Defenses along that line and insist on adequate European involvement.

If Russia is driven from Ukraine I believe it is unlikely to be lasting peace. Will we not see new petitions from Ukraine to enter NATO? A NATO border in Eastern Ukraine seems a much more dangerous flashpoint than the current border of NATO. Could it be that western support for Ukraine creates as many or more problems than it solves, while at the same time creating incredible risk?