Russia - General Discussion.

[Ananda]

I guess you can continue to preach to us all how you remain bias free??

When I ever say that there's media (non western) that bias free ? What I have point out that everyone, every side of media is biases. Especially in this war. Media like it or not in each sides already reek on Political agenda of each sides.

So nobody that are bias free, again especially on this war.

Add:
Personally I don't discard any information coming from either side. As I have already put in my mind, every one is bias. Downside on this approach, everything must be treated as big grain of salt. Until actual situation can be confirmed by various sources on each sides.

Call what you want on Russian telegrams channels. However if there's development even means Russian set backs, they in the end going to admit that. Not much different then Western channels that going to admit any Ukrainian set backs if already happen in the ground.

does the media source operate independently from the gov't, or is it answerable to the gov't to any reall degree.

That's the point that I make in my post before. Western media reliability on this war. Usually Western media are more dependable on other issue relative to media like Russian or China (as example). However not increasingly on this war. Is it going to be much different (in principle) with government directive, with directive from your 'business' agenda influences on media ? Business in here can be come on many agenda including Political ones.

That article that I put from Al Jazeera is kind of thinking that question Western media on Ukrainian war.

 

[seaspear]

The International Press Institute as a body is dedicated to independent journalism and is regarded internationally with the least bias
Russia-Ukraine War Archives - International Press Institute (ipi.media)
International Press Institute (IPI) - IFEX
MFRR monitoring report documents attacks on media in Ukraine - International Press Institute (ipi.media)

 

[Feanor]

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 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.

The past 40 years? So since 1983? The international order that has the Soviet Union dominating eastern Europe? Or did you mean the post '91 order?

 

[swerve]

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.

There are degress of bias. In Russia, disagreeing with the official line gets you put it in prison.

Suggesting that there is any equivalence in Russian & Western (where anyone can say what they wants) reporting discredits whoever says it. Any person saying such can not be believed or trusted, as they're demonstrating either commitment to the Russian government's propaganda, or detachment from reality. That should be obvious to everyone.

Same with Chinese media. It says what the government tells it to.

You say, rightly, that there are differences in the biases of different channels in western countries. That's a good thing. There is room for honest disagreement. Of course, this doesn't apply to the likes of Fox, which doesn't even pretend to be truthful. Its lawyers have argued in one court case that it can't be sued for telling lies since it's known to tell lies, & nobody should believe it. It has no place in a discussion of press biases. It denies that it's a news channel, & calls itself entertainment.

 

[John Fedup]

There are degress of bias. In Russia, disagreeing with the official line gets you put it in prison.

Suggesting that there is any equivalence in Russian & Western (where anyone can say what they wants) reporting discredits whoever says it. Any person saying such can not be believed or trusted, as they're demonstrating either commitment to the Russian government's propaganda, or detachment from reality. That should be obvious to everyone.

Same with Chinese media. It says what the government tells it to.

You say, rightly, that there are differences in the biases of different channels in western countries. That's a good thing. There is room for honest disagreement. Of course, this doesn't apply to the likes of Fox, which doesn't even pretend to be truthful. Its lawyers have argued in one court case that it can't be sued for telling lies since it's known to tell lies, & nobody should believe it. It has no place in a discussion of press biases. It denies that it's a news channel, & calls itself entertainment.

Spot on wrt Fox. They still present themselves as Fox News though.

 

[seaspear]

Going to jail for journalists in Russia ,only if their lucky its more than likely their deaths are ordered there is a degree of bias and there is outright censorship and murder to control the media and from there the thinking of the masses
Dead Journalists in Putin's Russia | Center for Strategic and International Studies (csis.org)
List of journalists killed in Russia - Wikipedia
Chart: Journalists Killed in Russia | Statista
Russian journalists killed in CAR 'were researching military firm' | Russia | The Guardian
Russian journalists defy Putin to report on casualties in Ukraine (yahoo.com)
Journalistic death toll in Putin's Russia | Media | The Guardian

 

[Feanor]

There are degress of bias. In Russia, disagreeing with the official line gets you put it in prison.

Suggesting that there is any equivalence in Russian & Western (where anyone can say what they wants) reporting discredits whoever says it. Any person saying such can not be believed or trusted, as they're demonstrating either commitment to the Russian government's propaganda, or detachment from reality. That should be obvious to everyone.

Same with Chinese media. It says what the government tells it to.

You say, rightly, that there are differences in the biases of different channels in western countries. That's a good thing. There is room for honest disagreement. Of course, this doesn't apply to the likes of Fox, which doesn't even pretend to be truthful. Its lawyers have argued in one court case that it can't be sued for telling lies since it's known to tell lies, & nobody should believe it. It has no place in a discussion of press biases. It denies that it's a news channel, & calls itself entertainment.

The problem is that western media is under the control of a handful of companies all representing the same set of interests. While disagreeing with them won't get you killed, the tools of information control used by the west are far more effective then those Russia uses. There is no equivalency in the nature of media and how it operates. But there is an equivalency in how little trust I personally have for either. And I think this is a reasonable position.

At the end of the day Russia is an authoritarian oligarchy. There isn't much room to argue otherwise. But that doesn't make CNN or BBC trustworthy. It just makes Sputnik and RT thoroughly untrustworthy.

 

[tonnyc]

Special Presidential Envoy for Climate Kerry and Ukraine Minister of Energy Galushchenko Announce Cooperation on a Clean Fuels from Small Modular Reactors Pilot, COP27 Climate Conference - United States Department of State

Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry and Ukraine Minister of Energy German Galushchenko announced a Ukraine Clean Fuels from SMRs Pilot project that will demonstrate production of clean hydrogen and ammonia using secure and safe small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) and cutting-edge...

www.state.gov

Prior to this Ukraine has contracted Westinghouse to provide nuclear fuel for their nuclear power plants. They also have a 2021 contract to provide AP1000 reactors for an unfinished nuclear power plant.

Ukraine have also signed a MoU with NuScale, and it's very likely that the small modular reactor referenced here is NuScale's. While Ukraine's VVER will be good for a couple decades yet, I believe Ukraine is looking to reduce their dependency on Russian fossil fuels (remember that this started before the 2022 invasion and that the current Ukrainian nuclear power plants provide only 20% of electricity, with the rest coming mostly from fossil fuels) and having both large AP1000 reactors and the SMR will provide flexibility in siting, timing, and financing.

I am a bit surprised by this announcement though because while the project has started since at least 2020, I had expected everything to be paused during the war. In retrospect there is not any actual need to pause the planning stages, which may take a couple years, and hopefully the war will end soon.

 

[seaspear]

The problem is that western media is under the control of a handful of companies all representing the same set of interests. While disagreeing with them won't get you killed, the tools of information control used by the west are far more effective then those Russia uses. There is no equivalency in the nature of media and how it operates. But there is an equivalency in how little trust I personally have for either. And I think this is a reasonable position.

At the end of the day Russia is an authoritarian oligarchy. There isn't much room to argue otherwise. But that doesn't make CNN or BBC trustworthy. It just makes Sputnik and RT thoroughly untrustworthy.

Often though media may show a lack of reporting in depth believing their readers attention span may wander ,war footage pictures and film
William Randolph Hearst’s journalistic credo reflected Abraham Lincoln’s wisdom, applied most famously in his January 1897 cable to the artist Frederic Remington at Havana: “Please remain [in Cuba]. You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war.”
The military on any side may have obvious reasons even mistrust of journalists to supply information about what they are doing knowing the other side will read such , Political leaders in the Ukraine for obvious reasons be happy to direct journalists to attacks on civilians it does not mean their reporting is biased pictures of atrocities are better remembered than several paragraphs of well written verse and sometimes the media is just ill informed , forum members here have commented negatively on articles on Australian military plans by Australian writers .

 

[Ananda]

Suggesting that there is any equivalence in Russian & Western (where anyone can say what they wants) reporting discredits whoever says it. Any person saying such can not be believed or trusted, as they're demonstrating either commitment to the Russian government's propaganda, or detachment from reality.

In my professional life, I used mostly Western base market specialise media to get information that I need. However because I know their business focus on market and it is their business need to defend market mechanism first then Western Politics.

However not on information from those Mainstream media on this Ukraine War. The companies that control those media, have mix their business interest toward Political agenda on whoever they are supporting. Call it whatever you want on Fox, however Fox and CNN represent two extreme business interest that represent two extreme political interest.

That's why I put; "is it worse to be dictate by Goverment or by Business that represent certain political interest"? Honestly for Media, I don't see final result will differed much on those two condition.

Western media supposedly shown free press and free thinking and not driving political agenda. That's at least the 'ideal' way thinking. It is still shown that on certain 'specialise' issue (like reporting Market and Tech development). However not on issue related to Geopolitical development and definetely not on Ukraine war. So it is not unreasonable for many in Non Collective West already see pararel development on biasness between Government Control media in Russia and China and Supposedly Free media in West (which shown control more by business drive political interest).

So we are not delusional or detach from Realities. Not also those pundits in Non Western media that say it (as the article link from Al Jazeera that I shown). Not also we play to Russian propaganda, as we just see in this War each sides media are bias and prone to become propaganda vehicle for each side political interest.

Still again many of us in Non Collective West (and looking some 'independence' online channel from West) also certain portion in the west, decide to take all information from each sides (especially in this war) as grain of salts. Take it, compared them, and try decipher what really developing in the ground. Then decide which ones that telling closer to the truth on case by case base.

Personally for me, it is just sad that on this War, some of us have to go to this length to asses what information on this war that closer to realities on the ground. Looking to my colleagues in non western market (even in some western market), we are not a small numbers. Well I can only say within Financial market circles.

Again this is on situation related to Geopolitics like this war. Not on more 'pure' business oriented situation like Financial market movement. Seems some of specialise media still true on the path of market capitalism business interest, and not partisan political agenda.

 

[Delta204]

Take the recent "dirty bomb" topic as an example:

Russian source:
Kiev preparing ‘dirty bomb’ with West’s participation, security chief warns - Russian Politics & Diplomacy - TASS

Western source:
Russia-Ukraine War: Putin Repeats Unsupported ‘Dirty Bomb’ Claim, Fueling Fears of Escalation - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

In this example the "truth" is not somewhere in between each side's take. Sure, both sides are biased but this claim is either true or it's a fabrication... there is no middle ground.

 

[OPSSG]

UNGA reparations resolution passed

1. On 14 Nov 2022, the UN General Assembly by a vote of 94 (with 14 against, while 73 abstained), adopted a resolution that calls for Russia to pay war reparations to Ukraine. It said Russia, which invaded its neighbour in February, “must bear the legal consequences of all of its internationally wrongful acts, including making reparation for the injury, including any damage, caused by such acts.”

2. This was the lowest level of support of the 5 Ukraine-related resolutions adopted by the General Assembly since Russia’s 24 Feb 2022 invasion.

3. Russia’s veto power in the 15-member Security Council has blocked the UN’s most powerful body from taking any action since President Vladimir Putin ordered the invasion. But there are no vetoes in the General Assembly, which previously adopted four resolutions criticising Russia’s invasion.

 

[Ananda]

This was the lowest level of support of the 5 Ukraine-related resolutions adopted by the General Assembly since Russia’s 24 Feb 2022 invasion.

Eventough like all UN resolution, this will not have any legal matter or bearing, interesting to shown how Much of Asians (except Japan and ROK), Middle East and part of Latin America, mostly either against or abstention. This trend already been seen since the 3rd resolutions (I believe that's in the graphic above) toward Russia on Ukraine issue.

Seems the more demanding the resolution tones toward Russia, then the more much of Middle East and Asian and part of Latin America choose to distance themselves from those resolutions.

Perhaps this trend give more support in Moscow with their 'Go East' strategic relationship. Guess this is one way of Non allies of Collective West massage toward West even Russia, most of them will sit in fences.

 

[Milne Bay]

View attachment 49885

Eventough like all UN resolution, this will not have any legal matter or bearing, interesting to shown how Much of Asians (except Japan and ROK), Middle East and part of Latin America, mostly either against or abstention. This trend already been seen since the 3rd resolutions (I believe that's in the graphic above) toward Russia on Ukraine issue.

Seems the more demanding the resolution tones toward Russia, then the more much of Middle East and Asian and part of Latin America choose to distance themselves from those resolutions.

Perhaps this trend give more support in Moscow with their 'Go East' strategic relationship. Guess this is one way of Non allies of Collective West massage toward West even Russia, most of them will sit in fences.

It would be interesting to know how many of these who voted against or abstained are currently buying oil or gas from Russia.
MB

 

[John Fedup]

It would be interesting to know how many of these who voted against or abstained are currently buying oil or gas from Russia.
MB

…and how many had a gentle whisper from Xi, be nice to my pal Vlad.

 

[seaspear]

Would such a resolution also impact other countries engaged in conflicts ? or any actions that cause loss of life or damage to property ,
A more interesting ruling was handed in an International Court of Justice against Russia
The International Court of Justice has ordered Russia to stop the war. What does this ruling mean? (theconversation.com)
Ultimately pursuing damages in court may successful in the seizure of Russian assetts that have been confiscated
Ukraine Can Make Russia Pay For This War In International Courts—Eventually (forbes.com)
Ukraine decides to sue Russia for 'trillions' at courts (aa.com.tr)
That being said there is little modern precedent, if assets seized from Russia were provided in compensation it could be years in court

Can Ukrainians Sue Russia for War Damages?

Human rights activists and the Ukrainian government have been exploring ways to implement a compensation scheme for victims of Russian aggression since 2014. Multiple lawsuits have been brought in national courts following the aftermath of the annexation of Crimea and the occupation of parts of...

iwpr.net

did though the U.N condemn Russia's actions in the Ukraine as per above article?

 

[swerve]

The problem is that western media is under the control of a handful of companies all representing the same set of interests.

Errrr - no. That's the Russian/Chinese/etc. propaganda view. Who owns the BBC? Or the Guardian? Are CNN, the Economist & Fox all owned by companies with the same interests?

At the end of the day Russia is an authoritarian oligarchy. There isn't much room to argue otherwise. But that doesn't make CNN or BBC trustworthy. It just makes Sputnik and RT thoroughly untrustworthy.

True, but the argument here is not that western media are all entirely trustworthy. It's that there is some kind of equivalence in levels of credibility. Once one has removed the likes of Fox from the comparison, it's obvious that there isn't. One should approach reports from any source with care, & evaluate them critically, but the argument that they're not 100% reliable so they're on much the same level as RT or the like is utter crap - & that argument has been put forward here.

 

[swerve]

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?

Putin has openly threatened Eastern European NATO members. He's funded ethnic Russian organisations which lay claim to large parts of a couple of them, saying they're Russian lands. The Russian air force only stopped violating their airspace when fighter aircraft from other NATO members were stationed there to intercept intruders. He's said that ethnic Russians in the Baltic states should be protected by Russia.

This mirrors what was done to Ukraine. The differences are that Russian attempts to interfere in mainstream Baltic politics failed, & it never (perhaps because of NATO membership) got to the point of armed conflict. Without NATO protection I think it very likely that the Baltic states would have seen more overt, possibly armed, Russian intervention.

Putin has continued to support Transnistria, including with troops. Moldova is not a NATO member, but that's probably largely because of the existence of Transnistria. NATO has refused to consider an application from Moldova. Same with Georgia.

It should be obvious that there can not be a lasting peace while Putin believes that he can invade his neighbours & get away with it. Russia's "security interests" do not override the wishes of the peoples of Ukraine, etc. Let Putin get away with another invasion of a neighbour & it'll embolden him. He'd not have invaded Ukraine this year if he'd been opposed more firmly last time. We've been here before. You are suggesting that we should repeat mistakes.

 

[Big Slick]

I agree that the Baltic states are vulnerable due to their geographic location, lack of military power and ethnic Russian populations. I think the argument could be made against the Baltics membership in NATO. That argument could be made against admission of all the Russia bordering states into NATO. Is NATO more secure with the Baltics? Is the US more secure as a member of a NATO that borders Russia? And yes I point to the US in this discussion because from where I’m sitting I question the value of this ever expanding alliance to US vital national security. Imperial overreach plus internal turmoil is not a recipe for security.

 

[Ananda]

would be interesting to know how many of these who voted against or abstained are currently buying oil or gas from Russia.

The above pictures come from Le Monde, it confirm the trend the abseentee coming mostly from Asia and Middle East. However shown some numbers from Latin America and Africa. Many of them are commodities producers including hydrocarbons.

So it is not just oil and gas matter in here. I do see some more substantial issue from Non Collective west put. This Indian article can shown example on that.

ukraine: India abstains on UNGA resolution calling for Russia to pay reparations to Ukraine - The Economic Times

The draft resolution, 'Furtherance of remedy and reparation for aggression against Ukraine', introduced by Ukraine was adopted Monday in the 193-member UN General Assembly by a recorded vote of 94 in favour, 14 against and 73 abstentions, including by India, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brazil, Egypt...

m.economictimes.com

More likely, this war going to be part of more multipolar order global relationship developing. Business wise those growing abseentee are having more relationship with West then Russian. Russian Hydrocarbons going to get more non Euro customers is being predicted by market (as I have shown market assesment on that in this thread before).

However it is not I believe what giving raise on the trend. Non Collective West more concern with the precendents that West try to build in this kind of relationship (as the Indian article put). Russia will not going to pay, unless they are completely capitulating (which only potentially happen if WW3 happen). More likely if there's payment to Ukraine, will come from Russian assets confiscated in Western Financial system.

That confiscation of assets that create more jittery and concern from Non Collective West, especially growing emerging economies in Asia, Middle East and Latin America. Those emerging economies that many of them make the abseentee votes. Their concern seems indicated on this kind of vote can be used to developed as legal precedents toward confiscation of assets in legal market system, base more on Political moves

Even Western market big players already warn their Politicians, those confiscation will in turn more likely give inducement toward Non Collective West market mechanism substitutions/rivals. Something that before being projected more likely maturing by end 2030 can speed up toward later half of this decade.