The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Selective morality of geopolitics & Man's Inhumanity to Man

pegelli

Well-known member
Here's Peter Oborne, looking at the double standards of war reporting:
Well, it's still better than the single standard we get from the Russian news media ;)
And at least over here the press can report about it without being imprisoned or poisened.

I agree the general media here could do a better and more balanced job but reporting by some is more open and writing about war crimes of "our own side" isn't prosecuted or sanctioned.
 

jdphoto

Well-known member
The media is far from unbiased. Armed conflict around the world is an abomination of indifference and lack of compassion to humanity, but the racial component seemingly outweighs the atrocities of millions for people who don't fit into that agenda. However, it is rightfully newsworthy when a country that holds more nuclear weapons than any other declares war on their neighbor and threatens to nuke everyone else.
 

Duff photographer

Active member
Well, it's still better than the single standard we get from the Russian news media ;)
And at least over here the press can report about it without being imprisoned or poisened.

I agree the general media here could do a better and more balanced job but reporting by some is more open and writing about war crimes of "our own side" isn't prosecuted or sanctioned.
:) First, that's not actually true, but it used to be in the Cold War. However, the Cold War ended a while back. Some examples of the "single standard" are given below. Presumably, the journalists who wrote the reports have not been imprisoned or sanctioned. There have been many dissenting views within Russia on the war in Ukraine. Many openly published on well-known Russian media sites, including the daddy of them all, RT. They rarely come out wih blatant lies like they used to during the Cold War. Nowadays that would be pretty obvious, so they tend to report what actually has happened, but have a tendency to leave out certain facts.

I have found Western media to be far more insidious, and occasionally far more capable of downright lies which it uses like a sledgehammer (if you're familiar with the UK, read the major right-wing media smear campaign against ex-Labour Jeremy Corbyn, and of course, on the international stage, Julian Assange. Extensive and vile!). In Russia, at the moment, access to western media on the internet has not been censored or blocked (social media, Twitter and Facebook, have been partially blocked, due to [genuine] misinformation, but that may also be down to these organisations refusing to take down anti-Russian material including sick advocations such as "kill all Russians" thereby flying against Twitter/Facebook's own rules on hate speech). In contrast, our access to Russian media has been heavily restricted. This is cancel culture on an international scale and a definite red flag to me. Anyone who denies anyone access to information is to be severely distrusted, no matter the quality of that information and who it is from.

One has to use a VPN and access non-EU countries to access any news from Russia. I did this a little while ago and was surprised that there is a lot of apparently balanced media reporting, a lot more than in the West (avoid the comments sections of course!). Indeed, many of the news stories from both sides are very similar, and I give one example from today below...

Here is the BBC reporting on the deaths of cameraman and journalist Pierre Zakrzewski and Oleksandra Kuvshinova near Kiev...


Here is the copy and paste transcript from Russia Today (irrelevant photo's removed)...

----
"
Cameraman shot alongside Fox News reporter in Ukraine dies
Pierre Zakrzewski died after being injured with Benjamin Hall near Kiev

Fox News cameraman Pierre Zakrzewski died on Tuesday, a day after the vehicle he was traveling in with correspondent Benjamin Hall was “struck by incoming fire” near the Ukrainian capital of Kiev a day earlier, Fox CEO Suzanne Scott said. Hall is reportedly in intensive care.
“It is with great sadness and a heavy heart that we share the news this morning regarding our beloved cameraman Pierre Zakrzewski,” read a statement from Scott to Fox employees. “Pierre was with Benjamin Hall yesterday newsgathering when their vehicle was struck by incoming fire.”
The incident happened in the village of Gorenka, on the northwestern outskirts of Kiev. The village is situated on the front line of conflict between Russian and Ukrainian forces, and it is unclear from which side the two reporters were hit.
A Fox News memo on Monday said that the network had “a minimal level of details” about the incident, and was attempting to find out more. According to Ukrainian Prosecutor General Irina Venediktova, who did not directly blame Russian forces for the incident, Hall was in intensive care as of Monday evening. Venediktova’s statement made no mention of Zakrzewski.
Zakrzewski was a veteran war photographer, and had been in Ukraine since February. He had previously worked in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, and, according to Scott, played a key role in helping Afghan freelance associates and their families leave the country during the chaotic US withdrawal last August.
His death comes two days after American filmmaker and former New York Times correspondent Brent Renaud was fatally shot in Irpen, on the outskirts of Kiev. The details of Renaud’s death are murky, with Ukrainian officials blaming Russian soldiers for the shooting, despite the fact that the incident took place in the vicinity of a road checkpoint manned by Ukrainian troops.
A companion of Renaud’s, Colombian-American photographer Juan Arredondo, was wounded in the shooting, and last spoke to the press from a hospital bed in Kiev on Sunday evening.
Russian troops have seized positions on multiple approaches to Kiev, and vicious fighting has been reported on the city’s outskirts in places like Irpen, Gorenka, and Brovary. Inside the capital, the Ukrainian government has handed out weapons to civilian militias in anticipation of urban combat."

----

Pretty similar. People were killed/injured. No-one really knows why and who did it. All aspects mentioned in both reports appear to be accurate according to all reliable sources that I've been able to find. The one difference is that RT does not report the death of Oleksandra Kuvshinova. This is one thing I've noticed about Russian media. If there's any propaganda, it tends to be leaving certain, sometimes obvious, truths out of reports.

It's the same for many other news stores, with the Russian media giving more detail than western media, even when it doesn't put Russia in a good light. Some have been as critical of Russia as the more pragmatic Western media have been (I exclude the sensationalist media outlets of which there are many, certainly in the UK and the USA, that support the total annihilation of Russia [and China] and its peoples). One of the better ones I can't find (from 2 weeks ago) who was very critical calling the invasion of Ukraine a stupid mistake, condemning the aggressive act, but also going on to criticise the West as well (if I can find it I'll post it up later). Of course, what's left out is sometimes not known.

I'm not an apologist for what's going on in Ukraine or Russia, far from it, but I'm also and equally not a gullible Westerner. It's been made clear by many Western media outlets that dissent in Russia is 100% not tolerated, so why is it that the following statements within news reports are allowed on news websites such as Russia Today (underlining is mine)..

"A new wave of anti-war protests has swept through Kazakhstan. The activists blame Russia for aggression in Ukraine and compare President Vladimir Putin to the former Nazi German dictator Adolf Hitler. Meanwhile, Ukraine has recalled its ambassador to Kyrgyzstan, because Kiev has decided that the country supports the Russian military operation in Ukraine. "

"Russia’s offensive in Ukraine has provoked serious backlash around the world, particularly in the Western world – an understandable reaction against a war of aggression in violation of international law. However, it’s also true that this outcome had been predicted by the world’s foremost foreign-policy experts for decades."

...and this op-ed from Russia Today. It's starts off as anti-US, but then also includes Russia's war of agression. He's right in both cases, and like many others who have done so independently, is pointing out the double standards using similar language. Is there a similarly balanced view on the BBC, or your major Western news site? Would he have been allowed to do this in the mainstream media of the West? Having said that, I've avoided the news for the last week or so, so I'm happy to be proven wrong. Here's his piece in full (irrelevant images removed), and he's angry, but so am I and many others. You could read between the lines, and read propaganda into it. You could also see what he hasn't written if you wanted to (although you can do this with any article published anywhere in the world), but what he has actually written is on record as being true...

-----
"The US and NATO have never been sanctioned for starting wars. Why?
The reaction to Russia’s attack on Ukraine, no matter what you think about it, has exposed the West’s double standards

Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist. He is the author of 'Midnight in the American Empire,' How Corporations and Their Political Servants are Destroying the American Dream. @Robert_Bridge

The West has taken an extreme stance against Russia over its invasion in Ukraine. This reaction exposes a high degree of hypocrisy considering that US-led wars abroad never received the punitive response they deserved.
If the current events in Ukraine have proven anything, it’s that the United States and its transatlantic partners are able to run roughshod across a shell-shocked planet – in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, to name a few of the hotspots – with almost total impunity. Meanwhile, Russia and Vladimir Putin are being portrayed in nearly every mainstream media publication today as the second coming of Nazi Germany for their actions in Ukraine.
First, let’s be clear about something. Hypocrisy and double standards alone do not provide justification for the opening of hostilities by any country. In other words, just because NATO-bloc countries have been tearing a path of wanton destruction around the globe since 2001 without serious consequences, this does not give Russia, or any country, moral license to behave in a similar manner. There must be a convincing reason for a country to authorize the use of force, thereby committing itself to what could be considered ‘a just war’. Thus, the question: Can Russia’s actions today be considered ‘just’ or, at the very least, understandable? I will leave that answer up to the reader’s better judgment, but it would be idle not to consider some important details.
Only to the consumers of mainstream media fast food would it come as a surprise that Moscow has been warning on NATO expansion for well over a decade. In his now-famous speech to the Munich Security Conference in 2007, Vladimir Putin poignantly asked the assembled global powerbrokers point blank, “why is it necessary to put military infrastructure on our borders during this [NATO] expansion? Can someone answer this question?” Later in the speech, he said that expanding military assets smack up to the Russian border “is not connected in any way with the democratic choices of individual states.”
Not only were the Russian leader’s concerns met with the predictable amount of disregard amid the deafening sound of crickets, NATO has gone on to bestow membership on four more countries since that day (Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, and North Macedonia). As a thought experiment that even a dolt could conduct, imagine Washington’s reaction if Moscow were building a continuously expanding military bloc in South America, for example.
The real cause for Moscow’s alarm, however, came when the US and NATO began flooding neighboring Ukraine with a dazzling array of sophisticated weaponry amid calls for membership in the military bloc. What on earth could go wrong? In Moscow’s mind, Ukraine was beginning to pose an existential threat to Russia.
In December, Moscow, quickly nearing the end of its patience, delivered draft treaties to the US and NATO, demanding they halt any further military expansion eastwards, including by the accession of Ukraine or any other states. It included the explicit statement that NATO “shall not conduct any military activity on the territory of Ukraine or other states of Eastern Europe, South Caucasus and Central Asia.” Once again, Russia’s proposals were met with arrogance and indifference by Western leaders.

While people will have varying opinions as to the shocking actions that Moscow took next, nobody can say they were not warned. After all, it’s not like Russia woke up on February 24 and suddenly decided it was a wonderful day to start a military operation on the territory of Ukraine. So yes, an argument could be made that Russia had concern for its own security as a justification for its actions. Unfortunately, the same thing may be more difficult to say for the United States and its NATO minions with regards to their belligerent behavior over the course of the last two decades.
Consider the most notorious example, the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This disastrous war, which the Western media hacks have chalked up as an unfortunate ‘intelligence failure’, represents one of the most egregious acts of unprovoked aggression in recent memory. Without delving too deep into the murky details, the United States, having just suffered the attacks of 9/11, accused Saddam Hussein of Iraq of harboring weapons of mass destruction. Yet, instead of working in close cooperation with the UN weapons inspectors, who were on the ground in Iraq attempting to verify the claims, the US, together with the UK, Australia, and Poland, launched a ‘shock-and-awe’ bombing campaign against Iraq on March 19, 2003. In a flash, over a million innocent Iraqis suffered death, injury, or displacement by this flagrant violation of international law.
The Center for Public Integrity reported that the Bush administration, in its effort to bolster public support for the impending carnage, made over 900 false statements between 2001 and 2003 about Iraq’s alleged threat to the US and its allies. Yet somehow the Western media, which has become the most rabid proliferator for military aggression bar none, failed to find any flaw in the argument for war – that is, until after the boots and blood were on the ground, of course.
It might be expected, in a more perfect world, that the US and its allies were subjected to some stiff sanctions in the wake of this protracted eight-year ‘mistake’ against innocents. In fact, there were sanctions, just not against the United States. Ironically, the only sanctions that resulted from this crazy military adventure were against France, a NATO member that had declined the invitation, together with Germany, to participate in the Iraqi bloodbath. The global hyper-power is not used to such rejection, especially from its purported friends.
American politicians, self-assured in their Godlike exceptionalism, demanded a boycott of French wine and bottled water due to the French government’s “ungrateful” opposition to war in Iraq. Other agitators for war betrayed their lack of seriousness by insisting that the popular menu item known as ‘French Fries’ be substituted with the name ‘Freedom Fries’ instead. So the lack of French Bordeaux, together with the tedious redrafting of restaurant menus, seems to have been the only real inconveniences the US and NATO suffered for indiscriminately destroying millions of lives.
Now compare this kid gloves approach to the US and its allies to the current situation involving Ukraine, where the scales of justice are clearly weighed down against Russia, and despite its not unreasonable warnings that it was feeling threatened by NATO advances. Whatever a person may think about the conflict now raging between Russia and Ukraine, it cannot be denied that the hypocrisy and double standards being leveled against Russia by its perennial detractors is as shocking as it is predictable. The difference today, however, is that bombs are going off.
Aside from the severe sanctioning of Russian individuals and the Russian economy, perhaps best summed up by the French economy minister, who said his country is committed to waging “a total economic and financial war on Russia,” there has been a deeply disturbing effort to silence news and information coming from those Russian sources that might give the Western public the option of seeing Moscow's motivations. On Tuesday, March 1, YouTube decided to block the channels of RT and Sputnik for all European users, thereby allowing the Western world to seize another chunk of the global narrative.

Considering the way that Russia has been vilified in the ‘empire of lies’, as Vladimir Putin dubbed the land of his politically motivated persecutors, some may believe that Russia deserves the non-stop threats it is now receiving. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. This sort of global grandstanding, which resembles some sort of mindless virtue-signaling campaign now so popular in liberal capitals, aside from unnecessarily inflaming an already volatile situation, assumes that Russia is totally wrong, period.
Such a reckless approach, which leaves no room for debate, no room for discussion, no room for seeing Russia’s side in this extremely complex situation, only guarantees further standoffs, if not full-blown global war, further down the road. Unless the West is actively seeking the outbreak of World War III, it would be advisable to stop the hideous hypocrisy and double standards against Russia and patiently listen to its opinions and version of events (even ones presented by foreign media). It’s not as unbelievable as some people may wish to believe."

-----

...and this, again from Russia Today, surely, the reporting of such protests would be banned, and is there any imbalance to the report compared with Western reports? As I've written above, despite western media reports to the contrary, the Russian media are reporting on these things, but the same proviso of "what is being left out?" applies...

-----
"Hundreds detained at anti-war protest in Moscow – police
Law enforcement cordoned off a square not far from the Kremlin, ahead of demonstration against Russia's actions in Ukraine
Hundreds detained at anti-war protest in Moscow – police

FILE PHOTO: A protester is detained at the Manezhnaya Square in Moscow, Russia, on March 6, 2022. © Sputnik / Evgeny Odinokov
The Russian capital has seen an anti-war protest for the second weekend in a row amid the ongoing attack on Ukraine. The Sunday demonstration had not been agreed with authorities and ended up in numerous detentions.
According to Moscow police, as cited by RIA and Interfax news agencies, around 300 protesters have been held. The law enforcement has cited "various violations of public order" as the reason for the arrests, without elaborating. Authorities also did not announce the total number of those taking part in the rally.
Authorities had taken "all the necessary measures" to "prevent" the rally, which hadn't been agreed with the city authorities as required by Russian law, police have pointed out. There were no reports about any incidents during the protest.


Some media have reported that large police units have been deployed to Manezhnaya Square, just outside the Kremlin, and that the square itself had been mostly cordoned off before the protest.
Moscow wasn't the only Russian city to see protests on Sunday. In St. Petersburg, around 150 people have been detained following a similar rally in the city center, according to local media. The demonstration there was attended by a much smaller number than the previous weekend, according to journalists.


Russia has seen sporadic anti-war protests springing up since the start of Moscow's military offensive in Ukraine, which was launched on February 24. A series of particularly large demonstrations calling for an end to the military action were held in several Russian cities, including Moscow and St Petersburg, on March 6. On that occasion, the rallies, which had not been coordinated with authorities, ended up in thousands of arrests.
In early March, Russian lawmakers passed legislation criminalizing the "defamation" of the Russian army and the spreading of "fake" information about Russian troops or calling for anti-Russia sanctions. Some opposition figures then accused the authorities of attempting to silence dissent. Moscow justified the law by pointing to an "information war" being waged by the US and its allies against Russia over its actions in Ukraine.



Moscow attacked its neighbor in late February, following a seven-year standoff over Ukraine's failure to implement the terms of the Minsk agreements, and Russia's eventual recognition of the Donbass republics in Donetsk and Lugansk. The German- and French-brokered Minsk protocols had been designed to regularize the status of those regions within the Ukrainian state.

READ MORE: Thousands detained at anti-war protests across Russia

Russia has now demanded that Ukraine officially declare itself a neutral country that will never join the US-led NATO military bloc. Kiev insists the Russian offensive was completely unprovoked and has denied claims it was planning to retake the two republics by force.

----

I should point out that the UK, while it is technically legal to protest, that legality can be overturned if it "is in the interest of national security or public safety, to prevent disorder or crime, to protect health or morals, to protect others’ rights and freedoms." The current government wants to go one step further by seeking to outlaw all protests that do not have government permission. This is the case currently in Russia where intent to protest requires permission, and is usually granted with the same proviso's as currently enacted in the UK as far as I've seen. Of course, there should be a legal right to protest in either country, permission or no permission, but one is regarded as a pariah state because of it while the other one isn't :unsure:

There are many such stories, but there is not enough room here to copy and paste them all, but the above will do as examples. Yes, there are some very biased stories, but they're pretty obvious to anyone of reasonable intelligence. We have similar very biased stories here in the West. Suffice to say, that whilst not wonderful, the news reporting has not been biased in the way that the West portrays. Indeed, it seems in many cases where statements and actions can be confirmed, it is much more balanced. Yes, it gives the Russian point of view more than would the West (because Russia media in Russia reporting to Russian people), but that is to be expected, and it leaves certain facts out on occasions, but it's no worse than what the Western media get up to. ...and I'm certainly not blind to any propaganda, blatant or subtle, and can see it pretty quickly when one starts comparing the same news item with other sources.

I reiterate, the general concensus is that if you want to get a reasonably balanced view on a news item, one accesses as many news sites as possible to find a common denominator to filter out any propaganda. I find it deeply disturbing and worrying that we are not allowed to find that out for ourselves, cast aside the propaganda from all sides, and get some semblance of truth. It's as if we ourselves are living in an authoritarian state.

The West is in full-on propaganda mode (and has been for many years with regard to Ukraine), just as it was leading up to and during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. We all know how that turned out. Once (okay, several times) bitten, twice shy?


Cheers,
Duff.
 
Last edited:

Duff photographer

Active member
The media is far from unbiased. Armed conflict around the world is an abomination of indifference and lack of compassion to humanity, but the racial component seemingly outweighs the atrocities of millions for people who don't fit into that agenda. However, it is rightfully newsworthy when a country that holds more nuclear weapons than any other declares war on their neighbor and threatens to nuke everyone else.
Absolutely.

No-one here considers a country that holds nuclear weapons being miitarily aggressive to a neighour not newsworthy.

Cheers,
Duff.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Well, it's still better than the single standard we get from the Russian news media ;)
And at least over here the press can report about it without being imprisoned or poisened.

I agree the general media here could do a better and more balanced job but reporting by some is more open and writing about war crimes of "our own side" isn't prosecuted or sanctioned.
I don't think Julian Assange would agree on your second statement.

It's not only about what the press writes about war crimes, but how the western world reacts to them. Compare the sanctions now placed on Russia with the total lack of sanctions placed on USA for the wars against Iraq and Libya or the occupation of Syria, not to speak about their wars in the past. People in Laos are still dying from American cluster bombs, 50 years after that war ended. There are 80 million unexploded items in and on the ground in that country. Whatever war crimes USA is guilty of, the reaction is literally zero. Russia had only just passed the borders to Ukraine when the sanctions started raining down on them, sanctions on the Russian nation and against Russians in general, anybody from Russian tourists abroad to Russian oligarchs. Do the sanctions come from an international organisation like the UN? Not at all, it's a knee jerk reaction from mainly western countries.

There are some important aspects of these sanctions:

- Nobody is apparently questioning if the sanctions are legal, but I suppose that's a fitting reaction to an illegal war.
- No consideration seems to have been made about who will suffer the most from the sanctions. It's quite clear that people outside Russia will in many cases suffer just as much due to higher commodity prices etc.
- No consideration seems to have been made with regards to Russian reactions to the sanctions. Will they stop the war because of the sanctions? Probably not. Sanctions rarely work as intended, but the side effects can be serious.
- Many western businesses have survived two years of Covid by the skin of their teeth. Those companies that have business with Russia are now asked to carry yet another burden. Some will not survive this, and jobs will be lost. Is it fair that they pay the price for the Russian aggression?
- Many countries in Asia and Africa in particular are not playing along. Partly they see this as a European conflict and partly they can't afford the cost of sanctioning Russia, an important source for resources like oil and wheat. Many commentators in India also ask the timely question of why USA and NATO weren't more accommodating towards the Russians to prevent the war. They simply don't buy into the anti-Russian propaganda that has been dominant in the west the last two decades.
- Because many African and Asian countries don't swallow all the west's arguments (remember that many of those countries have been colonised, terrorised and dominated by western countries for decades, sometimes centuries), there's a chance that the sanctions will backfire in those countries, that they will sympathise with the Russians rather than what they see as imperialistic western countries.
- What will happen when the war ends? Will Russia be sanctioned forever, like USA is sanctioning Cuba for merely existing?

Peaceful trade is one of the bulwarks against war. Nations and people who depend on each other for their livelihood are less likely to start killing each other. This has been one of the founding thoughts behind the European Union, and it seems to have worked. By sanctioning trade with Russia, the chances of peace are reduced, not increased. Even after the fighting in Ukraine has halted, a new barrier has been erected between Europe and Russia. That is counterproductive to say the least, and it increases the danger of further conflict. The problem is larger for Europe than for Russia. Russia will turn east, towards China and India, making those countries more competitive with access to cheap Russian oil and agricultural produce. Europeans will mostly be left fending for themselves.
 

jdphoto

Well-known member
Oddly, Putin still has a twitter w/ 1.5 million followers. I thought the FB edict of encouraging violence was just a hack from some fringe groups, but FB really did encourage that. It's abhorrent and dangerous with similar tendencies towards asians when the pandemic started.
 
Last edited:

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
A few days ago, Saudi Arabia executed 81 prisoners. They called them terrorists. they have been waging a war against Yemen for 7 years, bombing civilian and military targets. Nearly 400,000 people have been killed. Scores are dying from hunger and malnutrition.

Yesterday in Riyadh:






In Yemen. Ever wondered why their graves are so short?


The war in Yemen is by far the biggest ongoing humanitarian crisis. Saudi Arabia has bombed civilians in the country for 7 years and there's a famine. When will there be scores of people taking to the street protesting and waving Yemeni flags? When will there be sanctions on the countries that support the war with weapons and logistics? Why isn't Boris Johnson's vist to Saudi Arabia front page news around the globe?
 

Duff photographer

Active member
Jorgen mentioned Julian Assange.

This is slightly off-topic as it doesn't deal with geopolitics and conflicts in themselves. However, it does deal with selective morality, verging on state narcissism, as well the inhumanity of Man (or at least some of them).

Many people are still unaware of the abuse of the justice system undertaken by certain governments (US, UK, and Sweden in particular), as well as the complicity of the justice system in the travesty surrounding the arrest and detention of Assange for his part in the release of the 'Iraq War Logs', 'Afghan War Diary', and other files, exposing war crimes, corruption, and other illegal activity.

A couple of years ago, I read a translation of an interview with the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer. It pretty much sums up the Julian Assange case and can be found here...


Other than the issues raised in the interview, the question one has to ask oneself is "how would the West react if Assange was arrested and detained by an 'unfriendly' state for exposing war crimes the 'unfriendly' state committed?".


Duff.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I have been quiet about this lately. The reason is this:
A few weeks ago, I spent a few days with a Ukrainian friend of mine. He told me why he, his brother and several other Ukrainian men started leaving the country after the coup in 2014. He talked about the cancellation of Russian language and culture (like with most Russian speaking Ukrainians, his family has veen living in the country for generations, and like most Russian speakers there, he's fluent in both languages), the danger of being forcedly enrolled to an ultra nationalist military unit to fight other Russian speaking Ukrainians, how the ultra nationalists have infiltrated most political parties (which is the reason why there is currently no ultra nationalist party in Ukraine) and so on.

I have found that when trying to convey his messages to others, I'm mostly accused of lying, being a Putin apologist, supporting the Russian invasion, or any combination of the three. Better to shut up and let others enjoy their war fantasies. My friend also told me that he doesn't see any future for himself in Ukraine if the current government and their backers remain in power. Moving to Russia is not an option, since as he says, he's a Ukrainian, not a Russian. He is just as much not a Russian as a Brazilian is not a Portuguese and a Swiss is not French or German.
 

alajuela

Member
:) First, that's not actually true, but it used to be in the Cold War. However, the Cold War ended a while back. Some examples of the "single standard" are given below. Presumably, the journalists who wrote the reports have not been imprisoned or sanctioned. There have been many dissenting views within Russia on the war in Ukraine. Many openly published on well-known Russian media sites, including the daddy of them all, RT. They rarely come out wih blatant lies like they used to during the Cold War. Nowadays that would be pretty obvious, so they tend to report what actually has happened, but have a tendency to leave out certain facts.

I have found Western media to be far more insidious, and occasionally far more capable of downright lies which it uses like a sledgehammer (if you're familiar with the UK, read the major right-wing media smear campaign against ex-Labour Jeremy Corbyn, and of course, on the international stage, Julian Assange. Extensive and vile!). In Russia, at the moment, access to western media on the internet has not been censored or blocked (social media, Twitter and Facebook, have been partially blocked, due to [genuine] misinformation, but that may also be down to these organisations refusing to take down anti-Russian material including sick advocations such as "kill all Russians" thereby flying against Twitter/Facebook's own rules on hate speech). In contrast, our access to Russian media has been heavily restricted. This is cancel culture on an international scale and a definite red flag to me. Anyone who denies anyone access to information is to be severely distrusted, no matter the quality of that information and who it is from.

One has to use a VPN and access non-EU countries to access any news from Russia. I did this a little while ago and was surprised that there is a lot of apparently balanced media reporting, a lot more than in the West (avoid the comments sections of course!). Indeed, many of the news stories from both sides are very similar, and I give one example from today below...

Here is the BBC reporting on the deaths of cameraman and journalist Pierre Zakrzewski and Oleksandra Kuvshinova near Kiev...


Here is the copy and paste transcript from Russia Today (irrelevant photo's removed)...

----
"
Cameraman shot alongside Fox News reporter in Ukraine dies
Pierre Zakrzewski died after being injured with Benjamin Hall near Kiev

Fox News cameraman Pierre Zakrzewski died on Tuesday, a day after the vehicle he was traveling in with correspondent Benjamin Hall was “struck by incoming fire” near the Ukrainian capital of Kiev a day earlier, Fox CEO Suzanne Scott said. Hall is reportedly in intensive care.
“It is with great sadness and a heavy heart that we share the news this morning regarding our beloved cameraman Pierre Zakrzewski,” read a statement from Scott to Fox employees. “Pierre was with Benjamin Hall yesterday newsgathering when their vehicle was struck by incoming fire.”
The incident happened in the village of Gorenka, on the northwestern outskirts of Kiev. The village is situated on the front line of conflict between Russian and Ukrainian forces, and it is unclear from which side the two reporters were hit.
A Fox News memo on Monday said that the network had “a minimal level of details” about the incident, and was attempting to find out more. According to Ukrainian Prosecutor General Irina Venediktova, who did not directly blame Russian forces for the incident, Hall was in intensive care as of Monday evening. Venediktova’s statement made no mention of Zakrzewski.
Zakrzewski was a veteran war photographer, and had been in Ukraine since February. He had previously worked in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, and, according to Scott, played a key role in helping Afghan freelance associates and their families leave the country during the chaotic US withdrawal last August.
His death comes two days after American filmmaker and former New York Times correspondent Brent Renaud was fatally shot in Irpen, on the outskirts of Kiev. The details of Renaud’s death are murky, with Ukrainian officials blaming Russian soldiers for the shooting, despite the fact that the incident took place in the vicinity of a road checkpoint manned by Ukrainian troops.
A companion of Renaud’s, Colombian-American photographer Juan Arredondo, was wounded in the shooting, and last spoke to the press from a hospital bed in Kiev on Sunday evening.
Russian troops have seized positions on multiple approaches to Kiev, and vicious fighting has been reported on the city’s outskirts in places like Irpen, Gorenka, and Brovary. Inside the capital, the Ukrainian government has handed out weapons to civilian militias in anticipation of urban combat."

----

Pretty similar. People were killed/injured. No-one really knows why and who did it. All aspects mentioned in both reports appear to be accurate according to all reliable sources that I've been able to find. The one difference is that RT does not report the death of Oleksandra Kuvshinova. This is one thing I've noticed about Russian media. If there's any propaganda, it tends to be leaving certain, sometimes obvious, truths out of reports.

It's the same for many other news stores, with the Russian media giving more detail than western media, even when it doesn't put Russia in a good light. Some have been as critical of Russia as the more pragmatic Western media have been (I exclude the sensationalist media outlets of which there are many, certainly in the UK and the USA, that support the total annihilation of Russia [and China] and its peoples). One of the better ones I can't find (from 2 weeks ago) who was very critical calling the invasion of Ukraine a stupid mistake, condemning the aggressive act, but also going on to criticise the West as well (if I can find it I'll post it up later). Of course, what's left out is sometimes not known.

I'm not an apologist for what's going on in Ukraine or Russia, far from it, but I'm also and equally not a gullible Westerner. It's been made clear by many Western media outlets that dissent in Russia is 100% not tolerated, so why is it that the following statements within news reports are allowed on news websites such as Russia Today (underlining is mine)..

"A new wave of anti-war protests has swept through Kazakhstan. The activists blame Russia for aggression in Ukraine and compare President Vladimir Putin to the former Nazi German dictator Adolf Hitler. Meanwhile, Ukraine has recalled its ambassador to Kyrgyzstan, because Kiev has decided that the country supports the Russian military operation in Ukraine. "

"Russia’s offensive in Ukraine has provoked serious backlash around the world, particularly in the Western world – an understandable reaction against a war of aggression in violation of international law. However, it’s also true that this outcome had been predicted by the world’s foremost foreign-policy experts for decades."

...and this op-ed from Russia Today. It's starts off as anti-US, but then also includes Russia's war of agression. He's right in both cases, and like many others who have done so independently, is pointing out the double standards using similar language. Is there a similarly balanced view on the BBC, or your major Western news site? Would he have been allowed to do this in the mainstream media of the West? Having said that, I've avoided the news for the last week or so, so I'm happy to be proven wrong. Here's his piece in full (irrelevant images removed), and he's angry, but so am I and many others. You could read between the lines, and read propaganda into it. You could also see what he hasn't written if you wanted to (although you can do this with any article published anywhere in the world), but what he has actually written is on record as being true...

-----
"The US and NATO have never been sanctioned for starting wars. Why?
The reaction to Russia’s attack on Ukraine, no matter what you think about it, has exposed the West’s double standards

Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist. He is the author of 'Midnight in the American Empire,' How Corporations and Their Political Servants are Destroying the American Dream. @Robert_Bridge

The West has taken an extreme stance against Russia over its invasion in Ukraine. This reaction exposes a high degree of hypocrisy considering that US-led wars abroad never received the punitive response they deserved.
If the current events in Ukraine have proven anything, it’s that the United States and its transatlantic partners are able to run roughshod across a shell-shocked planet – in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, to name a few of the hotspots – with almost total impunity. Meanwhile, Russia and Vladimir Putin are being portrayed in nearly every mainstream media publication today as the second coming of Nazi Germany for their actions in Ukraine.
First, let’s be clear about something. Hypocrisy and double standards alone do not provide justification for the opening of hostilities by any country. In other words, just because NATO-bloc countries have been tearing a path of wanton destruction around the globe since 2001 without serious consequences, this does not give Russia, or any country, moral license to behave in a similar manner. There must be a convincing reason for a country to authorize the use of force, thereby committing itself to what could be considered ‘a just war’. Thus, the question: Can Russia’s actions today be considered ‘just’ or, at the very least, understandable? I will leave that answer up to the reader’s better judgment, but it would be idle not to consider some important details.
Only to the consumers of mainstream media fast food would it come as a surprise that Moscow has been warning on NATO expansion for well over a decade. In his now-famous speech to the Munich Security Conference in 2007, Vladimir Putin poignantly asked the assembled global powerbrokers point blank, “why is it necessary to put military infrastructure on our borders during this [NATO] expansion? Can someone answer this question?” Later in the speech, he said that expanding military assets smack up to the Russian border “is not connected in any way with the democratic choices of individual states.”
Not only were the Russian leader’s concerns met with the predictable amount of disregard amid the deafening sound of crickets, NATO has gone on to bestow membership on four more countries since that day (Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, and North Macedonia). As a thought experiment that even a dolt could conduct, imagine Washington’s reaction if Moscow were building a continuously expanding military bloc in South America, for example.
The real cause for Moscow’s alarm, however, came when the US and NATO began flooding neighboring Ukraine with a dazzling array of sophisticated weaponry amid calls for membership in the military bloc. What on earth could go wrong? In Moscow’s mind, Ukraine was beginning to pose an existential threat to Russia.
In December, Moscow, quickly nearing the end of its patience, delivered draft treaties to the US and NATO, demanding they halt any further military expansion eastwards, including by the accession of Ukraine or any other states. It included the explicit statement that NATO “shall not conduct any military activity on the territory of Ukraine or other states of Eastern Europe, South Caucasus and Central Asia.” Once again, Russia’s proposals were met with arrogance and indifference by Western leaders.

While people will have varying opinions as to the shocking actions that Moscow took next, nobody can say they were not warned. After all, it’s not like Russia woke up on February 24 and suddenly decided it was a wonderful day to start a military operation on the territory of Ukraine. So yes, an argument could be made that Russia had concern for its own security as a justification for its actions. Unfortunately, the same thing may be more difficult to say for the United States and its NATO minions with regards to their belligerent behavior over the course of the last two decades.
Consider the most notorious example, the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This disastrous war, which the Western media hacks have chalked up as an unfortunate ‘intelligence failure’, represents one of the most egregious acts of unprovoked aggression in recent memory. Without delving too deep into the murky details, the United States, having just suffered the attacks of 9/11, accused Saddam Hussein of Iraq of harboring weapons of mass destruction. Yet, instead of working in close cooperation with the UN weapons inspectors, who were on the ground in Iraq attempting to verify the claims, the US, together with the UK, Australia, and Poland, launched a ‘shock-and-awe’ bombing campaign against Iraq on March 19, 2003. In a flash, over a million innocent Iraqis suffered death, injury, or displacement by this flagrant violation of international law.
The Center for Public Integrity reported that the Bush administration, in its effort to bolster public support for the impending carnage, made over 900 false statements between 2001 and 2003 about Iraq’s alleged threat to the US and its allies. Yet somehow the Western media, which has become the most rabid proliferator for military aggression bar none, failed to find any flaw in the argument for war – that is, until after the boots and blood were on the ground, of course.
It might be expected, in a more perfect world, that the US and its allies were subjected to some stiff sanctions in the wake of this protracted eight-year ‘mistake’ against innocents. In fact, there were sanctions, just not against the United States. Ironically, the only sanctions that resulted from this crazy military adventure were against France, a NATO member that had declined the invitation, together with Germany, to participate in the Iraqi bloodbath. The global hyper-power is not used to such rejection, especially from its purported friends.
American politicians, self-assured in their Godlike exceptionalism, demanded a boycott of French wine and bottled water due to the French government’s “ungrateful” opposition to war in Iraq. Other agitators for war betrayed their lack of seriousness by insisting that the popular menu item known as ‘French Fries’ be substituted with the name ‘Freedom Fries’ instead. So the lack of French Bordeaux, together with the tedious redrafting of restaurant menus, seems to have been the only real inconveniences the US and NATO suffered for indiscriminately destroying millions of lives.
Now compare this kid gloves approach to the US and its allies to the current situation involving Ukraine, where the scales of justice are clearly weighed down against Russia, and despite its not unreasonable warnings that it was feeling threatened by NATO advances. Whatever a person may think about the conflict now raging between Russia and Ukraine, it cannot be denied that the hypocrisy and double standards being leveled against Russia by its perennial detractors is as shocking as it is predictable. The difference today, however, is that bombs are going off.
Aside from the severe sanctioning of Russian individuals and the Russian economy, perhaps best summed up by the French economy minister, who said his country is committed to waging “a total economic and financial war on Russia,” there has been a deeply disturbing effort to silence news and information coming from those Russian sources that might give the Western public the option of seeing Moscow's motivations. On Tuesday, March 1, YouTube decided to block the channels of RT and Sputnik for all European users, thereby allowing the Western world to seize another chunk of the global narrative.

Considering the way that Russia has been vilified in the ‘empire of lies’, as Vladimir Putin dubbed the land of his politically motivated persecutors, some may believe that Russia deserves the non-stop threats it is now receiving. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. This sort of global grandstanding, which resembles some sort of mindless virtue-signaling campaign now so popular in liberal capitals, aside from unnecessarily inflaming an already volatile situation, assumes that Russia is totally wrong, period.
Such a reckless approach, which leaves no room for debate, no room for discussion, no room for seeing Russia’s side in this extremely complex situation, only guarantees further standoffs, if not full-blown global war, further down the road. Unless the West is actively seeking the outbreak of World War III, it would be advisable to stop the hideous hypocrisy and double standards against Russia and patiently listen to its opinions and version of events (even ones presented by foreign media). It’s not as unbelievable as some people may wish to believe."

-----

...and this, again from Russia Today, surely, the reporting of such protests would be banned, and is there any imbalance to the report compared with Western reports? As I've written above, despite western media reports to the contrary, the Russian media are reporting on these things, but the same proviso of "what is being left out?" applies...

-----
"Hundreds detained at anti-war protest in Moscow – police
Law enforcement cordoned off a square not far from the Kremlin, ahead of demonstration against Russia's actions in Ukraine
Hundreds detained at anti-war protest in Moscow – police

FILE PHOTO: A protester is detained at the Manezhnaya Square in Moscow, Russia, on March 6, 2022. © Sputnik / Evgeny Odinokov
The Russian capital has seen an anti-war protest for the second weekend in a row amid the ongoing attack on Ukraine. The Sunday demonstration had not been agreed with authorities and ended up in numerous detentions.
According to Moscow police, as cited by RIA and Interfax news agencies, around 300 protesters have been held. The law enforcement has cited "various violations of public order" as the reason for the arrests, without elaborating. Authorities also did not announce the total number of those taking part in the rally.
Authorities had taken "all the necessary measures" to "prevent" the rally, which hadn't been agreed with the city authorities as required by Russian law, police have pointed out. There were no reports about any incidents during the protest.


Some media have reported that large police units have been deployed to Manezhnaya Square, just outside the Kremlin, and that the square itself had been mostly cordoned off before the protest.
Moscow wasn't the only Russian city to see protests on Sunday. In St. Petersburg, around 150 people have been detained following a similar rally in the city center, according to local media. The demonstration there was attended by a much smaller number than the previous weekend, according to journalists.


Russia has seen sporadic anti-war protests springing up since the start of Moscow's military offensive in Ukraine, which was launched on February 24. A series of particularly large demonstrations calling for an end to the military action were held in several Russian cities, including Moscow and St Petersburg, on March 6. On that occasion, the rallies, which had not been coordinated with authorities, ended up in thousands of arrests.
In early March, Russian lawmakers passed legislation criminalizing the "defamation" of the Russian army and the spreading of "fake" information about Russian troops or calling for anti-Russia sanctions. Some opposition figures then accused the authorities of attempting to silence dissent. Moscow justified the law by pointing to an "information war" being waged by the US and its allies against Russia over its actions in Ukraine.



Moscow attacked its neighbor in late February, following a seven-year standoff over Ukraine's failure to implement the terms of the Minsk agreements, and Russia's eventual recognition of the Donbass republics in Donetsk and Lugansk. The German- and French-brokered Minsk protocols had been designed to regularize the status of those regions within the Ukrainian state.

READ MORE: Thousands detained at anti-war protests across Russia

Russia has now demanded that Ukraine officially declare itself a neutral country that will never join the US-led NATO military bloc. Kiev insists the Russian offensive was completely unprovoked and has denied claims it was planning to retake the two republics by force.

----

I should point out that the UK, while it is technically legal to protest, that legality can be overturned if it "is in the interest of national security or public safety, to prevent disorder or crime, to protect health or morals, to protect others’ rights and freedoms." The current government wants to go one step further by seeking to outlaw all protests that do not have government permission. This is the case currently in Russia where intent to protest requires permission, and is usually granted with the same proviso's as currently enacted in the UK as far as I've seen. Of course, there should be a legal right to protest in either country, permission or no permission, but one is regarded as a pariah state because of it while the other one isn't :unsure:

There are many such stories, but there is not enough room here to copy and paste them all, but the above will do as examples. Yes, there are some very biased stories, but they're pretty obvious to anyone of reasonable intelligence. We have similar very biased stories here in the West. Suffice to say, that whilst not wonderful, the news reporting has not been biased in the way that the West portrays. Indeed, it seems in many cases where statements and actions can be confirmed, it is much more balanced. Yes, it gives the Russian point of view more than would the West (because Russia media in Russia reporting to Russian people), but that is to be expected, and it leaves certain facts out on occasions, but it's no worse than what the Western media get up to. ...and I'm certainly not blind to any propaganda, blatant or subtle, and can see it pretty quickly when one starts comparing the same news item with other sources.

I reiterate, the general concensus is that if you want to get a reasonably balanced view on a news item, one accesses as many news sites as possible to find a common denominator to filter out any propaganda. I find it deeply disturbing and worrying that we are not allowed to find that out for ourselves, cast aside the propaganda from all sides, and get some semblance of truth. It's as if we ourselves are living in an authoritarian state.bomb

The West is in full-on propaganda mode (and has been for many years with regard to Ukraine), just as it was leading up to and during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. We all know how that turned out. Once (okay, several times) bitten, twice shy?


Cheers,
Duff.
This is cool - RIGHT now we have people being bombed maimed, killed, looted and atrocities preformed by an invading army. The reason for the invasion was that the invaders did not want the country to determine its own destiny. I am not interested in watching a pod caste or reading a sophist dissertation, that it is not the invaders fault. I am not interested in comparing standards of living between the two. I am not interested in comparing the history - which country is older, which is have been subjected to injustice by the other. Talk all you want about what a great humanitarian you are and try as you may to justify what the Government of Russia is doing while people are being bombed maimed, killed looted and atrocities preformed by an invading army. If you think that makes you smart and smug, - have a good nights sleep, - hope you wake up.
 

Duff photographer

Active member
This is cool - RIGHT now we have people being bombed maimed, killed, looted and atrocities preformed by an invading army. The reason for the invasion was that the invaders did not want the country to determine its own destiny. I am not interested in watching a pod caste or reading a sophist dissertation, that it is not the invaders fault. I am not interested in comparing standards of living between the two. I am not interested in comparing the history - which country is older, which is have been subjected to injustice by the other. Talk all you want about what a great humanitarian you are and try as you may to justify what the Government of Russia is doing while people are being bombed maimed, killed looted and atrocities preformed by an invading army. If you think that makes you smart and smug, - have a good nights sleep, - hope you wake up.
Thank you for you discourteous and hateful reply.

Yours is the usual response I get when I point out some unpleasant facts. Instead of engaging with what is actually being said I recieve vitriol on matters that don't actually pertain to the point being made, that being double standards and hypocrisy. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is to be utterly condemned, but why isn't the war of aggression by Saudi Arabia on Yemen equally condemned with similar reporting and similar economic/political sanctions? Why isn't there a thread on "Soliarity with Yemen"? WHY?

If you think I feel smart and smug, then you really have absolutely no idea do you, or you are letting your bigotry dictate your thoughts and words. The feeling I get when I see conflicts, whether Russia on Ukraine or Saudi Arabia on Yemen, is a completely hollow, empty and powerless feeling. So grow up and stop projecting! No-one has the right to extol violence on someone else. You, me or anyone. NO-ONE!

Anyway, I'm not going to reply any more on here as there has been a death in the family, so all this, thread, website, internet, is quite pointless, futile, and irrelevant, including you and your anger.

I hope you wake up too.


Duff.
 

alajuela

Member
You insulting and self righteous response is what I would expect from a naïve sophist person with "no skin in the game". Perfect example of "what aboutism" I actually take your insults as compliments. Your "Buts and abouts" deflect meaningful reason. Sorry about the death in your family and the deaths in Ukraine and elsewhere.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Is there any reason to continue this discussion? This is akin to arguing about religion - the doubters will doubt and the believers will believe.
I would prefer it to be closed, which may sound strange, since I'm one of the contributors to this thread (and I can't seem to keep my fingers off the keyboard when I see these things popping up). There are however other fora that are more suitable for this. I prefer Getdpi to be my photography hangout.
 

Thorkil

Well-known member
I am ashamed that all those who seek justice in the Ukraine war do not want accordingly full justice for the killers in the Iraq war and in the Yemen war.

Homicide does not become obsolete when it comes to punishing the killers.

Therefore, we should now punish the United States and Saudi Arabia accordingly. But we do not.

So the conclusion must be: punishment should only be treated from an old hatred of former communist countries.

Punishment should not be dealt with when it is a "friend" and an allied who commits the murder - then mass murder is totally for free.

Punishment should not be treated when we want oil from the killers.

Such is the law now in the West.

What an embarrassing shame.

Here, too, I will not spend time arguing with people who look at the world through this kind of keyhole.

Let’s then all gather in the west and conclude in a holy chorus:

“Killing is now allowed and for free as long as it is not done by Russia.

Amen.”
 

alajuela

Member
I am ashamed that all those who seek justice in the Ukraine war do not want accordingly full justice for the killers in the Iraq war and in the Yemen war.

Homicide does not become obsolete when it comes to punishing the killers.

Therefore, we should now punish the United States and Saudi Arabia accordingly. But we do not.

So the conclusion must be: punishment should only be treated from an old hatred of former communist countries.

Punishment should not be dealt with when it is a "friend" and an allied who commits the murder - then mass murder is totally for free.

Punishment should not be treated when we want oil from the killers.

Such is the law now in the West.

What an embarrassing shame.

Here, too, I will not spend time arguing with people who look at the world through this kind of keyhole.

Let’s then all gather in the west and conclude in a holy chorus:

“Killing is now allowed and for free as long as it is not done by Russia.

Amen.”
The embarrassment is your opinions, and conclusions. When Ukraine invades it neighbor and shells cities, on a specials military operation rid the a country of Nazis. Then it fits your reality.

You want to believe this- then go ahead. It must be obvious you have something for Putin and or against Ukraine since I don't remember seeing any posts from you about the United States or Saudi Arabia until now.

You like Ukraine or not -that a different issue, but they have tasted life without the yoke of the USSR or Putin and will not go back to the miserable dead ending life that system promises. Hopefully the Russian people will also.
 

pegelli

Well-known member
@ alajuela, it's not a matter of "liking" Putin or the USSR/Russia, no matter how much you try to accuse people of that it's not what I read in any of the reactions in this thread. What they do in Ukraine (and did to other countries) is unforgivable and the amount of war crimes Russia under Putin's leadership committed is immense.

However I think what some people here are saying is that Putin and Russia are not the only villain state and ask the question why do we amplify the crimes of "the other side" and turn a blind eye to the ones of "our own side". I think that's a valid question which has a much more subtle answer than "we are the good guys" and Russia are the "bad guys" and discussing that question doesn't in any way diminish any of the war crimes that are currently being committed in Ukraine.
 
Last edited:

alajuela

Member
Again - This is not a soccer match where you root for one team or another. The is a life and death struggle going on right now by a one country invading another under the pretense of de- Nazification. One would think they could come up with a more original excuse instead or recycling a WWII campaign, their last moment of glory in the great Patriotic War. ALL countries in Europe and North and South America have Nazis - Russia included. I don't see the Netherlands invading Hungary.
I agree with you up until the second paragraph. These (some) people either have a hard time staying on subject or are deflecting for ulterior motives. You can like Ukraine, (or Georgia, Chechnya, Syria, or Crimea) or not. But what people are saying is the Ukraine brought this on them selves, That Putin is justified in invading, and of course crimes will be committed in any invasion. that cities will be leveled. That most are propaganda, Yes truth is the first casualty of war, but truth today, with communications what they are is much harder to hide. There is black and white when it comes to life, the being alive and being dead. Putin wants to subjugate Ukraine, eradicate their culture, control their foreign affairs much as Czarist Russia did. How do we know? Putin has questioned their right to exist.

Putin is wrong - full stop. Now Finland and possibly Sweden joining NATO. The Baltic States reinforcing their defenses. Possible unrest in the aforementioned Countries, encouraged by the success Ukrainians have had against the powerful Russian Military, to say nothing of unstable Belarus. Let Putin fix his own Country so the Russian people can have a fairer more meaningful and confrontable life. What he is doing in Ukraine is wrong. The Ukrainian people have tasted life free of Russian control and will not voluntarily submit to returning. That is why they are fighting and dying.

What-aboutism might have its place in a scholastic augment or op-ed page as click bait, but not in a situation when one country invades another to restore an Empire that is blessed by the National Church.
 
Last edited:
Top