Guardian is publishing Russian Propaganda

[Swayingpalmtrees]

AIBU to be very disappointed that the Guardian has resorted to publishing Russian propaganda. It was shocking to read, largely inaccurate and wholly from the Russian perspective. I am all for listening to all sides, but there was no effort to understand how Ukraine feels, Ukraine's objective is clearly to win the war and reclaim their nation, and blaming the western leaders for arming Ukraine and the bloodshed caused by the Russians is somewhat misleading, Ukraine have every right to defend themselves.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/27/ukraine-war-end-putin-russia-talks

YABVU. That was an opinion piece and the author has a background probably unrivalled in the UK in terms of understanding Russia. Just dismissing the article as propaganda is silly.

It's a piece that sets out someone's opinion. People are surely allowed to have opinions that differ from yours and the papers have the right to publish them?

I really can't see what you are talking about. But I do think he had a very valid point. Arming Ukraine will not win the war. The only 'peaceful' way out is peace talks, and Putin won't be bullied or cowed. He's an angry, volatile man with a lot to lose if he loses so he will use everything he has to win.

The only way to beat him at war without prolonged and devastating blood shed and destruction is through unity. NATO need to either turn up to fight or they need to negotiate.

If the west is serious about him needing to lose, then they need to bring their firepower and their armies, and make that happen. But it will be bloody, and many more lives will be lost over and above those who have already sacrificed.

I agree with @daimbarsatemydogsbone: you might not agree with the article, but it's hardly Russian propaganda (not least because you wouldn't be able to repeat most of it in Russia currently without risking 15 years in jail).

The Guardian and the Observer have always been home to fellow travellers and useful idiots. Plus ca change.

Just read the article and didn’t think it was propaganda at all. I thought it was really insightful and the writer makes some really good points

Seems quite balanced and not at all propagandary to me. States clearly that the war is wrong and unjust but then takes a realistic view of what stops wars. Utter destruction and one side ‘winning’ (at a huge humanitarian cost) or peace talks and a treaty. Depressing, but sadly true. Short of Putin dropping dead I can’t see another way forward.

In a democracy, all opinions must be welcome; even the ones that offend you.

It's clearly an opinion piece by someone who has a lot of knowledge on the subject.

'Angus Roxburgh is a former BBC Moscow correspondent and consultant to the Kremlin. He is the author of The Strongman: Vladimir Putin and the Struggle for Russia and Moscow Calling: Memoirs of a Foreign Correspondent.'

And he's right. Either the west gets involved in a military sense, very unlikely, or there has to be negotiation. The third option is to just sit back and watch Ukraine get gradually decimated over months and years while sending them thoughts and prayers and putting Ukrainian flags in our window. There is no easy way out or an easy solution.

The writer of that article was Angus Roxburgh who was a PR advisor to Putin. Of course he's advising to accept Putin's peace terms! 😂😂

95% of war realted news in times of war is propaganda. It's fascinating to realise that most people don't realise that.

In this case you ABVU indeed, it is an opinion piece in a paper that has had some very good coverage of events in Ukraine and certainly hasn't taken a pro-Russian position. Also having read that article I am having a hard time seeing how you read it as pro-Russian anyway.

If you go to countries outside of Europe you will see the war being reported differently, in so far as there is some interesting analysis of why Putin felt this was the right course of action to take to protect Russia's interest, I'm not suggesting that is cast Iron truth either (what is after all) but it is a better explanation than the line of "he's gorn mad" that most of our press seems content with.

@LemonDrizzleSlice it was an opinion piece, very different from the nazi propaganda in the 30s spouted by the mail under lord Rothermere.

It's an opinion piece - there is a huge difference between that and propaganda.

That article is complete bollocks and coming from a very unrealistic position of a naïve perspective. So basically the author is saying its easier and less destructive to just bend over and say to Putin okay if you have a cease fire, we will grit our teeth and discuss the possibility of Russia taking any thing they want as long as the oppressed guaranteed to stop defending it.

May be people would rather fight to the end to keep their freedom with nothing, rather than live their entire life under a dictatorship just so they can have a house over their head.

So what happens after that, why should Putin stop there? Do you just give him where ever and what ever he likes in case he threatens to destroy it other wise.

It's not even close to being pro-Russian propaganda! Have you actually even read it?

At no point does it praise Russia or suggest that Ukraine shouldn't be an independent nation. The whole point of the article is that Putin is a monster who needs to be stopped from razing Ukraine to the ground and driving its people from their homeland, and that some form of compromise and negotiation might be the safest way to save Ukraine in some form or another.

I'm not saying I agree with everything in the article - I don't. But it's a perfectly valid point of view and certainly not 'Russian propaganda' in any shape or form.

Exactly. More of a fellow traveller than a useful idiot, I suspect.

I mean, why on earth didn't we negotiate with Hitler to stop him being so beastly? All we had to do was give him a "win" when he invaded Poland, and then he would have settled down and never been beastly again!

It's an opinion piece. People are still entitled to have those, for now.

Everything is escalating and unless some diplomatic solution is found soon things could get completely out of hand. Pouring more weapons in to a conflict zone is not going to have a peaceful outcome. If you think this is the correct strategy are you willing to bet your children’s lives on it ? If this ends up nuclear that’s what you’re doing.

@LemonDrizzleSlice we fought hitler though. We aren't fighting Putin here, just watching the Ukrainians do it....

Helping the Ukrainians do it. We've been helping them since Russia invaded Crimea. And more help is coming.

So it's more like Hitler's annexation of Sudetenland, in that sense. Except this time we are doing the right thing.

@LemonDrizzleSlice we will her to agree to disagree on our interpretation of 'helping' I think.

Well, the opening paragraph would get you 15 years in jail in Russia, but otherwise it's certainly pushing a line that strongly favours the Kremlin. He's hardly he only one, though - there are a number of western commentators with varying degrees of historical closeness to the Russian government who are taking this approach.

He's badly wrong on several counts. Russia is absolutely failing in Ukraine, judged against any of its aims and looking at the performance of the Russian armed forces. Operationally and strategically, it's been a self-inflicted military disaster on a scale I haven't seen before in my adult lifetime. They've absolutely fucked themselves. The only way that's going to change is if Western states stop arming NATO.

It also never seems to occur to these people that it's not our fucking call. If Ukraine wants to carry on fighting for their survival, that's up to them. If states decide it's not in their self-interest to support that, that's their choice (though I'd say they were wrong) but it's grossly paternalistic to suggest that Ukraine doesn't know what's best for itself and so the grown-ups in the West need to decide for them.

Of course, not surprising that Seamus Milne's old paper is publishing this kind of take in the opinion section (his old fiefdom). Milne, who chaired a discussion panel with Putin at the Russian government's Valdai Conference in 2014 - the year Russia illegally occupied Crimea and started a proxy war in the Donbas - and who was responsible for Corbyn's Kremlin-tastic line on the Skripal poisonings, is/was very close to Kath Viner and seems to have been one of the main forces behind her becoming editor. The actual foreign correspondents at the Guardian are excellent, but the non-specialist foreign affairs commentators are generally over-confident and under-informed.

Not initially though. Europe let Germany annex Austria which was breaking the Versailles treaty. Then they actually gave Hitler Sudetenland to appease him, thinking it would avert war because Hitler said that's all he wanted and he would stop then. But of course, he didn't. He interpreted the rest of Europe negotiating peace and not standing up to him as a sign he could do what he liked.
Putin has done exactly the same thing. We stood back when he attacked Georgia and annexed the Crimea. He was emboldened by it. Like Hitler it made him look strong at home.
At what point do we stop him. When he's sat on the Isle of Wight? I'm not supporting us going to war. The world is trying to not let it escalate. Roxburgh wants a ceasefire and peace talks. There have alteasy been ceasefires that Russia just ignored and bombed fleeing people. They've been in prace talks since day one. Putin is as unreliable as Hitler was. Remember his treaty with Stalin promising nor to invade Russia which he broke 2 years later? I wouldn't trust Putin not to do the same.
I disagree that people can't write opinion pieces in newspapers but I do think that in important matters such as this, there should be an accompanying piece giving the alternative pov.

Maybe you are not aware of what the UK and its forces have been doing in Ukraine over the last 8 years? And why Ukraine praises us, and the US, over all other countries?