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

Don't worry @Hawkins001 the moment anyone has an alternative opinion, they are accused of being a Russian/a troll/an Putin apologist.

btw i very much disagree with you, because no matter the provocation (if there is any) there is no excuse to use military action, especially such that destroys and kills so indiscriminately.

Russia is a permanent member of the UN's security council, it should not be using its military in such a way... what the US may or may not have done in the past is zero excuse.

From the seems of the various news papers it does look like Russia is the pickle here, but it seems odd that given Russia being apart of the UN security council, would suddenly one day say let's invade Ukraine, and as seen with the cold war and the proxy battles with East vs West etc, it wondered if their had been some similar strategy to lure Russia to invade,

Yes based on the media narrative, it does seem like putin just thought I'll lead Russia and would invade Ukraine to retake Ukraine under Russian control.

But then as military operations from history show, that what is in the newspapers at x time period does not always show the full context for how wars or battles unfold.

Well I'm not from outa space,

Just because some operations are officially classed as x intelligence service, does not mean that their was more to the operations.

Not saying any of those events you listed are False flags, but until the intelligence services released the files of all information pertaining to those events, then there would always be some margin of speculation.

False flags: What are they and when have they been
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-60434579

Besides I thought society had moved passed using someone's grammar or spelling ability, as a means to try to discredit what they are trying to discuss ?

All mainstream media is propaganda of some sort 🤷‍♀️

This, with bells on.

While it is true that western media is sometimes suspect, to imply that Russian news and viewpoints should be trusted more is absolutely laughable. The Economist has an interesting article out today as it happens. Note that the first paragraph is about the power currently killing journalists and censoring what little remains. www.economist.com/interactive/briefing/2022/05/03/press-freedom

While money is a corrupting and degenerative influence in the West, we are still allowed to discuss that. Russians, famously at the moment, are not.

Yes @ParsleyRosemarySage, cracks me up. "You sheeple shouldn't listen to the MSM!! Oh look, RussiaToday has just posted some FACTS"

Not saying any of those events you listed are False flags, but until the intelligence services released the files of all information pertaining to those events, then there would always be some margin of speculation.

None of the actual or attempted murders were false flags. Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election was not a false flag.

One thing that was very possibly a false flag was the sequence of apartment block bombings in Russia in 1999 that killed hundreds of Russians, was blamed on the Chechens (but was the only terrorist action I'm aware of that they denied), and which played a significant role in the re-starting of the Chechen war and Putin's landslide first election victory. That's widely thought to have been the work of the FSB.

No idea whether you're Russian or not @Hawkins001 , and really don't care, but your wide-eyed "just asking some innocent questions" line is strikingly similar to the approach of RT and other Russian disinformation sources.

It’s clearly an opinion piece.

Perhaps you forgot to read the first paragraph.

At Oxford, it was the who, what, why, when, and how approach when learning about various topics and subjects that was taught to help when researching.

And so of course cannot possibly be propaganda! Because propaganda is clearly labelled as such.

The one where the author starts with a bit of negativity towards Russia in order for us to realise how reasonable he is being later when he says Ukraine should roll over?

Yes, that cannot possibly be propaganda!

At Oxford, it was the who, what, why, when, and how approach when learning about various topics and subjects that was taught to help when researching.

Are you trying to imply you have a degree from Oxford University? Just come out and say it if you have, that's what actual Oxford graduates do 😂Doubt it will impress anyone, but you can give it a crack.

Not that it's relevant - but that "just asking questions, nudge nudge wink wink" approach really isn't how academic debate or research is conducted at Oxford or anywhere else. Anyone who tries it (mediocre undergrads IME) normally gets told to put up or shut up pretty fast.

In the tutorial system you have to have to defend your perspectives and analysis rather than just think therefore it is, I would never brag about an Oxford degree, because at the end of the day, it would not make me any better, we all have different perspectives, different knowledge, different education, etc,

You're right in the sense that if you had been someone with a degree from Oxford it certainly wouldn't be an indicator of superior intelligence - after all, Jacob Rees Mogg and Louise Mensch both have Oxford degrees - but it would have given you a pretty rigorous training in evidence-based argumentation. It's the complete opposite of the "hey, maybe the Ukrainians started the war themselves, who knows, just asking questions" Russia Today style.

Because it's nice for a change to wonder more and be more flowing with the thinking aspects, rather than bolting all the view points with hard evidence to back up each point,

Besides unless your in the know on various intelligence aspects of various operations and missions etc, you can only guess possible strategies based on similar operations carried out in previous wars, and trying to sell that idea to an Oxford tutor would Certainly be untenable.

Because it's nice for a change to wonder more and be more flowing with the thinking aspects, rather than bolting all the view points with hard evidence to back up each point

English as she is spoke

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

But he isn't just saying that, he he also saying an alternative would be for NATO to intervene.
The fact remains, however unpalatable, is that Russia has the means to keep this war going for as long as it likes, even if Russia was pushed out of Ukraine, they can still fire cruise missiles from '000s of km's away, launch insurgent attacks and support separatist armies.

Russia has so much of the worlds raw materials and if its not the 'west, plenty of other countries will trade with Russia, that gives them the ability to rearm and there is nothing we can do about that.

As far as i could see (having re read the article) this is basically what he is saying....what do we then do?

Mark Twain said of English as She Is Spoke that "Nobody can add to the absurdity of this book, nobody can imitate it successfully, nobody can hope to produce its fellow; it is perfect."

The word 'fact' is taking some abuse here.

Nobody has yet been able to explain to us how exactly the Russians are going to rearm. Yes, they've got lots of raw materials, some of which are difficult to access and require Western tech (not Chinese) to access. They're going to need more than that. How is this going to be accomplished in the face of the sanctions? Remember they'll need to do more than simply acquire a few weapons here and there.

There's also the issue Russia face with soldiers and the army culture generally. They do have a bigger population than Ukraine, it's true. They also have to contend with already massive losses and they're currently losing a general about once a week. That sort of expertise is not quickly replaced. Conscription was already something that Russians with options sought to evade, in no small part because of the horrific hazing systems. The prospect of dying in Ukraine is not going to make that any better. And they have a fossilised, Soviet era military culture plus a massive theft problem in the army. Morale is low, which is all bound up with the failure to look after their equipment and do things like routine tank tyre maintenance. Again we're talking about a significant military culture change that would be necessary. Where's this coming from?

Actual defence experts, people whose understanding of the Russian military goes well beyond Roxburgh's, have provided very detailed analysis on Russia's problems here. I linked to some upthread. It's not as simple as got lots of people and lots of resources so no problem.

On the separatist armies point, those look like rather less of a threat than they did before the invasion. Because the Russian invaders have treated Russian speakers and ethnic Russians badly too. There are Ukrainian politicians who were previously pro Russian who are now, well, not so much. So these armies would have to actually exist before they could be armed, which becomes less likely when you've been stupid and venal enough to commit a shitload of war crimes.

Basically, if people want to argue that it's inevitable that Russia will be able to keep an actual war going to the extent that the West's current tactics are doomed to fail, they're going to need to do a better job at explaining how. Roxburgh didn't, and neither has anyone in this thread who agrees with him.

What a great explanation @HardyBuckette. A lot of people still seem to be in total awe of supposed Russian military might, when the last few months have shown that to be a mirage.