Searching for true News about the Russo-Ukraine conflict

[Tom 1]

Some of our News does provide some useful analysis occasionally. I guess I was being too hard. Some of the newspaper columnists are more informative and give more context than some of the TV News coverage however.

Many predicted Nato expansion would lead to war. Those warnings were ignored | Ted Galen Carpenter | The Guardian

Overall it’s pretty balanced. There’s a bit of jingoism in some reporting but that doesn’t need to get in the way of the info. There was a similar piece to the one you’ve linked in the Economist a couple of months back.
I think in the West there has been a general assumption that Russia would gradually reform and eventually become a modern, well-functioning trading partner. The possibility of Russia joining NATO has been tabled a few times, but Putin balked at the perceived indignity of having to deal with the corruption of his own government in order to be accepted. I’m sure Putin genuinely believes he is acting in Russia’s best interests, but he is hopelessly stuck in another era. The sad irony is that his outdated notions will likely cripple his own state for years to come, as well as causing untold misery in Ukraine.

 

[dms1972]

As regards gestures of good will or good faith, Russian leaders did respond to early drafts in the first few weeks from Ukraine aimed at finding an agreement and withdrew about 2 thirds of their forces that were near Kyiv. Hungarian leader telling Putin over the phone to call an immediate ceasefire, and offering possibility of Hungary hosting peace talks was also said to have been received positively by Putin. None of this has yet resulted in an ceasefire however. And it is hard to know what is happening exactly at this moment, or what future proposals might be put forward.

 

[dms1972]

Overall it’s pretty balanced. There’s a bit of jingoism in some reporting but that doesn’t need to get in the way of the info. There was a similar piece to the one you’ve linked in the Economist a couple of months back.
I think in the West there has been a general assumption that Russia would gradually reform and eventually become a modern, well-functioning trading partner. The possibility of Russia joining NATO has been tabled a few times, but Putin balked at the perceived indignity of having to deal with the corruption of his own government in order to be accepted. I’m sure Putin genuinely believes he is acting in Russia’s best interests, but he is hopelessly stuck in another era. The sad irony is that his outdated notions will likely cripple his own state for years to come, as well as causing untold misery in Ukraine.

And what era is NATO from? You are aware the Warsaw Pact was dissolved?

 

[Tom 1]

As regards gestures of good will, Russian leaders did respond to early drafts in the first few weeks from Ukraine aimed at finding an agreement and withdrew about 2 thirds of their forces that were near Kyiv. Hungarian leader telling Putin over the phone to call an immediate ceasefire, and offering possibility of Hungary hosting peace talks was also said to have been received positively by Putin. None of this has yet resulted in an ceasefire however. And it is hard to know what is happening exactly at this moment, or what future proposals might be put forward.

What leads you to think that Russia’s retreat from Kyiv, after repeated failed attempts to take the city, was the result of some agreement?

 

[Tom 1]

And what era is NATO from? You are aware the Warsaw Pact was dissolved?

NATO exists now. What’s your point here? That NATO’s only function was to be a counterpoint to the Warsaw Pact? If that’s it then no, that isn’t the reason that NATO exists now. If some willingness to develop beyond a corrupt state emerges in a future Russia then there’s no reason the US, European nations and Russia couldn’t form a mutually beneficial partnership, with Russia a member of NATO.

 

[dms1972]

Here's what. 30 or 40 years what you were saying about the news being a bit jingoistic but the info mostly was ok - could maybe pass with uninformed people - its the sort of thing people who want to live in with their head in the sand keep saying to themselves and say to others, maybe its been said to you and now you repeat it? It is your safety blanket as it were. I know cause it sounds a lot like what I used to say to myself. The thing is I stopped saying it in my teens or early twenties. The challenge you face however if you want to maintain that view, is that increasingly numbers of people are turning away from the MSM, and are using their own critical faculties, and doing their own research and they are finding out that it simply is not the case. The Internet has changed it all, as far as research is concerned and its not going back to the way it was, and who seriously would want it to?

 

[Tom 1]

Here's what. 30 or 40 years what you were saying about the news being a bit jingoistic but the info mostly was ok - could maybe pass with uninformed people - its the sort of thing people who want to live in with their head in the sand keep saying to themselves and say to others, maybe its been said to you and now you repeat it? It is your safety blanket as it were. I know cause it sounds a lot like what I used to say to myself. The thing is I stopped saying it in my teens or early twenties. The challenge you face however if you want to maintain that view, is that increasingly numbers of people are turning away from the MSM, and are using their own critical faculties, and doing their own research and they are finding out that it simply is not the case. The Internet has changed it all, as far as research is concerned and its not going back to the way it was, and who seriously would want it to?

There are a few things that would make these kinds of claims more credible. One would be actually being informed - a uniform trait of people claiming to have done their ‘research’ is that they are spectacularly uniformed.

Another is the more obvious one, which makes it hard to judge if people are actually being serious or not. That’s the equally uniform tendency to dismiss whole swathes of media, without even reading them other than to hunt for ammo every now and then, while accepting as wholesale ‘truth’ some nonsense peddled by their favourite you-tuber. This lies somewhere between comical and disturbing.

 

[dms1972]

What leads you to think that Russia’s retreat from Kyiv, after repeated failed attempts to take the city, was the result of some agreement?

Did I say it was the result of an agreement? I don't think I did. I said the Russians said they were doing it as an gesture of goodwill at that point.

Have you heard of two-dimensional thinking?

Here is a brief summary:

"A two-dimensional thinker sees the world as a polarized place. Who you are and what you believe becomes categorical. It is either one way or the other. These individuals can see facts, but truth eludes them because the facts are generally considered without context."

 

[Tom 1]

I said the Russians said they were doing it as an gesture of goodwill at that point.

To be clear, you think that the Russian retreat from Kyiv was a ‘good will gesture’?

Other than what the Russian govt said about it, what are you basing that on?

 

[dms1972]

There are a few things that would make these kinds of claims more credible. One would be actually being informed - a uniform trait of people claiming to have done their ‘research’ is that they are spectacularly uniformed.

People who have done their "research" are uninformed and this is a uniform trait? So you claim some special knowledge of affairs then do you, do you claim special insight, that other people at least as intelligent if not moreso than you cannot somehow arrive at an informed position? What is this privileged access to reality you possess, that no one else who has done their research possesses? Do tell.

 

[Tom 1]

Have you heard of two-dimensional thinking?

Here is a brief summary:

"A two-dimensional thinker sees the world as a polarized place. Who you are and what you believe becomes categorical. It is either one way or the other. These individuals can see facts, but truth eludes them because the facts are generally considered without context."

Vague assertions aren’t arguments. To support your point, you could for example take an article from a credible member of ‘the media’ and explain why you think it is inaccurate, providing some basis for your opinion etc. That would provide some means of establishing the basis of your opinions about the media.

 

[Tom 1]

People who have done their "research" are uninformed and this is a uniform trait? So you claim some special knowledge of affairs then do you, do you claim special insight, that other people at least as intelligent if not moreso than you cannot somehow arrive at an informed position. What is this privileged access to reality you possess, that no one else who has done their research possesses?

None, all of the information is widely available for anyone who wants to read it, in the form of books, articles, analysis etc. There is nothing secret, privileged, or special about any of it. What I’ve found though is that people making similar claims to yours simply don’t bother to read any of it before launching into a discussion about whatever the topic is. It very quickly becomes apparent that they have zero understanding of whatever that topic might be, a situation that could be easily remedied by reading about it, in the available sources, which as I said are widely available.

 

[dms1972]

Vague assertions aren’t arguments. To support your point, you could for example take an article from a credible member of ‘the media’ and explain why you think it is inaccurate, providing some basis for your opinion etc. That would provide some means of establishing the basis of your opinions about the media.

Someone mentioned one prognostication or claim that there was going to be a coup on Putin, but that it might not happen immediately. A coup by who? Now several newspapers said a couple of weeks ago Putin was about to declare all out war "within days" - did he? The answer we know now is that he didn't, so he wasn't. But of course it was supposed to already be all out war, and "a war on the West" even though Ukraine is in Eastern Europe, and isn't even a member of NATO or the EU. Why did Jill Biden and Justin Trudeau feel it was ok to visit the same weekend if "all out war" could be declared at any day?

Putin to declare 'all-out war on Ukraine within days' as 'payback for losses' | Metro News

Here are some more.

7 Fake News Stories Coming Out of Ukraine – Canadian Times

 

[Tom 1]

Someone mentioned one prognostication or claim that there was going to be a coup on Putin, but that it might not happen immediately. A coup by who? Now several newspapers said a couple of weeks ago Putin was about to declare all out war "within days" - did he? The answer we know now is that he didn't, so he wasn't. But of course it was supposed to already be all out war, and "a war on the West" even though Ukraine is in Eastern Europe, and isn't even a member of NATO or the EU. Why did Jill Biden and Justin Trudeau feel it was ok to visit the same weekend if "all out war" could be declared at any day?

Putin to declare 'all-out war on Ukraine within days' as 'payback for losses' | Metro News

Here are some more.

7 Fake News Stories Coming Out of Ukraine – Canadian Times

That’s it? Metro News is your idea of a credible news source? First of all, look at what the article says:

‘Russian sources and Western officials fear.’

Is this fake? Is it untrue that Russian sources and western officials feared Putin would declare mass mobilisation? If you think that is untrue, why, and based on what?

As I assumed would be the obvious, when I say a credible member of the media, I mean a credible member of the media. You could choose from a variety of sources, e.g from the UK The Times, Spectator, Guardian, New Statesman, Telegraph, from the US the NYT, WAPO, New Yorker (do I need to go on?). Picking Metro News as an example of the credible media seems a bit disingenuous, I have to say, as does apparently not reading what the article actually says.

 

[Tom 1]

Someone mentioned one prognostication or claim that there was going to be a coup on Putin, but that it might not happen immediately. A coup by who? Now several newspapers said a couple of weeks ago Putin was about to declare all out war "within days" - did he? The answer we know now is that he didn't, so he wasn't. But of course it was supposed to already be all out war, and "a war on the West" even though Ukraine is in Eastern Europe, and isn't even a member of NATO or the EU. Why did Jill Biden and Justin Trudeau feel it was ok to visit the same weekend if "all out war" could be declared at any day?

Putin to declare 'all-out war on Ukraine within days' as 'payback for losses' | Metro News

Here are some more.

7 Fake News Stories Coming Out of Ukraine – Canadian Times

Your Canadian times link doesn’t have much to add either. If that’s your basis for dismissing ‘the media’, it’s pretty weak.

You could use it to prove your point however. Pick one of the fake stories and using examples from credible news sources (see post above) you can illustrate how these have been falsely reported on in ‘the media’.

 

[dms1972]

That’s the equally uniform tendency to dismiss whole swathes of media, without even reading them other than to hunt for ammo every now and then, while accepting as wholesale ‘truth’ some nonsense peddled by their favourite you-tuber.

This "uniform" tendency it doesn't stretch to you somehow, you are able to do research but others are not?

 

[dms1972]

That’s it? Metro News is your idea of a credible news source? First of all, look at what the article says:

Perhaps then you can tell us how we should determine credible news sources from uncredible one? Or even offer a suggestion of a source you consider credible?

 

[Tom 1]

This "uniform" tendency it doesn't stretch to you somehow, you are able to do research but others are not?

I can read - so can you. You haven’t been able to provide a basis for your views, so you can draw your own conclusions. My impression is that you simply don’t read the media you dismiss as presenting some kind of fake narrative. You could prove me wrong by taking an article (from a reliable news source, as above) and demonstrating clearly why you think it is inaccurate.

 

[Tom 1]

Perhaps then you can tell us how we should determine credible news sources from uncredible one?

It’s not complicated. Pick an article from any of the sources listed in my earlier post, on another generally considered to be a serious member of the ‘MSM’, e.g the FT, The WSJ, the Independent, not some random internet rag, and provide a clearly reasoned argument as to its ‘fakeness’. This will then provide a good basis to discuss whether the original article, or the sources you use to show it is fake, are more credible.

 

[Tom 1]

Perhaps then you can tell us how we should determine credible news sources from uncredible one? Or even offer a suggestion of a source you consider credible?

See post #94 and the post above this one.