Increase in russian Propaganda About Ukraine, as Observed by X

[Stephen3141]

Ukraine sees surge of fake reports on X aimed at undermining military draft

A spike in disinformation operations aimed at discrediting mobilization in Ukraine is being recorded in the English-speaking segment of the X platform. — Ukrinform.

www.ukrinform.net

Apparently, the president and his inner circle, cannot distinguish whatever
is reported on X, from Russian propaganda.

As Russian narratives flood the airwaves, why are democracies stuck on mute?

Western democracies' greatest vulnerability lies not in their arsenals but in their antiquated ability to speak to their own citizens.

www.reaction.life

https://www.meforum.org/mef-online/what-if-russias-narrative-gains-legitimacy

Web of Deceit: Misinformation, Disinformation, and What Lies Beneath

Russia’s war on Ukraine didn’t happen in a vacuum—Kremlin disinformation played a critical role in shaping narratives.

news.clearancejobs.com

Unfortunately, the president and his inner circle of advisors, are becoming what the Russians
would call "useful idiots", who can be manipulated into spreading misinformation about the
Ukraine war, and all sorts of other topics.

What follows, taken to its "logical" conclusion, is that the president would stifle ALL
journalistic sources who still do fact-checking, and who have not become useful
idiots for the Russian misinformation machine.

For Christians, it is IMPORTANT to learn how to tell the difference between FACTS,
and personal opinions posted on social media sites.

Christians MUST RECOGNIZE that social media sites that have dispensed with fact-checking,
hold opinions that CANNOT be taken to be TRUE. They have placed themselves in the
same category as Russian and Communist Chinese propaganda platforms.

 

[sanderabeer]

Apparently, the president and his inner circle, cannot distinguish whatever is reported on X, from Russian propaganda.

We tend to engage in confirmation bias when we don't engage in critical thinking. Trump is a "gut thinker" and not a critical thinker. And sadly lot of people like this "tell as you see it" approach because they see it as authentic. It's really just postmodernism run amok.

It's curious that the very thing which begets DEI is the same thing which begets Trumpism. They're just two sides of the same coin.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The definition of Russian propaganda always seems to be whatever goes against Western Propaganda. To those who would support this war going on in perpetuity any analysis which contradicts extending the conflict (with no means of securing victory) is Russian propaganda. Ukraine has lost this war. Christians do not have to be inherently loyal to western liberalism or the Russian State.

 

[sanderabeer]

The definition of Russian propaganda always seems to be whatever goes against Western Propaganda.

I would agree that both terms are poorly defined and malleable.

To those who would support this war going on in perpetuity

Who supports this war going on in perpetuity? I don't know of anyone who wants that. Rather, this seems to be an aspersion cast upon those who support Ukraine against Russian aggression and rooted in the belief that "Ukraine has lost this war." But, we can set this aside.

Ukraine has lost this war.

Let's assume this assumption is correct and war stops today. What are the most ethical actions from this point? What should Ukraine do? What should Russia do? What should the world do?

For a starter and with specific focus on Russia, should Russia entirely remove its military from Ukrainian territories? Keep in mind, I am not asking if they will. I am asking if they should.

And I will be clear in stating that it is my position that Russia should leave. They have no valid reason for being there.

Christians do not have to be inherently loyal to western liberalism or the Russian State.

I would go a step further. Christians should not be inherently loyal to either.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Who supports this war going on in perpetuity? I don't know of anyone who wants that. Rather, this seems to be an aspersion cast upon those who support Ukraine against Russian aggression and rooted in the belief that "Ukraine has lost this war." But, we can set this aside.

Western supporters of Ukraine who can offer no viable plan for Ukraine to achieve it's victory conditions. Complete restoration of territory, Putin in Prison, Russia Punished and Crimea recaptured. Given Ukrainian manpower deficit and the inability of Ukraine to maintain it's defensive lines I am of the opinion that there is no plan other than keeping Ukraine fighting as a western proxy for as long as possible.

Let's assume this assumption is correct and war stops today. What are the most ethical actions from this point? What should Ukraine do? What should Russia do? What should the world do?

Ukraine should cede territory. Russia should not continue expanding. NATO and the West would be better off building defensive military infrastructure while respecting Russian security concerns.

For a starter and with specific focus on Russia, should Russia entirely remove its military from Ukrainian territories? Keep in mind, I am not asking if they will. I am asking if they should.

If Russia did that, it would not be in the strategic interests of Russia to do so. It may be in the strategic interests of the the West but not Russia.

And I will be clear in stating that it is my position that Russia should leave. They have no valid reason for being there.

Russia won't leave though and they do have valid reasons in a geopolitical sense in that a Ukraine in NATO has been considered by most Russians as a threat to them. NATO not being a purely defensive alliance and one which seeks to impose a sense of liberal democratic solidarity is a threat to Russia. The USA Neocons in particular have been aiming at Russia for at least a decade now, especially when Putin was elected and Russia went it's own way politically.

I would go a step further. Christians should not be inherently loyal to either.

I guess it depends. Why shouldn't a Russian Orthodox Christian be loyal to the Russian state? I'd maintain that loyalty to current liberal states for Christians goes against their own political interests in that western liberal states seek to undermine Christianity.

 

[sanderabeer]

Western supporters of Ukraine who can offer no viable plan for Ukraine to achieve it's victory conditions. Complete restoration of territory, Putin in Prison, Russia Punished and Crimea recaptured. Given Ukrainian manpower deficit and the inability of Ukraine to maintain it's defensive lines I am of the opinion that there is no plan other than keeping Ukraine fighting as a western proxy for as long as possible.

I can see other options.

Ukraine should cede territory.

Why?

Russia should not continue expanding.

I agree, but I am not convinced they will stop.

NATO and the West would be better off building defensive military infrastructure while respecting Russian security concerns.

I agree generally, but what happens when Russian security concerns conflict with those of the West?

If Russia did that, it would not be in the strategic interests of Russia to do so. It may be in the strategic interests of the the West but not Russia.

I didn't ask about "strategic interests." I asked about the ethical course of action. Given that you've already stated, "Ukraine should cede territory," is it safe to conclude that you think Russia has no obligation, ethical or otherwise, to leave Ukrainian territories if the war ended today?

Russia won't leave though and they do have valid reasons in a geopolitical sense in that a Ukraine in NATO has been considered by most Russians as a threat to them. NATO not being a purely defensive alliance and one which seeks to impose a sense of liberal democratic solidarity is a threat to Russia.

Is it a threat to Russia though? What's the basis for this idea?

I guess it depends. Why shouldn't a Russian Orthodox Christian be loyal to the Russian state?

A Christian should not be loyal to a state. A Christian's allegiance is to God and God alone.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I can see other options.

Such as? I often ask this of people who want to see the war continue so that Ukraine might win, yet they don't provide the options.

Why?

Because they have lost significant ground and have far more to lose than Russia does. Coming to terms with the enemy and not having a complete surrender or enemy victory is preferable to having a total surrender.

I agree, but I am not convinced they will stop.

Realistically Russia can only stop. Russia could not advance even if it wanted to and I don't believe it does want to occupy all of Eastern Europe because it can't sustain that. The Soviet Union proved such an occupation as unfeasible in the long run.

I agree generally, but what happens when Russian security concerns conflict with those of the West?

Then they have to compromise figure out agreements. Russia made it clear that expansion of NATO eastwards was something they didn't like and yet the West insisted on pushing it eastwards. We ought have strategic empathy and not insist on this notion that Nations can determine their own foreign policy completely and independently of their neighbours. This has never been true.

I didn't ask about "strategic interests." I asked about the ethical course of action. Given that you've already stated, "Ukraine should cede territory," is it safe to conclude that you think Russia has no obligation, ethical or otherwise, to leave Ukrainian territories if the war ended today?

I guess it depends on what we consider Ukrainian territories and Russian territories. The Donbass republics were ethnically and culturally Russian, not Ukrainian and they had been treated poorly by the Ukrainian regime prior to and since the outbreak of violence in 2014. Take in mind Russia didn't originally want to annex these territories and only wanted greater autonomy for them. If one believes in democratic representation, a majority there are probably more aligned with Russia than Ukraine, even in Crimea. So i don't think morality comes into the equation here. It doesn't really come into the equation of any war.

Is it a threat to Russia though? What's the basis for this idea?

An alliance of hostile nations which are opposed to you ideologically on your doorstep is a threat. This is why the USA didn't let Cuba host nuclear Missiles.

A Christian should not be loyal to a state. A Christian's allegiance is to God and God alone.

So Christians are fundamentally anarchic? I disagree.

 

[sanderabeer]

Such as? I often ask this of people who want to see the war continue so that Ukraine might win, yet they don't provide the options.

I've already done so.

Because they have lost significant ground and have far more to lose than Russia does. Coming to terms with the enemy and not having a complete surrender or enemy victory is preferable to having a total surrender.

Let me make sure I understand your reasoning. You're saying that "Ukraine should cede territory" because "they have lost significant ground and have far more to lose than Russia does." Is that correct?

Imagine a grown man running around a playground stealing candy from kids and the kids being told, "You have more to lose than he does, so suck it up kid and just let him have the candy."

Realistically Russia can only stop. Russia could not advance even if it wanted to and I don't believe it does want to occupy all of Eastern Europe because it can't sustain that. The Soviet Union proved such an occupation as unfeasible in the long run.

It would be wise, but Putin is not.

Then they have to compromise figure out agreements. Russia made it clear that expansion of NATO eastwards was something they didn't like and yet the West insisted on pushing it eastwards. We ought have strategic empathy and not insist on this notion that Nations can determine their own foreign policy completely and independently of their neighbours. This has never been true.

I agree with strategic empathy, but... [points to the link above].

I guess it depends on what we consider Ukrainian territories and Russian territories.

I was already expecting this move.

The Donbass republics were ethnically and culturally Russian, not Ukrainian and they had been treated poorly by the Ukrainian regime prior to and since the outbreak of violence in 2014.

It might be argued that they are culturally Russian, but ethnically 58% was Ukrainian and only 39% Russian in 2001. And you reason they were "treated poorly by the Ukrainian regime prior to ... 2014," but 2016 and 2019 surveys of the people outside of then separatist controlled areas shows a desire to be a part of Ukraine and not Russia. Do we simply ignore the Ukrainian population? Do we ignore those who desire to be a part of Ukraine? Or is this another case of "suck it up kid?"

Take in mind Russia didn't originally want to annex these territories and only wanted greater autonomy for them.

This was claimed, yes.

If one believes in democratic representation, a majority there are probably more aligned with Russia than Ukraine, even in Crimea. So i don't think morality comes into the equation here. It doesn't really come into the equation of any war.

Self-determination matters, again? So, what about those in Donbas who want to be a part of Ukraine?

An alliance of hostile nations which are opposed to you ideologically on your doorstep is a threat. This is why the USA didn't let Cuba host nuclear Missiles.

[points against to the link above]

So Christians are fundamentally anarchic? I disagree.

Nope. We're still under the authority of states, but our allegiance is to God and God alone.

 

[Stephen3141]

These discussions are interesting.

I am more concerned about the president's recent statement that Ukraine
started the Russia-Ukraine war. This is such a clear Russian propaganda point,
that I think that it cannot be denied. It is an open abuse of the facts.