If you can find me a single person who admittedly gets their information from non-trustworthy sources, bad quality data or journalists who make it their duty to lie your comment might have been something other than vapid condescending bullshit. — Isaac

Let me get this straight: you think nobody ever lies, or that journalists never consciously lie in their reporting, or what? What is the status of 'lying' in your ontology? Does it not exist, as a behavior?

But on a serious note, there's some serious Nazi-like fascist iconography being pushed in Russia that just feels like Nazi cosplay with a new logo, especially when it's being pushed from official propaganda sources. — Christoffer

Oh, @Christoffer... in the first photo it was terminally ill children showing their support for the troops performing the Special Military Operation to free the Ukrainians from the neo-nazis!

Pictures show how terminally ill children in Russia were encouraged to stand outside in the snow in the shape of a letter "Z" to show support for the country's invasion of Ukraine.

Vladimir Vavilov, chairman of a cancer charity that runs a hospice in the city of Kazan, organised the children and their mothers to line up to produce the letter.Mr Vavilov posted the photo and a caption on the hospice website, according to The Daily Telegraph. "Our patients and entire team took part in it, about 60 people in total," he's quoted as saying. "People lined up in the form of the letter 'Z'.

"In our left hand we held leaflets with the flags of the LPR, DPR, Russia and Tatarstan and we clenched our right hand into a fist."

Ah, back to the spontaneity of the Soviet times! Next surely will come the lithurgy of Soviet times.

Hmm capitalism means authoritarianism, ?
I guess it can without regulatory protocols, as long as those don't turn authoritarian, right?

Anyway, government removal happens, scales/reasons differ, ..., and Russia sure stands out.
Some examples have already been posted, but we could include different examples while at it.

^{Aug 2013 • Saudi Arabia's War on Witchcraft
Feb 2017 • Iranian Regime Inciting Hatred, Persecuting Zoroastrian Minority
Mar 2017 • WikiLeaks publishes 'biggest ever leak of secret CIA documents'
Mar 2019 • Brunei to punish gay sex and adultery with death by stoning
Dec 2021 • Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules
Dec 2021 • China's Xi responsible for Uyghur 'genocide', unofficial tribunal says}

You straight admitted that you don't care about the truth. — frank

Word of the Year 2016 (Oxford Languages), post-truth (Lexico) — a cultural failure.
Actually just a failure.

Thank Odin I have an actual education on "media decyiphering" or whatever the correct translation would be. — Christoffer

Don't worry, if you tell us the Finnish original we'll look up the Swedish translation for you :wink:

just like as an Australian, you probably know very little about Europe. — Olivier5

Not only do they know very little (which is probably a generous assessment), but due to their unfortunate antipodean position they tend to see thing upside-down ... :grin:

Let me get this straight: you think nobody ever lies, or that journalists never consciously lie in their reporting — Olivier5

How on earth did you get that from what I wrote? The issue is not whether people lie, it's that no-one is going to knowingly get their information from a liar, so there's no point saying 'make sure your source isn't a liar' as a piece of advice. In any disagreement, you'll think your source isn't a liar, I'll think your source is a liar. Establishing who's a liar is no less fraught than establishing what's a fact in the first place because "John is a liar" is a fact.

How am I going to establish whether "John is a liar" is true? I'll do as you say, and check with my non-lying source Bob - Oh no, someone said Bob's a liar, however will I check that? Not to worry Olivier's here with some useful advice, simply check with a non-liar like Jim. Thank goodness, except... John says Jim's a liar. All we have to do is verify "John's a liar"...

That there are facts is indisputable, it's establishing them that all the fuss is about.

How on earth did you get that from what I wrote? — Isaac

Don't get hysterical quite yet, I was just asking for clarification.

no-one is going to knowingly get their information from a liar, so there's no point saying 'make sure your source isn't a liar' as a piece of advice. — Isaac

I think it is good advice to point out that certain sources are untruthful, such as FOX for instance. Someone who generally trusts FOX, unwittingly, could be made a little more cautious if you alert him, and even ultimately could switch to a (hopefully better) set of sources. Even someone ideologically riveted to FOX might one day realize that his trust included a lot of bad faith, that he always knew deep down that much of what they say was BS pulled out of their ideological arse but that he turned a blind eye to it, or even relayed it because it had the advantage of pissing off some liberals.

The switch from bad faith argumentation to good faith realization can be liberating.

How am I going to establish whether "John is a liar" is true? — Isaac

How do you spot a liar, usually? It's not rocket science, just check some verifiable facts mentioned in the source against the reference material you happen to accept. Wikipedia, British Encyclopedia, BBC, whatever you happen to hold as being of good general quality. Another point of comparison is your own personal experience if you have some direct exposure to a newsworthy event now and then. If you find a lot of discrepancy between a news source and your reference sources or personal experience, it's a sign there might be a problem.

Now, it might be that one of your reference source was in fact incorrect, say it could be that the BBC for instance got something wrong while our suspected liar was in fact correct. Check against the Guardian, le Monde, El Pais, Die Zeit, Aljazeera... (not too disreputable sources) and look for differences All these generally reputable sources cannot be wrong all at the same time.

Most Europeans and Americans knew nothing about Ukraine literally 2 weeks ago, and suddenly take at face value the "consensus" that has emerged on social media. — boethius

To be quite honest, I think most of them still don’t know anything except what they are being fed by the media.

Opinion polls conducted by the Carnegie Center in Moscow and other organizations have found that most of the Russian people support Moscow’s military operation in Ukraine and it is generally accepted that Putin enjoys popular support for the war.

Russia appears to have no way out as Putin goes ‘all in’ – The Guardian

Unfortunately, Westerners are highly susceptible to NATO propaganda because they’re hooked on social media controlled by pro-NATO tech companies that are encouraging anti-Russian mass hysteria and hatred:

TikTok Is Gripped by the Violence and Misinformation of Ukraine War – New York Times

Western dependence on the media’s mass-produced fake news has reached the point where people believe that facts don’t matter. As one Twitter user infamously put it, “Why can’t we just let people believe some things?”

Fact and Mythmaking Blend in Ukraine's Information War – New York Times

Even here some become irate when inconvenient facts are mentioned and resort to denial, evasion, diversion, and ad hominems.

The way I see it, philosophy is about looking beyond appearances and not taking things at face value. A more philosophical and rational approach needs to acknowledge the fact that there are wars going on across the globe, e.g., in Syria, Ethiopia, Yemen, some of which are waged by NATO members like Turkey whose neo-fascist regime has also illegally occupied North Cyprus and is involved in the brutal suppression of religious and ethnic minorities.

So, the question that needs to be asked is, what’s so special about Ukraine? Why is America suddenly so interested in that country after ignoring it since the 1920's?

From what I see, the pro-NATO narrative seems to offer no rational explanation. One way of looking at it is that Biden may be holding a grudge against Putin for allegedly interfering in US elections. In 2019, Biden said:

Putin knows if I am president of the United States, his days of tyranny and trying to intimidate the United States and those in Eastern Europe are over. I’m going to stand up to him … when I’m president, things are going to change …. - CNN News

So this may be some kind of personal vendetta for Biden.

But another, and I think more important, reason seems to be that America sees Russia as a challenger to its global dominance.

America has got used to ruling the world ever since it became the world’s main financial center in the wake of WW1, after which it came to look on Europe as an American colony. This is why it now sees even the smallest sign of European insubordination as a direct challenge and threat to American rule.

When seen from this perspective, Ukraine becomes a small detail in a larger puzzle that only makes sense when seen against the background of a global, geopolitical picture in which America seeks to expand its power and influence and enforce a unipolar world order through a network of regional and global institutions like the UN, World Bank, IMF, NATO, etc. ….

Was this verified? I had trouble finding good sources.

Which, on a related note, if you're interested in how the conflict is going and want detailed analysis, ISW is fantastic open source material. I did some work with them a while back. They had very good coverage of Syria.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-8

The Center for Information Resilience has a very good map up and decent vetting for how it is being done if you want to get into the details.

https://maphub.net/Cen4infoRes/russian-ukraine-monitor


Or there is:

https://liveuamap.com/

Take it with a grain of salt. CIR are pretty good about verifying these types of reports, vetting and placing images and videos using satalite and aerial photography, checking metadata, checking for edits, looking up insignia and hardware models, etc. IDK about this.



For a grand strategy IR lens there is IISS:

https://www.iiss.org/regions/russia-and-eurasia/ukraine

Or for wider looking stuff from scholars there is CSIS.

I'd say definitely don't just look up random "OSINT" Twitter. Super unreliable, tons of misrepresentations. Also a lot of bias. You can't even tell what might be going on based on the weight of posts because Russians have been booted off, so it's going to be pretty one sided.

Someone was uploading maps from the Turkish General Staff that appeared to be spot on, but it's all been wiped.

Also, bear in mind that based on Russian planning, I wouldn't 100% buy into estimates based on Russian divisions starting at full strength, the organization seems pretty messy.

But for reference, each tank division is three tank regiments and a regiment of motor rifle troops. Motor rifle divisions are flipped, three motor rifle regiments and one tank regiment.

Each tank regiment is 3 battalions, 30 tanks and a command tank. There are also regimental command tanks, so roughly 90 tanks on average. Motor rifle tank regiments are 40 tanks.

Useful reference for knowing how platoons, companies, battalions, etc. are formed.

https://www.battleorder.org/military-organization

There are some translation issues though. So at first you hear "the counter offensive around Kharkiv destroyed an entire Russian regiment," and it's "oh shit," but it was a company that was routed. Still, a big win.

Has some decent info down to the squad level, even if it is dated. If you know the organization and doctrine, the scraps of OSINT can paint something of a picture.

And if you think the Ukrainians are attacking Russia when they are combating Russian forces inside their own country, you are simply totally delusional. The fighting is in the outskirts of Kyiv, not in the outskirts of Moscow. — ssu

It's the same military. Or do Russia have one force for if they're attacked and a different force for if they're defending? — Isaac

So with your delusional logic then I guess the Grenadians and Cubans attacked the US in 1983??? Because it's the same military. :chin:

And you've dodged the question - does Ukraine have a choice? — Isaac

What choice does Ukraine have, Isaac? Roll over and give more territory to Russia? Ask Kremlin to rule Ukraine on behalf of them through a puppet regime?

It already gave up it's nuclear deterrent and believed a piece of paper that Russia signed, so I guess those kind of mistakes it shouldn't do.

You explain me what the choice was for Ukraine, when an apparently not so well anymore Russian dictator accuses an administration made of a centrist party and lead by President of Jewish ancestry being neo-nazis, that are committing a genocide of which there isn't any trace of and then Russia is pursuing a de-nazification in the country which it has invaded.

I think more preferable would be to ask what are the choices for Russia now.

Kharkiv Oblast governor stated that Ukrainian defenders repelled an unsupported Russian air assault against Vovchansky, a town roughly 60 kilometers northeast of Kharkiv, on March 8.

Again!? It's like he wants to purge the VDV, particularly the 76th Guards.

Was this verified? I had trouble finding good sources. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think think this could easily verified, if false. As easily as the false news that Zelensky had left Kyiv. Just look if the name Viktor Gulevich pops up anymore in any news about the Belarus armed forces. If it does, obviously fake then. Of course the easiest thing would have been a direct rebuttal from Gulevich himself, which would benefit Russia and Belarus in the information war. Now you have only the Russian media referring that the Belarussian defense ministry has said that this hasn't happened.

But that's true that I didn't find many of the top news media saying this, just a few that could swallow propaganda:

Russia-Ukraine War | Belarus' Chief Of General Staff Of Armed Forces Resigns Over War On Ukraine

Belarus deputy defence minister QUITS over Ukraine war: Sanctioned general who 'agreed to Russian troops deploying on the border' signs resignation letter saying he cannot support invasion

Top Belarusian general quits over ally Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Report

'Defections and resignations in Belarusian military prevented country from joining Ukraine invasion'

If one just only waits a few months, usually 95% of fake news have been proven fake. The propaganda war and social media has long forgotten what happened two months ago, when they are interested in what is new since two minutes ago.

But anyway, Thanks for the good links, @Count Timothy von Icarus!

Could very well be true. A retired Lt. Colonel went on record against the war. Solid outlets are reporting conscripts fleeing across the borders, officers too. Apparently they have started making men register and when they do their passports are taken.

News of many Russian reserves being called up too. Makes sense, they clearly have a manpower problem.

Chechen units and mercenaries have been spotted all around the Kyiv front, which means they are trying to conduct a major operation with irregulars in an area that has had reported friendly fire incidents. Not generally something you'd do if you could avoid it.

The recruitment of Syrian fighters shows desperation and that was verified by US intelligence officials. I think they will eventually push the Belarusian military in, and that could blow up bad.

Allegedly they are already using their few professional forces, flagged as Russians, so they're losing the folks that could keep discipline and the Russians gaurding the coop back in Belarus are mostly logistics (some VDV). Based on the dumbass map segment that somehow got on the air, it does sound like Belarusian long range assets may have been employed across the border too, early on.

They've also been using their police, which is downright embarrassing. Their use early on at least made some sense. They were expecting a quick military victory followed by protests and riots, but using them once it became a war? That or using police equipment to gear your soldiers... either way, a fucking disaster.

they're conscripts. Lost, wretched souls brought up in an environment of extreme bullying and violence. — Changeling

To add to that...

Be aware that this is of course used as propaganda by Ukraine, but if verified, well... speaks for itself.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1501635351965798402

Would you still support Russia if they use nukes?

Well, I don't recall ever saying that I "support Russia".

The point I've been making is that Crimea is more Russian than Ukrainian. And that Europe belongs to the Europeans, therefore America should stay out of Europe.

As for Russia using nukes, that would depend on the type of nukes it uses and on whom.

Incidentally, would you still support America if they use nukes? Sorry, I mean, do you still support America after they used nukes? :wink:

I think the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified. I would not support NATO's use of nukes, except in retaliation for Russia's use of nukes.

NATO will not be the first one to use nuclear weapons in this conflict. It's clear the Russian army cannot go toe-to toe-against NATO. Russia would be the ones to escalate, if it becomes a nuclear conflict.

I would not support NATO's use of nukes, except in retaliation for Russia's use of nukes. — RogueAI

And I would not support Russia's use of nukes, except in retaliation for America's use of nukes.

Having said that, if Russia (or anyone else) dropped a small tactical nuke on dictators like Xi or Erdogan, I don't think it would be something I would object too strongly to .... :wink:

This view, via Chomsky, is somewhat romantic - the idea that the Europeans would have ever tried to cultivate pan-European diplomacy at the expense of American stewardship, or that Putin would have tried harder for diplomacy - but worth making for what could have been:

Putin demonstrated the same reflexive resort to violence although peaceful options were available. It’s true that the U.S. continued to dismiss what even high U.S. officials and top-ranking diplomats have long understood to be legitimate Russian security concerns, but options other than criminal violence remained open. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe observers had been reporting sharply increased violence in the Donbas region, which many — not just Russia — charge was largely at Ukrainian initiative. Putin could have sought to establish that charge, if it is correct, and to bring it to international attention. That would have strengthened his position.

More significantly, Putin could have pursued the opportunities, which were real, to appeal to Germany and France to carry forward the prospects for a “common European home” along the lines proposed by De Gaulle and Gorbachev, a European system with no military alliances from the Atlantic to the Urals, even beyond, replacing the Atlanticist NATO-based system of subordination to Washington. That has been the core background issue for a long time, heightened during the current crisis. A “common European home” offers many advantages to Europe. Intelligent diplomacy might have advanced the prospects.

Instead of pursuing diplomatic options, Putin reached for the revolver, an all-too-common reflex of power. The result is devastating for Ukraine, with the worst probably still to come. The outcome is also a very welcome gift to Washington, as Putin has succeeded in establishing the Atlanticist system even more solidly than before. The gift is so welcome that some sober and well-informed analysts have speculated that it was Washington’s goal all along.

But that the war has been a gift, a total and absolute present to the Western powers, is totally true. Again, Europe and the States ought to be thanking Putin with every fibre of their being. Oh yes, and a no-fly zone would be fucking madness and anyone advocating for it ought to be thrown straight into the loony house for life with no way out, ever.

https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-a-no-fly-zone-over-ukraine-could-unleash-untold-violence/

The only blame of this conflict lies on those producing weapons. These are the direct cause for the misery.

Putin has succeeded in establishing the Atlanticist system even more solidly than before. The gift is so welcome that some sober and well-informed analysts have speculated that it was Washington’s goal all along.

Isn’t it hard to believe that Putin and gang are such fumbling fools?

News of many Russian reserves being called up too. Makes sense, they clearly have a manpower problem. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Plus this has been verified by Putin declaring that reservists (and conscripts) are not and will not be used in the "special military operation". :wink:

Russia contemplating countering the sanctions by nationalizing Western assets in Russia. Likely will happen, I guess. Because why not?

(WSJ) Russia’s government legislative commission approved measures Wednesday that pave the way for the nationalization of property of Western companies that are exiting the country.

The commission’s role includes reading and assessing laws that the government intends to propose to the State Duma, the lower house of the Russian parliament.

Russia’s dominant political party, United Russia, said on Wednesday that the latest measures seek to prevent bankruptcies and preserve jobs at organizations that are more than 25% owned by foreign entities of “unfriendly governments.” United Russia has been pushing for the nationalization of operations of Western companies leaving Russia in response to the war in Ukraine.

That will end up any investment into Russia for longer time than just this crisis. And as I've said, once war and serious conflict breaks out, the economy of globalization is dumped overboard immediately.

The Chomsky article again is a good fame of reference:

The great powers constantly violate international law, as do smaller ones when they can get away with it... — Chomsky

OK let's accept this as true. From experience.

Under international law, it is the responsibility of the UN Security Council to keep the peace and, if deemed necessary, to authorize force. — Chomsky

We can see how that works out, with the the alleged perpetrators having veto power over UNSC decisions on their actions. It's like having the murder suspect in the jury. It will not work. The issue can be referred to the GA but then again this is done selectively.

A more adequate framework of international order may be useful for educational and organizing purposes — as indeed international law is. But it is not enough to protect the victims. That can only be achieved by compelling the powerful to cease their crimes — or in the longer run, undermining their power altogether. — Chomsky

The powerful. Who are these powerful? The American War Enterprise (AWE as I call it). Who runs the world, Professor Chomsky? :

When we ask “Who rules the world?” we commonly adopt the standard convention that the actors in world affairs are states, primarily the great powers, and we consider their decisions and the relations among them. That is not wrong. But we would do well to keep in mind that this level of abstraction can also be highly misleading.

States of course have complex internal structures, and the choices and decisions of the political leadership are heavily influenced by internal concentrations of power, while the general population is often marginalized. That is true even for the more democratic societies, and obviously for others. We cannot gain a realistic understanding of who rules the world while ignoring the “masters of mankind,” as Adam Smith called them: in his day, the merchants and manufacturers of England; in ours, multinational conglomerates, huge financial institutions, retail empires and the like. Still following Smith, it is also wise to attend to the “vile maxim” to which the “masters of mankind” are dedicated: “All for ourselves and nothing for other people” — a doctrine known otherwise as bitter and incessant class war, often one-sided, much to the detriment of the people of the home country and the world. — Chomsky

The questions arise constantly in one or another form. Up to virtually the day of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the crime very possibly could have been averted by pursuing options that were well understood: Austrian-style neutrality for Ukraine, some version of Minsk II federalism reflecting the actual commitments of Ukrainians on the ground. — Chomsky

I do not think a powerful United States of Europe would be welcome, as Chomsky says:

Such concerns trace back to earlier Cold War fears that Europe might become a “third force” independent of both the great and minor superpowers and moving toward closer links to the latter (as can be seen in Willy Brandt’s Ostpolitik and other initiatives).

The Western response to Russia’s collapse was triumphalist. It was hailed as signaling “the end of history,” the final victory of Western capitalist democracy, almost as if Russia were being instructed to revert to its pre-World War I status as a virtual economic colony of the West. — Chomsky - Who Rules the World?

There were other methods. Masses of weapons were provided to Ukraine, now it seems mainly anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, more useful as real world testing programs for the manufacturers than as a defense. There was talk of short range missiles but this would 'upset Russia' and more likely prevent the invasion, which seems to be a Saddam - Hussein type trap like the invasion of Kuwait.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/21/weapons-ukraine-russia-invasion-military/

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe observers had been reporting sharply increased violence in the Donbas region, which many — not just Russia — charge was largely at Ukrainian initiative. Putin could have sought to establish that charge, if it is correct, and to bring it to international attention. That would have strengthened his position. — Chomsky

Peacekeepers - UN peacekeepers - the proposal was rejected on both sides one after another. This would have been a huge step.

The gift is so welcome that some sober and well-informed analysts have speculated that it was Washington’s goal all along....

“Austrian-style neutrality for Ukraine, some version of Minsk II federalism reflecting the actual commitments of Ukrainians on the ground.” ....

China also knows that the Global South has little taste for “canceling Mother Russia” but would prefer to maintain relations.... — Chomsky

China is correct I think.

The documentary record reveals that Russia invaded Afghanistan very reluctantly, several months after President Carter authorized the CIA to “provide … support to the Afghan insurgents” who were opposing a Russian-backed government — with the strong support if not initiative of National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, as he later proudly declared — Chomsky

So the U.S. was responsible for that crime as well.

The U.S. provided strong support for the Mujahideen who were resisting the Russian invasion, not in order to help liberate Afghanistan but rather to “kill Soviet Soldiers,” as explained by the CIA station chief in Islamabad who was running the operation. — Chomsky

Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzeziński, or Zbig, was a Polish-American diplomat and political scientist. He served as a counselor to President Lyndon B. Johnson from 1966 to 1968 and was President Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor from 1977 to 1981.

Critics described him as hawkish or "foreign policy hardliner" on some issues such as Poland-Russia relations. — Wikipedia

No kidding.

It looks like a well - laid trap. Let's hope both Ukraine and Russia manage to get out of it somehow.
As longs as we have this mad scramble for power and resources we will have these conflicts while the rest of the world stands in muted shock and awe. There is no recourse but to let the cruel hand of fate meter out justice as all empires scattered and fall in less than a thousand years.

It is easier to believe that brute force prevails over intelligence, this looks like what has happened here. We only have one superpower now, remember 'unipolar'. Putin is clever, NATO is brutish.

You straight admitted that you don't care about the truth. — frank


Word of the Year 2016 (Oxford Languages), post-truth (Lexico) — a cultural failure.
Actually just a failure. — jorndoe

Yeah, this is what I mean by not caring about truth.



Look at the transition from before the 'post-truth' era to after 'post-truth. Look closely. Notice the change?

No, neither did I.

So all that golden era truthiness we apparently relished in before the dreaded post-truth world achieved exactly...let me see...fuck all.

'Post-truth' is an obsession of neckbeards in coffee shops. The poor are fucked over just the same regardless of whether Fox news blames the corporations, the Democrats, the Russians or the fucking lizard men from the centre of the earth.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/23/politics/ukraine-us-second-weapons-shipment/index.html

"If a single additional Russian force goes into Ukraine in an aggressive way, as I said, that would trigger a swift, a severe and a united response from us and from Europe," Blinken told CNN's Dana Bash on "State of the Union."

"When it comes to sanctions, the purpose of those sanctions is to deter Russian aggression," he said. "So if they're triggered now, you lose the deterrent effect.

We can see how that worked.

Constantly reminding ourselves of the power of the rich seems to be a self-defeating exercise, gloating over us. I propose Twitter remove the accounts of Billionaires.

I think it is good advice to point out that certain sources are untruthful, such as FOX for instance. Someone who generally trusts FOX, unwittingly, could be made a little more cautious if you alert him — Olivier5

Really? How exactly do you see that working? Take Joe Bloggs, a Fox News watching bod. "He's seen CNN say Fox are lying, he's sen his politicians say they're lying, he's seen his liberal colleagues say they're lying. Some bloke he's never met and doesn't know from Adam off of the internet say "Fox news aren't trustworthy" and he's thinking "hey, hang on - if random people of the internet think it's not trustworthy, then maybe I ought to take a step back...". Explain the psychology you imagine going on there.

How do you spot a liar, usually? It's not rocket science, just check some verifiable facts mentioned in the source against the reference material you happen to accept. — Olivier5

And if I happen to accept Fox News as reference material?

Check against the Guardian, le Monde, El Pais, Die Zeit, Aljazeera... (not too disreputable sources) — Olivier5

See, all you're doing is giving me the list of sources you trust. Why would I trust the sources you trust. I don't know you.

Just to save you responding in future, other's have prepared this short video summarising your advice.

Objectively, this is a crimminal circus. Defensive weapons? Helmets, ammunition, rifles... I hope the NATO has better stuff than this at home.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/28/weapons-from-the-west-vital-if-ukraine-is-to-halt-russian-advance

Germany in particular was criticised this month ahead of the invasion for only stumping up some 5,000 helmets to send to Ukraine, a gesture the mayor of Kyiv, former world boxing champion Vitali Klitschko, said had left him "speechless".

"What will they send us next? Pillows?" he asked the Bild daily.

The Czech Republic meanwhile is delivering 30,000 pistols

The UNITED STATES has provided over $2.5 billion in military aid since 2014, including Javelin anti-tank missiles, coastal patrol boats, Humvees, sniper rifles, reconnaissance drones, radar systems, night vision and radio equipment. A bipartisan group of U.S. senators last week promised further supplies that could include Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, small arms and boats.

BRITAIN last week supplied a reported 2,000 short-range anti-tank missiles and sent British specialists to deliver training. It has also provided Saxon armoured vehicles.

BALTIC STATES Estonia is sending Javelin anti-armour missiles and Latvia and Lithuania are providing Stinger missiles.

TURKEY has sold Ukraine several batches of Bayraktar TB2 drones that it deployed against Russian-backed separatists in the eastern Donbass region, infuriating Moscow.

The CZECH REPUBLIC said last week it plans to donate a shipment of 152mm artillery ammunition.

GERMANY is ruling out arms deliveries to Ukraine but is co-financing a $6 million field hospital and providing the necessary training.

UKRAINE'S WISHLIST of items it wants to buy or obtain includes:

- Helicopters, communications systems and light armoured vehicles from the United States

- NASAMS surface-to-air missile system from Norway

- Self-propelled DANA artillery system from Czech Republic, and shells for Soviet-made artillery with calibers of 120 mm and above

- Medium and short range air defence systems

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-gets-weapons-west-says-it-needs-more-2022-01-25/

I am getting the picture now. It's all a military exercise by NATO, using a fictional country called Ukraine.

So with your delusional logic then I guess the Grenadians and Cubans attacked the US in 1983 — ssu

I expect they did, as opposed to just let them walk in. The point isn't the word used (as you well know) the point is against whom they're fighting the Military Government in Granadia were fighting the US military. They weren't fighting some other military the US keeps only for attacking places, it's 'defending places' military being an entirely different branch.

You were on the one hand saying the Ukrainians stood a good chance of victory against the Russian military and on the other saying that the Russian military were so strong no-one would ever present a legitimate threat to them. The same military. So which is it. Are they so strong no-one presents a legitimate threat, or are they so weak the Ukrainians have a good chance of defeating them outright?

And you've dodged the question - does Ukraine have a choice? — Isaac

What choice does Ukraine have, Isaac? Roll over and give more territory to Russia? — ssu

Yes, that is correct. That's the choice they have. Lose more of their young men, armed forces, women and children, or cede territory to the Russians.

It already gave up it's nuclear deterrent and believed a piece of paper that Russia signed, so I guess those kind of mistakes it shouldn't do. — ssu

Really? So never negotiate with enemies is your strategy - fight to the death every battle and remain armed to the teeth in case of any invasion - you think that's a route to world peace?

You explain me what the choice was for Ukraine, when an apparently not so well anymore Russian dictator accuses an administration made of a centrist party and lead by President of Jewish ancestry being neo-nazis, that are committing a genocide of which there isn't any trace of and then Russia is pursuing a de-nazification in the country which it has invaded. — ssu

I've just explained what the choice is. There's a four point deal on the table right now which Zelensky is quite rightly considering. No-one's asking whether we like the choice.

I think more preferable would be to ask what are the choices for Russia now. — ssu

Why? This is the bit that really interests me so if you answer nothing else, do me the favour of answering this. Why is it more preferable? What does it achieve that we might want as an outcome of this involvement in social media? What are we going to gain by asking what the choices are for Russia - a country run (as we're constantly reminded) by an authoritarian dictator who simply bans media unfavourable to his position and shoots dissenters - what is to be gained from discussing what choices they have?

Adam off of the internet say "Fox news aren't trustworthy" and he's thinking "hey, hang on - if random people of the internet think it's not trustworthy, then maybe I ought to take a step back...". Explain the psychology you imagine going on there. — Isaac

You reach out to him, or you don't, but I think it is worth trying. It is also worth pointing put that you cannot triangulate lies into truth, that one should start with a selection of trustworthy souces. Some folks think that if you average CNN and FOX you get something close to the truth but that is baloney. The average of two lies is another lie.

And if I happen to accept Fox News as reference material? — Isaac

They contradict themselves constantly, so that wouldn't work very well for you. Incidentally, contradictions are a telltale sign of a lot of lying being done.

, all you're doing is giving me the list of sources you trust. Why would I trust the sources you trust. I don't know you. — Isaac

Do you have good reasons to mistrust them? You seem to live in paranoia, I feel sorry for you.

In the end, you are right that if you rely only on secondary sources, what I describe is impossible to do well. One needs an exposure to events, a capacity to enquire by oneself, on the ground. Only then can one establish a few beacons of truth in the media, by comparing one's direct primary observations with what is reported about it. Armchair pundits are easier to fool than folks with a lot of field experience.