The Ukraine war thread
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Ukraine war thread:
@Horace said in The Ukraine war thread:
It appears difficult to discuss how the American media covers a story and its motivations for doing so, without being accused of thinking the subject of the story is America. That interpretation of the discussion is a simple misunderstanding, but one from which people for some reason refuse to dislodge.
Well, if Jolly would make clear what he's actually trying to say, rather than just drop hints about some kind of conspiracy or 'deeper truths', it would be a lot easier to discuss this in a straightforward manner.
As far as I can tell, the motivation behind this war is very easy to understand. There's no need for talk of conspiracies or hidden forces at work.
People should just come out and say what they mean. When people skirt around an issue and drop hints and all the rest of it, I'm left wondering if they're just covering their ass for later so they can say "I never said that!". This is TNCR, nobody important gives a shit what any of us say, after all.
Jolly made it quite clear. It's Wag the Dog by proxy and in reverse. The media didn't create the war, but the amount of coverage and the type of coverage can do a couple of things:
A. By selecting stories, the media can push narratives and create sentiment. A constant stream of human tragedy stories pushes the emotional buttons of good people and compels them to do something. Ever watch those 60 second ASPCA commercials of the emaciated dog starving in the snow, shivering from the bitter cold? They're effective. Imagine a barrage of like stories involving humans in a war zone. Air enough of them and you effect policy.
B. With the war coverage, it leaves a lot less time on MSM coverage for other stories. The MSM will then pick and choose what stories it covers. A Presidential candidate lying in a Presidential debate, touting 50 expert opinions as concluding the Hunter Laptop was "disinformation" and a Russian plot and then the MSM's refusal to carry that story is huge. ..That means the MSM directly influenced a Presidential election, not through a sin of ommission, but a sin of commission.
It also means by not covering the story now, the MSM is protecting their investment in a senile President who us doing whatever his handlers and party machine tell him to do. They are doubling down.
Now, can you understand that or am I typing too fast for you?
@Jolly said in The Ukraine war thread:
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Ukraine war thread:
@Horace said in The Ukraine war thread:
It appears difficult to discuss how the American media covers a story and its motivations for doing so, without being accused of thinking the subject of the story is America. That interpretation of the discussion is a simple misunderstanding, but one from which people for some reason refuse to dislodge.
Well, if Jolly would make clear what he's actually trying to say, rather than just drop hints about some kind of conspiracy or 'deeper truths', it would be a lot easier to discuss this in a straightforward manner.
As far as I can tell, the motivation behind this war is very easy to understand. There's no need for talk of conspiracies or hidden forces at work.
People should just come out and say what they mean. When people skirt around an issue and drop hints and all the rest of it, I'm left wondering if they're just covering their ass for later so they can say "I never said that!". This is TNCR, nobody important gives a shit what any of us say, after all.
Jolly made it quite clear. It's Wag the Dog by proxy and in reverse. The media didn't create the war, but the amount of coverage and the type of coverage can do a couple of things:
A. By selecting stories, the media can push narratives and create sentiment. A constant stream of human tragedy stories pushes the emotional buttons of good people and compels them to do something. Ever watch those 60 second ASPCA commercials of the emaciated dog starving in the snow, shivering from the bitter cold? They're effective. Imagine a barrage of like stories involving humans in a war zone. Air enough of them and you effect policy.
B. With the war coverage, it leaves a lot less time on MSM coverage for other stories. The MSM will then pick and choose what stories it covers. A Presidential candidate lying in a Presidential debate, touting 50 expert opinions as concluding the Hunter Laptop was "disinformation" and a Russian plot and then the MSM's refusal to carry that story is huge. ..That means the MSM directly influenced a Presidential election, not through a sin of ommission, but a sin of commission.
It also means by not covering the story now, the MSM is protecting their investment in a senile President who us doing whatever his handlers and party machine tell him to do. They are doubling down.
Now, can you understand that or am I typing too fast for you?
To be honest, I get most of my news from the BBC rather than American sources. There is a great deal of coverage of Ukraine, there. Probably less about American domestic politics than you'd like. I rather doubt the Beeb don't cover all that stuff because they love Joe Biden.
Typically, you won't see people in Europe saying "Why should I care what happens in Ukraine?" as some Americans have apparently said.
-
@Jolly said in The Ukraine war thread:
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Ukraine war thread:
@Horace said in The Ukraine war thread:
It appears difficult to discuss how the American media covers a story and its motivations for doing so, without being accused of thinking the subject of the story is America. That interpretation of the discussion is a simple misunderstanding, but one from which people for some reason refuse to dislodge.
Well, if Jolly would make clear what he's actually trying to say, rather than just drop hints about some kind of conspiracy or 'deeper truths', it would be a lot easier to discuss this in a straightforward manner.
As far as I can tell, the motivation behind this war is very easy to understand. There's no need for talk of conspiracies or hidden forces at work.
People should just come out and say what they mean. When people skirt around an issue and drop hints and all the rest of it, I'm left wondering if they're just covering their ass for later so they can say "I never said that!". This is TNCR, nobody important gives a shit what any of us say, after all.
Jolly made it quite clear. It's Wag the Dog by proxy and in reverse. The media didn't create the war, but the amount of coverage and the type of coverage can do a couple of things:
A. By selecting stories, the media can push narratives and create sentiment. A constant stream of human tragedy stories pushes the emotional buttons of good people and compels them to do something. Ever watch those 60 second ASPCA commercials of the emaciated dog starving in the snow, shivering from the bitter cold? They're effective. Imagine a barrage of like stories involving humans in a war zone. Air enough of them and you effect policy.
B. With the war coverage, it leaves a lot less time on MSM coverage for other stories. The MSM will then pick and choose what stories it covers. A Presidential candidate lying in a Presidential debate, touting 50 expert opinions as concluding the Hunter Laptop was "disinformation" and a Russian plot and then the MSM's refusal to carry that story is huge. ..That means the MSM directly influenced a Presidential election, not through a sin of ommission, but a sin of commission.
It also means by not covering the story now, the MSM is protecting their investment in a senile President who us doing whatever his handlers and party machine tell him to do. They are doubling down.
Now, can you understand that or am I typing too fast for you?
To be honest, I get most of my news from the BBC rather than American sources. There is a great deal of coverage of Ukraine, there. Probably less about American domestic politics than you'd like. I rather doubt the Beeb don't cover all that stuff because they love Joe Biden.
Typically, you won't see people in Europe saying "Why should I care what happens in Ukraine?" as some Americans have apparently said.
Unless someone sends me a specific link I avoid US media sources. Like you, I too follow the BBC reports as well several European sources in English. Our own CBC is not too bad although it is more or less BBC lite. For print media the National Post and Globe and Mail from time to time also provide some fairly decent analysis depending on the topic.
There are however some excellent US sources but they are not part of the slick media outlets. Rather they are found with various think tanks and specialised research institutes and schools that operate out of the country’s universities.
Elbows up!
-
I try to follow on Twitter people physically in Ukraine who are eyeballing the situation although there are not so many English speaking and most extremely anti Russian and therefore sometimes suspect in objectivity.
But for the usual news…all MSM. (an acronym I hate because it’s the one used by people at each end of the political spectrum when they don’t hear what they want to hear)
-
You KIA 10K and that's a big deal. A really big deal.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
Especially when it all happened in the course of three weeks in a special military operation that was not meeting any resistance other than fraternal greetings and offerings of bread and salt to the troops.
MIL told spouse yesterday in their zoom call that the bodies are beginning to arrive home in the city for burial. Also no sugar or bleached office paper in to be had anywhere.
-
Shooting civilians:
Link to video -
Shooting civilians:
Link to video -
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
Saw on the news last night that the Ukranians are engaged in a few small offensive operations. And winning.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
I have been wondering if Ukraine would dare launch an assault into Russian territory and if so what that looks like? An assault on the disputed Donbas region? An assault on non-disputed Russian land?
The Brad
-
Saw on the news last night that the Ukranians are engaged in a few small offensive operations. And winning.
-
I have been wondering if Ukraine would dare launch an assault into Russian territory and if so what that looks like? An assault on the disputed Donbas region? An assault on non-disputed Russian land?
@LuFins-Dad said in The Ukraine war thread:
I have been wondering if Ukraine would dare launch an assault into Russian territory and if so what that looks like? An assault on the disputed Donbas region? An assault on non-disputed Russian land?
Not likely. As it is their plate is full defending their own territory.
-
There would be no strategic advantage in taking Russian territory. I could see incursions to take out specific near-border military targets, but that is probably not achievable.
-
There would be no strategic advantage in taking Russian territory. I could see incursions to take out specific near-border military targets, but that is probably not achievable.
-
An attack on Moscow would do wonders for morale.
See Jimmy Doolittle
