I was born in the Soviet Union during its dying years
back then everyone knew the system was corrupt, inefficient and basically a pile of bullshit and thankfully it all fell apart.
I still remember having to queue hours to get bread from bakery, and not seeing toilet paper, milk or meat for some time...
Anyone who wants to go back to those days is insane imho :(
My parents and older generation of relatives mostly watch Russian news and entertainment channels via satellite, and the unashamed propaganda and brainwashing is incredible to behold, whats worse is how my parents/relatives believe everything they hear even if it is absolutely absurd or borderline conspiracy crazy.
We often argue nowadays about the direction Russia has taken, but usually the arguments end once i ask "where would you want your grand children to grow up, here in the western Europe or back home", that's when they go quiet.
They truly believe that Putin is some sort of a genius (ignoring the rise in oil prices that helped him) and this is actually downright scary :( at least in the Soviet days people didn't buy the propaganda, now a lot of people seem to actually believe all they hear and see, and live under a sort of a massive reality distortion field where the world is out to destroy Russia and its people.
aside: interestingly enough back then the collapse of USSR was partly prompted by low oil prices and a stupid war with Islamists, fast forward 30+ years and economy is even more reliant on resource extraction and Putin is boldly marching into another quagmire
I'm a citizen and former resident of the UK, the UK for many reasons has a very loving relationship to the US, our young people are fashioned by the image of Television, and more than half of all English speaking entertaining media is american.
We like America/Americans, by default before we learn politics.
I travelled to the US in 2013, and to Russia the same year.
What I saw was not "good" vs "evil" or, "propaganda" vs "truth".
What I saw was exactly the same shit, I spoke to natives in both places, I travelled around.
Russia has it's side of the story and America has theirs, America is good at spreading it's propaganda outside of it's borders and fostering the image of "the beacon of light and purity of the world" but those who actually take a sceptical or inquisitive eye to America see an insidious underbelly which is only parabled by that in Russia.
Russia is guilty of being no more evil than the US government, if anything they're more honest with their intentions.
The differing factor is that we bought the kool-aid.
Ah "America does it" strawman, there must be a handbook on internet trolling or something made back in the old country now. Every single time, every single time, same crap gets regurgitated.
"Why are we invading yet another country? Oh because America did it too!"
"Why are our rights being eroded? Oh because America does it!"
and so on...
I been back to Russia and crisscrossed the US over the last decade, I would pick the US for all its problems over Russia any day as a place to live. Anyways I am quite happy here in Europe for now.
Well, it's fine if you call out Russia on principle, as long as that principle applies to the US as well.
But you seem to suggest that the US is a nicer place to live, so it's fine that they've waged aggressive wars all over the globe for more than half a century?
Look my grandparents died a few years ago in a small tiny village by the Volga, once you travel outside of Moscow and Leningrad(StPetersburg nowadays) you may as well be time travelling into the past. The place had no paved roads leading to it had to travel couple of says on grotty trains to get there. The farming being done is subsistence with remnants of old Soviet coop in the village, alcoholism is rampant so is depression. It is understandable how one who might never has left Moscow doesn't realise how truly and incredibly poor the rest of the country is
Now rural US or UK may as well be on a different planet when compared to that.
This is all from personal experience, what has happened and is happening in Russia is beyond tragic.
Now go ahead and come up with another "But but the US"
US and Europe have all sorts of issues and are not perfect and no one claims they are, but they are damned better places for my kids to grow up in.
My reply was ambiguous. The point was that you seem to be suggesting the US is always right because it's a nicer place to live, or that Russia is wrong because it is not such a nice place to live.
I lived in the West for a long time and returned with my children to eastern Europe. Sure it's poorer and less developed and plagued with problems. There are many frustrating things, but to categorically suggest it is impossible to live there (or Russia I guess) would be an insult to everyone who does.
You've found your happiness in Europe and that's great.
The US is, without question, a nicer place to live than Russia. If you think otherwise, you've either never been to the US or you haven't seen the level of poverty that is widespread outside Russia's major cities. There are small pockets of prosperity in Russia, outside of those, nobody acclimated to western standards of living would consider them equatable.
I didn't say otherwise. In general, for the average Joe (or Dmitri), the US is a nicer place to live. That doesn't excuse the behavior of it's government or serve as an argument why Russia is wrong and the US is right.
I am in no way suggesting people should not express their opinions.
I'd like to know whether those opinions are formed as a result of propaganda. In this case, whether any anti-russian opinions are out of principle (e.g. pacifist principles) or on the basis of consumed propaganda.
I was a member of municipal polling board during last Putin's election. Honestly I did my best to prevent fraud, and yet the voting protocol (a paper where all ballots are summed up, it goes to an higher-level board) was rewritten right under my nose (+25% to a leading candidate, guess which one), with police covering it up. I tried to warn a friendly member of higher-level board, just to learn that all independent members of the board were escorted out of building by our SWAT analogue.
Voting and vote counting were all recorded on much-hyped state-wise CCTV system, so I thought "right, I'll go to a public prosecutor, they will retrieve the record and the fraud would be obvious". Guess what — there were no interest at all, my complaint was routed into the same higher-level board.
It wasn't an isolated event. In fact, the huge part of polling boards in Saint-Petersburg had their protocols rewritten. It was widely publicized in a local independent press, but all court cases were ultimately lost and no one were held accountable. Similar stories took place in other Russian cities.
This was a huge, centrally orchestrated fraud, with those in power getting away with it (as always). Voting is an institute of critical importance to any liberal democracy out there, and it is completely and systematically destroyed by Putin and his team. I can't see how on Earth the country where it's normal can be even compared to US; it's like comparing North Korea and US with a straight face.
And yes, given that it's HN, let me also mention that all cellular and Internet operators in Russia are legally and openly obliged to pay for wiretapping equipment and install it with no regulatory oversight on how it's used. It's so amusing when people somehow combine any degree of support for Snowden AND for Russian government.
This is very suspect and very hard to believe. I've been on polling boards in a much (much) smaller country, and it would be logistically impossible to carry out fraud on that scale (25%) without it being widely documented.
The suggestion that there are enough police (including SWAT none the less) to watch over tens of thousands of polling stations and enforce this is even stranger. And this is from a miniscule country compared to Russia (size mentioned because of the logistics challenge of such an endeavour). There were such stories in my country as well, previously, but were generally propaganda from the opposition at the time.
Here is my blog post on that elections [1]. It's in Russian, so please use Google Translate to make sense of it.
>without it being widely documented
It is widely documented. Now what? There is no such thing as "class action lawsuit" in Russia. The only two entities that can file a lawsuit are candidates (because they are directly harmed by fraud) or public prosecutors. The former are filtered [2], and the latter one don't care. So what exactly can be done with the documented fraud?
>The suggestion that there are enough police to watch over tens of thousands of polling stations
All polling station have at least one policeman during voting day in Russia (at least in big cities). There are about 700 000 policemen in Russia, so there are more than enough to handle this.
>logistics challenge of such an endeavour
What do you consider a logistic challenge? There are a lot of police stations in Russia, it's not like they're all concentrated in a few places. If you mean the logistic challenge of the fraud itself, it's also pretty straightforward: the biggest part of county's funding comes from Moscow, and it depends on election results. Incentives for local authorities are here, combine them with deteriorated social institutes and all branches of authority fused together and you get widespread fraud without much coordination.
Heck, just look up Chechnya's voting results, with 99.59% turnout and 99.89% of votes for Putin [3]. It's just plain impossible in any electoral situation. Nothing is done about it, guess why.
[2]: you need to get an absurd amount of signatures to become a presidential candidate, and even if you manage to collect them, they can be easily dismissed by some anonymous expert as "forged" ones
Look, even this article is titled "controversy". I personally have a videofile from my own polling station, where you can hear loud and clear true results of the voting, and then look up "official" results with 20%+ difference. It's not even a controversy here, it's a wide scale fraud in broad daylight, and not even one official was persecuted for this.
I understand an attraction of reiterating how corrupt America is, but it's not even close here.
We're different. Part of American foreign policy is that "truth is the best propaganda" not the only propaganda, mind you, but the best.
The West also does have a policy of expanding liberal democracies and integrating them into a world trade frame work. Cases where we don't follow this policy is in areas where we're afraid of a counter weight emerging.
For example, the Middle Eastern policy is one where we foster instability to keep the Arab / Muslim world from unifying. Yes of course the war in Iraq is a travesty, but in America and the West in general we know when we get into tragic wars. To the point where even Jeb Bush has admitted that the war was a mistake.
The Russian mindset is different. It's more... brutal? I'm struggling for the right word. But if you look at Russian war doctrine during the cold war and (especially) World War 2, you see this apparatus that is 100% ok with using logic that ends with millions of suffering countrymen. Where propaganda and killing political opponents is acceptable. Where sending a man into space even though your scientists tell you he won't make it back alive.
The West doesn't stand for this. We have our (sometimes blatant) propaganda like the rest of them, and we make mistakes, but our jails cells look nothing like those in most of the rest of the world and our press isn't nearly as controlled.
> The Russian mindset is different. It's more... brutal? I'm struggling for the right word.
Severe is the word I use. If I were permitted to generalize the Russian people, I would generalize them as severe. Extremely warm and loyal people, but quick to swing to the opposite end of the spectrum when disturbed.
I'm married to a Russian and spend lots of time with Russians. My wife tells a joke about a westerner hanging out with some Russian friends. The Russians spend the night joking around telling him shit about Russians, being heavy drinkers, quick to violence, as if it were a competition to see which culture drank more. The westerner disagrees and says no, you are a great and warm people. And they continue to try to convince him with their stories, saying "we're all friends here". At the end of the night he finally agrees, "OK, you're right, maybe you guys are heavy drinkers". So they beat him up.
A handful of conversations and a couple months of travel will not give a Westerner an understanding of Russia. The vast majority USSR emigrants under a certain age (that is, people truly familiar with both systems) would disagree with you in the strongest possible terms. I'm one of them. There is no moral equivalence.
I'll take you word that living in Russia today is better than what your parents went through. I've only watched Russia from afar. As a kid, I heard about the shortages of TP, and in some cases food, but I don't remember you guys having a homeless problem? Or, huge masses of people in extreme poverty.
My views don't matter. I was young. As I stated, I'll take your word it's better now. I have one question about modern Russia.
The question is "How does anything in business get done with all the corruption, bribes, killings, and just illegial behavior?"
I know Russia is not the only country with huge levels of seemingly stifling corruption, and your conversion to capitalism is very early. And yes, even the U.S. has corruption, but here, you can only get away with so much, for so long. As much as I despise our system sometimes; I am proud of our checks and balances.
In your opinion, how many decades will it take in order to stifle the corruption. From my perspective, I just couldn't imagine doing business in that country. I don't even trust .ru domains? Am I being overly paranoid?
I don't remember you guys having a homeless problem?
Or, huge masses of people in extreme poverty.
Both existed. Homeless people were escorted outside of big cities (often jailed, but not always), so foreign journalists would not see them on the streets of the places they were allowed to visit. I estimate the level of homelessness was less than that of the USA, however. The level of poverty, in my estimation, was much higher, and it affected the most vulnerable members of the society, primarily the elderly.
> inefficient and basically a pile of bullshit and thankfully it all fell apart
You must have never lived in Russia post Soviet Union nor experienced how much worse it is to be spouting this crap. No one believes Putin is a genius - but in fact the country was so badly ruined under Yeltsin and Oligarchical capitalism-free-for-all that Putin appeared to people as the best possible option of these.
I was there till the middle of 90s i see the worst of the post-collapse, yes things got worse but Putin is not some genius savior who rode in on a white horse to save Russia from evil capitalism as is the prevailing narrative nowadays. Rising oil prices and modernization of the oil industry by a certain oligarch whose company was then taken from him by Putin is where most of the money came from, money then used by Putin to grab more power.
What followed the USSR was a wild west free for all bringing out the worst of capitalism, with even more corruption and organised crime taking over daily lives of just about everyone. It is tragic and sad that Russia could not transition to a modern economy like some Eastern European countries done.
Putin loves to push the story that without him Russia will go back to the bad old days of "democracy and capitalism" of the 90s, and that his way is the only way forward. The whole thing is awful similar to what was argued in Germany in 30s btw.
> Putin loves to push the story that without him Russia will go back to the bad old days of "democracy and capitalism" of the 90s, and that his way is the only way forward. The whole thing is awful similar to what was argued in Germany in 30s btw.
I'm definitely not arguing in support of Putin here - what I'm saying is two things:
a) the popular support of Putin is understandable in the face of recent history.
b) Quality of life in Russia today is well below what it was in the 1980's (ask any of the 99%).
Other than that it might as well be one type of state sponsored propaganda replaced by another.
> No one believes Putin is a genius
Oh, man, I wish this was true. Just like Dmitri back in Russia I tried to prevent elections fraud, and even though I myself got forcibly removed from the site, and my friends recorded fraud, some my other friends did not care. But that's not the worst: some still think Putin is a genius after knowing that!
While all you are saying is true, I also think the very same kind of propaganda, but actually much more efficient, is happening in Europe and the US. People go absolutely insane if you start questioning democracy, social programs or anything that a state does.
When you point out to them how internet or cellphone networks or taxis or a number of other things is actually cheaper in Russia (or in eastern Europe in general) because of the lack of regulations or government interference, they go in denial. People in Europe and even in the US are so much more brainwashed into believing they need a state that it's painful to even start conversations with them. The most notable case just happened in Finland, where reportedly the police asked citizens to rat on pizza places who sell pizza for less than 6.5 EUR because the government believes a place selling pizzas for less cannot be profitable. In my book, that's almost what a communist state with price controls looks like.
I'd like my kids to grow up in Russia. I like it that, at least when it comes to personal income, the tax rate is 13% (although fundamentally, I believe there should be no taxation). I like it that I have more freedom here than in Europe or the US. The only thing I don't like is the government of any kind telling me or my family what products or services I can use and for how much. Unfortunately that happens in many other countries too and especially so in Europe or the US.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Corruption at all levels of government is rampant in Russia. It's the norm to have to pay off multiple officials when trying to get something built/renovated.
Russia doesn't give a fuck about its own people, to the Russian government lives are expendable if needed [1]. The alcoholism and suicide rate in Russia is monstrous [2], and is probably caused by the lack of opportunity.
> In my book, that's almost what a communist state with price controls looks like.
No. A communist state looks like the murder of millions for the sake of "security"[3].
> I'd like my kids to grow up in Russia. I like it that, at least when it comes to personal income, the tax rate is 13%...
Actually it's even better than you think. 13% of $0 is still $0.
> Corruption at all levels of government is rampant in Russia
I'm not concerned with corruption. It's a different side of coin. What happens in the US or in Europe is that if you need stuff done or if you need to win in court, you hire expensive lobbyists or lawyers. Either way, you spend money. It is practically the same, but legalized, so that you can say "oh, but this is civil". No it's not. It's still a government monopoly on doing stuff. Government should have no business telling people how to run a business or live their lives.
Lawyers in their current incarnation wouldn't exists and wouldn't be able to charge those high prices unless they weren't state licenced (you can't be a lawyer without state permission, basically) and unless they had to deal with monopoly on law, which is government.
>> When you point out to them how internet or cellphone networks or taxis or a number of other things is actually cheaper in Russia (or in eastern Europe in general) because of the lack of regulations or government interference, they go in denial.
Cool. I'm from a small 3rd world country. Just as in Russia the police officers sometimes rape detainees with bottles of champagne, there is literally no justice, but lots other funny things.
But our prices are lower than those in Russia. And it's OK if you are not paying taxes here. So what? Does it mean the rest of the world must be envy?
I think countries have problems because of governments, not because their governments aren't strong enough. Paying more to police officers doesn't make them behave any more civil. An example of that is the US where police abuse is widespread and incarceration rate is highest in the world. Statistically, in terms of police interaction, I'd be much safer in your country than in the US.
The real problem is absence of the market mechanism in law enforcement. A police officer, even though I basically am paying his salary, isn't working for me. He's working for the state. I can't hire another protection service and stop paying to the police. I can't complain. Hell, I can't even change laws that I don't like (except through a very long political process which is unlikely to give me any results in any meaningful timeframe).
What you should be thinking is, not how to make a government better, but how to make it less dangerous and influential.
I agree with you on this one, but I have hard time believing that between U.S. and Russian governments the former is more dangerous to its citizens than the latter.
Well, think twice. Just by incarceration rate alone you can tell that the US govt is more dangerous to its own citizens. I'm also much more likely to be shot by a cop in the US than in Russia. Russia also doesn't execute people (there's a moratorium on capital punishment). What else do you need to know?
Can you elaborate on differences/similarities between that system being a "corrupt, inefficient pile of BS" driven by propaganda, vs the socialistic "government should take care of everyone, by redistributing wealth" prominently posted in HN discussions (a la "guaranteed basic income", "reduced work weeks", "free healthcare/education/etc", "everyone has a right to _____ which others earned", etc - all requiring a dominating government taking what isn't theirs to take, all sounding wonderful but crushingly impossible in implementation a la USSR)?
(Obviously I'm biased, but I am trying to make an earnest question. Russian communism sounded great too, even as you note: your parents still fall for the propaganda. Wish I could ask in a more neutral tone, but it's an inherently divisive subject.)
It was never communism back in USSR, it was authoritarianism where all power flowed to the Kremlin marching under the Socialist banner, 30 years its the same shit but to the tune of Nationalism. The economy still remains resource extraction bound (more so now), corruption goes all the way to the top (see Sochi).
One quote from my mother sums it up when we moved here in middle of 90s when she learned that in Europe this thing called welfare exists "So we were building Socialism for 70 years, and they had it here all along"
BTW they didnt fall for propaganda back then, it was mocked if anything, but the modern take on it by the Russian state controlled media is actually incredible to behold in how it works, hell just look at some of the replies above that my post attracted to see it in action.
Working electricity, sewers, courts, police, and road netowork all require "a dominating government taking what isn't theirs to take" on the same level that free healthcare and university education do.
I was a kid in 80s in communist Poland. It was shitty place, with a lot of absurd propaganda nobody (including the people making a living spewing it, or beating up the protesters) believed. Free education and healthcare had nothing to do with it.
Main differences between communism and modern social democracies:
- independent organisations were banned or discriminated, now they are encouraged
- people were paid to spy on each other with the REAL money (you couldn't buy a car in a month with any amount of money, but if you told the right person that your neighbor listens to radio free europa and prints leaflets - you could get one no problem) - think this one through - no matter how good brain surgeon or rocket scientist or nobel prize writer you are - you won't get a car unless you wait for 10 or 20 years. Spying on your neighbors (or knowing the right people and doing them favours) can solve this in a week. Consider the incentives this sets up throught the whole society.
- there was just one employer (the state)
- social trust was nonexistent - you could only trust your family
- you had to apply for a permission to leave the country, and often when they gave you that permission you had to sign with secret service that you are a spy - so they can later blackmail you with it
I see no reason to think policies like free education till M.A. are in any way connected to these problems, since Poland had free education and healthcare both now and during communism, yet we don't do the bad things I listed anymore.
For the record - I didn't downvoted you and I don't understand why somebody woulld do that for asking a question.
BTW: free university education seems like much better than paid, because as a kid you work harder in school for better grades to go to better university. As a kid of poor parents in system with paid universities you just can't work hard enough to go to Harward (well there are stipends I guess, so they do see this problem).
As a parent it works too - in paid system you spend more time at work to afford better education for your kids. In free system - you teach your kids more so they get better grades and go to a better university. IMHO it's obvious which system sets up the incentives better.
A given level of technology allows a county with given resources (e.g. petroleum, good engineers, conquered peoples being exploited far away, etc.) to have some total amount of wealth. The ruling class will give the bottom 99% some part of the wealth (not 99%, but hopefully 50%) to keep them subdued.
The closer technology is to Star Trek's replicators, the more realistic free housing, food, utilities are. In such a society, people are by default artists, not farmers or workers. The people who becomes doctors and teachers and do not get compensated by their patients or students, need to be compensated by the government which needs to have something people want.
In the USSR, people spent most of their money, time and energy just hustling for the basic necessities.
Note: I was born in Leningrad, but know of life there only from my parents.
I laughed when I read this, but there is indeed a difference. Here, a meaningful portion of your confiscated earnings is distributed to your fellow citizens. Moreover, the means of confiscation is predictable, as is the degree. In Russia, you'll get fleeced just the same. However, your money will primarily line the pockets of those doing the taking.
Thank you New York Times, the News Group that Snowden could not use to whistle blow because it is a direct branch of US government, for reminding us Western how free we are against propaganda.
We can really trust the 6 companies that own all media groups in the US, or the two news agencies that control all what we watch in the West.
Never believe that the Government of the US have ever thought about controlling these 6 groups. That in order to make a movie about the military you have to give your script to the US military for review.
Don't read Propaganda by EDWARD L. BERNAYS or any other book, just trust us, we are the good guys.
What I don't understand is how so many people can still watch TV news and believe what they say. Every news show I have seen in the last 10 years or more is complete BS and exists in a reality bubble where bad things happen but everything is fine as a kitten was saved in the end of the show. Why do they hold so much power? I can understand 50+ year olds maybe, but young people? Are you telling me young people look on their TV and believe that dictator is actually telling the truth? We know the western TV is BS, but so is theirs. Its not about one or the other, its about not believing anything at face value and actually educate yourself.
Sorry about the rant, its just something that surprises me continually.
I don't trust the article, but I have at least read different sources on the information, including some of the Russian ones. And while I cant say 100% what is true or not, I generally distrust news when they are changing their stance way to often. Another reason is that Russia is the aggressor in this war, and that in itself is a very big red sign saying "watch out". I apply the same to the US, UK or any other country that is attacking another country to "save them" or whatever excuse they come up with. I'm not saying that we don't need to help out in certain situations, but the current situation is out of control.
As another example, I currently live in Spain, and the government here lie to our faces and then hide from reporters so they cant ask any important questions. Here in Cataluña the people where tricked again into voting for a guy who is "promising" independence, and people believe it and shut up about any corruption or other issues that related to what's going on. They just blame Madrid and Germany for those issues, as that's what the TV tells them to do.
What I mean with the 50+ is people who are not technologically aware and/or are very set in their ways. I find it a lot harder to change the mindset, or at least talking about it with older generations then the younger ones. From my point of view (European) its hard to understand that people don't distrust any news outlet or politician, but maybe that's just my personal paranoia.
"Put another way: Propaganda works. Putin has understood that from Day"
We can be only glad that Western media (including the NY Times) has never been used for propaganda and all information is absolutely objective, reproducible, and a hundred percent trustworthy.
To be more specific: I don't see any of the features prcolaimed by the West (honest government, no interference in other country's business, avoid civilian kills) upheld by themselves.
I do pay attention to the way Russia does propaganda and I've noticed one common tactic is to call out some hypocrisy of the US, then use that to completely skirt the first issue.
For instance "Why does Russia torture dissidents?"
"Ah, sure, like the US doesn't torture people that disagree with them..."
So move along because Russia doesn't torture people? Or it's OK because America does too? Or many Americans don't believe America really tortures, so Russia must not really torture either?
Or, specific to this discussion: "Why do people believe the Russian propaganda machine?"
"Oh, sure, like Americans don't believe their own propaganda cough Iraq war cough."
So move along because Russian and American propaganda are similar?
Both of those (US tortures people and Iraq war was sold with a lie) are true. The weird trick is that getting someone to admit that two parties are remotely similar makes them much more similar in our minds than we intended (our minds think in black and white, villains and heroes, "somewhere in between" is a strange and modern concept). Suddenly, you are much less worried about Russia because the US is doing it too. Or rather, you're not worried about the US, so why worry about Russia?
The other favorite is appeals to nationalism: "How do you respond to protesters in the capital?" "They are not real Russians, just look, some of their signs are in English, they are meant as propaganda for the Western media. All the real Russians understand what we are doing, despite the best efforts of the West."
But while we're at it, I'll raise your 600k people to the tens of millions that died during the reign of the USSR.
I fail to see how we went from comparing media in the two spheres of influence and whether it's propaganda to this comparison of specific actions cherry-picked from history.
If you read wikipedia etc, there seems to be a consensus that the Bush administration really believed that Saddam Hussein's Iraq still had the weapon programs going.
Personally, I think that with all the leaks it would be known if Bush lied. For instance, some Russian source published death and maiming data for the Ukrainian war by mistake [regarding costs for pensions etc].
No one is saying that politicians don't lie. But there are levels in Hell. There is, in these two cases, a big difference between the incompetence of the Bush administration and systematic disinformation.
But I suspect you know this already...
Edit: It is also a bit much to make the US responsible for civilians killed by people also trying to kill American soldiers. To start with, you need to subtract all the people the Hussein regime would have murdered over the years, if it hadn't been kicked out.
Edit 2: 3princip: The WMD thing was probably an excuse for Bush, sure. But I answered the claim that this WMD excuse was a LIE -- which seems to not be true. So it is you that miss the point. (And this is a serious place so give serious references, not some generic youtube video.)
The US has weapons of mass destruction, so does Russia, and China, and Pakistan, and India and Israel.
Keep in mind the context, this was the second such invasion of Iraq, the first war being conducted by Bush Sr, having failed to discourage Saddam from attacking Kuwait[1]. In between the two wars the US bombing and sanctions caused the deaths of an estimated 500000 children[2].
So trying to justify the glaring lies, as some kind of buffoonery, especially in the context of what had been done to Iraq for the previous decade, is naive in my opinion.
Ah... Media these days. I can't trust anyone, anymore.
I guess, best thing to do is not to have opinion at all.
I'm having a GPS in my pocket, I can browse most of the cities from my computer through Google Earth. I can talk to my watch, which replies and sends messages for me, but not a single country can provide a satellite image of the exact location of a fired rocket or any other evidence, like radar logs of some sort.
Sometimes I really think I'm living in a multi-country-conspiracy and Snowden is only the top of the iceberg.
That seems to be the point of modern propaganda. It's no longer about trying to convince people of what to believe in. Instead, the idea is to throw out multiple competing ideas no matter how far fetched to breed cynicism and conspiracy theories.
I tend to read RT.com from time to time when Russia is featuring in the news to see what the Russian media is saying. And I have to confess the barrage of conflicting information (vis a vis western media) is extremely disorienting and difficult to methodically process. I'm not surprised that some people feel the way that you do.
What I would also add is it's interesting to note how the story is pretty consistent from western media (that rebels shot down the plane by mistake). From what I've seen, the Russian media perspective is highly fluid; i.e. prone to change and multi-pronged.
There was an article posted here on HN detailing how this is performed.
I'll see if I can dig up the article, but it had interviews with internet users paid by the Russian state to shape argument. A group of 2-3 would take opposing sites in creating an artificial argument on say, a forum where it was being discussed. The "Western" POV would be discredited, and the argument focused between differing "Russian" explanations. The argument would never actually cease or come to a conclusion, but re-center around a number of accepted conclusions.
Adam Curtis, a documentary film-maker and journalist, has a brilliant aptitude at analysis in this area. His work in general, at the intersection of reporting and politics, is pretty excellent.
It is some malice, more than you might expect; with with a great dollop of ineptitude, far more than you might expect; that allows this climate of total disorientation to exist.
Take some of his thoughts:
> "Politicians used to have the confidence to tell us stories that made sense of the chaos of world events.
> "But now there are no big stories and politicians react randomly to every new crisis - leaving us bewildered and disorientated.
> "And journalism - that used to tell a grand, unfurling narrative - now also just relays disjointed and often wildly contradictory fragments of information.
> "Events come and go like waves of a fever. We - and the journalists - live in a state of continual delirium, constantly waiting for the next news event to loom out of the fog - and then disappear again, unexplained."
The whole point of this kind of propaganda is to make people go "meh, everybody's lying, so I just won't trust anybody".
You have police shooting black unarmed teen, and want people not to be angry about that - make a panel discussion with 12 people telling 12 versions of what happened, 11 of which blame the teenager. Accuse every other source of information of bias and lies. Many people will think "there's sth to this, I won't know the truth anyway, not my problem, let's ignore this issue".
>But not a single country can provide a satellite image of the exact location of a fired rocket or any other evidence.
Assume for a minute that the CIA had that sort of in depth coverage of the event. Assume they know everything from the serial number of the warhead to the crew-members' favorite vodka.
Why would they, or any other intelligence agency risk burning even the tiniest shred of information on an event that open sources have done a pretty good job covering?
The trouble, I see at least in my (Western) country: The main (public) TV programs are in the hand of the state (via regulatory control of the TV channels through political parties) or of two to three big corporations (many channels belong to one big corporation controlling them and also other news media).
From Italy, I heard, that many TV channels are controlled by one media mogul that also was the president. I guess, there are also other western countries, with similar situations.
At least in my country, I see clear evidence, that political unwanted news are at least suppressed or sometimes shown in a very distorted way. For example, when the software patent discussion came up some years ago in Europe, they brought news showing software patents in a shiny, only positive way. I would accept that from a purely private TV channel, but that was a "public TV channel" -- and many in my country still believe, that those public TV channels only tell the truth. But that is not so -- they tell, what our governments want us to know!
Also, at least one leading news reporter was dismissed (against protests from other reporters), he was inconvenient for one leading political party.
So, in the west, we don't have it as bad as in Russia -- but we should be very careful, the situation is far away from good.
"Kiev has claimed that Ukrainian troops have destroyed one separatist L-39 military trainer aircraft, two An-2 agricultural aircraft, one Yak-52 trainer airplane and four Mi-24 attack helicopters -- the latter being the most dangerous aircraft in the list, and the only ones built expressly for an armed role."
"It was regular war zone with dozens other planes shoot down"
with dozens of Ukrainian planes shoot down. (who shot them? where did they got weapons for that? where did they got skills for that?)
"Ukraine army shoot down civil airliner with 90 people on board just a few years ago" How many planes (korean planes to be specific) were shot down by USSR (that includes Russia)
I meant difference not about the fact that somebody shot the plane, but the difference in reaction.
Why Russia blocked tribunal? What about all that clowning around investigation, throwing a new weird version about accident (what about the version that goes about frozen bodies or version about shooting down the plane by Ukrainian Su-25 that can't reach that altitude? All of this went through Russian state TV channels and other state people (Investigation Committee etc.)
- Just because that they can, doesn't mean that they would.
- The list lists Ukrainian aircraft lost during the conflict, not the separatist/Russian aircraft.
- Yes, separatist-held territory is Ukraine territory, and separatists are (at times) Ukrainian citizens, although Ukraine currently cannot guarantee the safety of its, or other citizens in the separatist-held territory.
- As to the last point, who knows. Who produced what, and sold where in the post-Soviet world is a lot harder to debunk than the publicly exposed news.
Russia never took on, and still does not take on its moral obligation to proactively control its border with the conflict zone. Similarly, Ukraine didn't take appropriate action to ban flights over the conflict zone. Ukraine did take action - when will Russia? Both are "guilty" in the case of MH17, due to their inaction.
"There are risks and costs to action. But they are far less than the long range risks of comfortable inaction." - John F. Kennedy.
It's kind of scary how effective the Russian propaganda is with only 3% believing MH17 was shot down by the rebels when that is almost certainly what happened.
Is this the same missile that was launched from a mobile carrier that arrived from across the Russian border and then days later was driven back across the border?
Putin is extremely manipulative and dangerous. Like a Kim Jong-un without anyone like China to tell him "no".
I'm surprised no-one points out he is basically on the third term of what should be a two term limit. That alone removes all legitimacy from his rule.
Countries of Eastern Europe are willingly joining NATO because they don't want to be bullied by a certain country in the east.
My country joined NATO because, altho not under direct threat from Russia, Russia supported our enemy (going as far as sending special forces to work undercover) in a very recent conflict and as such I couldn't give a shit if Russia feels that their imperialism is threatened by my security.
No one in NATO has to force any country into joining NATO. Russia's doing it on its won.
No. My country was created by the democratic independence referendum of 1991, in accordance with Yugoslavia's constitution.
Altho sadly, after the declaration of independence and its international acceptance, a guy named Milosevic who committed coup d'etats in Montenegro, Kosovo, Vojvodina and attempted a coup d'etat in Slovenia decided that he disagreed with our independence and started a bloody war.
Yes I remember when your militia shot unarmed surrendering conscripts, using weapons provided by NATO members. All of which was a strong catalyst for the bloody wars which followed in neighboring republics.
I'd like to recommend the documentary called "The Weight of Chains (Težina lanaca)" [1] for more in-depth arguments behind the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia.
>"The Weight of Chains" is a Canadian documentary film that takes a critical look at the role that the US, NATO and the EU played in the tragic breakup of a once peaceful and prosperous European state - Yugoslavia. The film, bursting with rare stock footage never before seen by Western audiences, is a creative first-hand look at why the West intervened in the Yugoslav conflict, with an impressive roster of interviews with academics, diplomats, media personalities and ordinary citizens of the former Yugoslav republics.
Following articles talk about how the US officials went on privatizing strategic domestic industry in the countries they've helped to destroy. The same happened in all post-Soviet countries which became enslaved under their new Western owners, always excused under the blanket statement of "democracy". Yet, no one talks about one million working age people that died as a direct result of the social vacuum it has created [2]. The average income levels in the EU, 25 years after the "liberation", tell the story in one picture [3]. People in post-Soviet countries / former Yugoslavia today have access to more products, but most of the people are not able to afford any of them, they are basically just window shopping in the capitalist society.
>"Privatizing" Kosovo: The Madeleine Albright Way [4]
Americans Who Helped Free Kosovo Return as Entrepreneurs - The New York Times [5]
>"The Prime Minister of Ukraine has urged U.S. partners to actively use the investment opportunities offered by the privatization campaign in Ukraine, particularly in the energy sector," a statement posted on Ukraine’s governmental website said on Monday. [6]
That's a fallacy. NATO is being invited by these countries. Eastern European countries are basically begging for NATO protection. What Russia does there is pretty different, they invide a sovereign country that doesn't want them there.
Of course if you're talking about the useless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan you're right.
Well, I live in (South) Eastern Europe. The whole region is awash with puppet political elites and western backed/owned media. The result of that propaganda (which doesn't negate the existence of Russian propaganda or the bad experiences of ex-soviet block countries) in the wake of a victory in the cold-war is a very big reason for the current situation.
Regarding wars and interventions, I'm not just talking about Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, (ex)Yugoslavia and Latin America. I'm also talking about the aggressive stance the US is taking in the south China sea as we speak. I'm also thinking about it's operations in Africa.
If the US has a right to a global military presence, then others have too. Or is American exceptionalism real?
You must be Serbian :) (I'm Romanian). It's impossible to be neutral in Central or Eastern Europe. You can't trust the West because of the war with NATO; we can't trust Russia because of Moldova/Transnistria conflict and the feeling that Putin would love to spread us in Siberia like his idol(Stalin of course) did with other inconveniently placed nations (including some unlucky Moldovans). I really hope NATO and Russia will not use Romania and Serbia against each other. There is zero support now in Romania (and in Serbia too I guess) for a conflict like that but hey, speaking of the omnipresent propaganda, anything is possible right ?.
Honestly, I believe more to people who did those missiles, than to some random Dutch experts (with all respect, of course). Almaz-Antey did their own investigation, they did experiments, they have very expert knowledge about those missiles, so it's very important not to throw away their facts.
They might be influenced by Russia politics, of course, but Netherlands, as part of Europe, definitely follows anti-Russian politics as well.
As a person who lives in an ex-Soviet country, which is not Russia, many who have not seen Soviet/Russian reality distortion field (aka political lies) can be too naive to believe them.
Russia, when it's convenient to them likes to exploit western liberalism and naivety. Like here, they (Russian) say that their experts, who know best in the world how BUK missile launcher system works in every aspect, concluded, that Russia did not do it.
Though, I believe that Russia's underground political tactics have not much change from the times of KGB. Possibly, those Russian experts were made (by government agencies) to 'investigate' and produce 'report'. Also do not ignore the fact, that Russians gave their report at the same time as Dutch report was released. The goal was, that the people would see Russian 'report' instead of the Dutch one. The 'dictatorship' cannot let people doubt that they do not have a enemies in the west.
Err, you clearly didn't watch/read the report then, because the investigation wasn't "dutch", it was conducted by a large team if different nationalities, including Russians. Aside from that, the international team has the missile fragments and the airplane, the Russian team doesn't.
Almaz-Antey is 100% owned by the Russian federation. The state is also their biggest customer, and nearly 90% of the business is with the military. Almaz-Antey produces very high priority strategic systems, like air and missile defenses.
Oh wow, finally an opportunity to see the pot calling the kettle black. Nytimes readers should remember this article every time they see a casual line coming from "anonymous government officials" of the United States being printed as fact without question or scrutiny.
There is propaganda in every countries, just look at who own the media...
My opinion, is some extreme right groups did Maidan massacre ( http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31359021 ), and they were ready to do more.
See how IS developed in Syria. Same story.
Libya same story.
Also look at Egypt...
Some countries are pushing other countries politics...
Odd and interesting to read. I would have guessed a larger percentage of Russians got their views online.
I would also think that most online news written in Russian would be under control of state media. In which case, if they did start to use the Internet to find news then nothing would change.
It's the same thing online. The law states that all websites in Russian language that have more than 3000 visitors per day have to be licensed and registered as mass media, or they get shut off. Lots of anti-Putin websites like grani.ru, navalny.ru are completely blocked.
I don't think that majority of young Russians even watch TV. Most of young people getting information from Internet. And there are many different points of views in Russian media space. Though main news sources are heavily influenced by Kremlin, that's true. But those who want to find an alternative point of view, will do that without any problems.
I'm not sure about reddit, but wikipedia and github are not banned currently. Internet censorship is worrying and might eventually ban an important sites, but not yet.
To be honest I'm not really surprised by this. Given the Milgram experiment results (where 100% of people gave a lethal 300V shock, and 65% gave a 450V shock), it's not really surprising that 97% of people believe whatever ridiculous nonsense they are told by the authorities.
I still remember having to queue hours to get bread from bakery, and not seeing toilet paper, milk or meat for some time... Anyone who wants to go back to those days is insane imho :(
My parents and older generation of relatives mostly watch Russian news and entertainment channels via satellite, and the unashamed propaganda and brainwashing is incredible to behold, whats worse is how my parents/relatives believe everything they hear even if it is absolutely absurd or borderline conspiracy crazy.
We often argue nowadays about the direction Russia has taken, but usually the arguments end once i ask "where would you want your grand children to grow up, here in the western Europe or back home", that's when they go quiet.
They truly believe that Putin is some sort of a genius (ignoring the rise in oil prices that helped him) and this is actually downright scary :( at least in the Soviet days people didn't buy the propaganda, now a lot of people seem to actually believe all they hear and see, and live under a sort of a massive reality distortion field where the world is out to destroy Russia and its people.
aside: interestingly enough back then the collapse of USSR was partly prompted by low oil prices and a stupid war with Islamists, fast forward 30+ years and economy is even more reliant on resource extraction and Putin is boldly marching into another quagmire