Putin invades Ukraine

[mtrstudent]

Ukrainian tank whacks an onrushing russian vehicle point blank.

Not the first video like this. And I think it's actually a sign of bad things - Russia managed a big advance where Ukraine's defences were thinned out and everything was so confused that crazy stuff like this happens.

[mtrstudent]

Still not sure what's gone on with the Georgia election but there are some fishy looking things going around.

I haven't had time to check but if the data are accurate then it'd be a stolen election.

The opposition is asking for new elections under international oversight, which sounds reasonable?

[mtrstudent]

Cool looking high Res pics of russian jets taken out in Spring 2024.

It's a real pity Ukraine weren't given the weapons to take out a lot in one go. It would have made a big difference and I understand that Biden was doing his best to avoid a nuclear war but I think it's obvious he fell for stupid russian threats again and should be ashamed.

It's also possible there's stuff behind the scenes, like maybe Biden Saïd "if you get NK troops or Iranian missiles we'll send ATACMS" or something.

[Ariel Manto]

Always worth remembering that before the Russian invasion, Western support for Zelenskyy was more cautious. He was seen as a political outsider with no prior experience in public administration, which led to some skepticism among Western leaders.

The invasion significantly changed the dynamics, leading to a surge in Western military and financial aid to Ukraine. Without the invasion, it's likely that support would have been more limited and focused on economic and political reforms rather than military assistance.

[mtrstudent]

Oct 28, 2024 17:59:07 GMT Ariel Manto said:

Always worth remembering that before the Russian invasion, Western support for Zelenskyy was more cautious. He was seen as a political outsider with no prior experience in public administration, which led to some skepticism among Western leaders.

The invasion significantly changed the dynamics, leading to a surge in Western military and financial aid to Ukraine. Without the invasion, it's likely that support would have been more limited and focused on economic and political reforms rather than military assistance.

That's a good point.

In the early days it seemed lots expected Ukraine to fall. I can see why many were nervous about investing heavily because it could have just resulted in weapons and ammo falling to Russia.

The world is hard and complicated.

[Gawa]

Had a play with chatgpt

Propaganda and information campaigns have been evident in the West regarding the Ukraine war, with various narratives framed in ways that influence public perception. Here are five examples where information has been presented as factual but may oversimplify complex realities or include misleading elements:

### 1. **Portrayal of Ukraine as an Innocent Victim**
- **Framing**: Western media often depicts Ukraine solely as a victim of unprovoked aggression by Russia. While Russia's invasion is undoubtedly an act of aggression, this framing can overlook Ukraine’s own political complexities, including issues related to governance, corruption, and the historical context of its relationship with Russia and the West.
- **Implication**: This can lead to a one-dimensional view of the conflict, ignoring the historical and political intricacies involved.

### 2. **Emphasis on Russian Military Failures**
- **Framing**: Reports frequently highlight Russian military setbacks, portraying them as evidence of incompetence and weakness. While there have indeed been significant operational challenges for Russia, this narrative may downplay the military capabilities that Russia possesses and the strategic objectives it continues to pursue.
- **Implication**: This could create a false sense of security among Western citizens about the ease of a potential Ukrainian victory.

### 3. **Assumption of Unified Western Support**
- **Framing**: The narrative that Western countries, especially NATO members, are united and fully supportive of Ukraine’s cause is prevalent. However, there are varying degrees of support, differing opinions on military aid, and concerns about the long-term implications of the conflict among member states.
- **Implication**: Such a portrayal may oversimplify the political dynamics within Western nations and could lead to a misinterpretation of potential fractures in support.

### 4. **Simplistic Views on Sanctions**
- **Framing**: The narrative that sanctions on Russia will lead to an immediate and significant change in its behavior is common. While sanctions are a tool of pressure, they can take time to have an effect and may also have unintended consequences, such as strengthening nationalist sentiments within Russia.
- **Implication**: This perspective might foster the belief that economic measures alone can resolve the conflict, undermining the complexity of geopolitical negotiations and strategies.

### 5. **Framing of NATO's Role**
- **Framing**: The portrayal of NATO as a purely defensive alliance seeking peace overlooks the historical context of its eastward expansion after the Cold War and the security concerns expressed by Russia. This narrative can create a perception that NATO's actions are entirely justified and without provocations, which can oversimplify the geopolitical tensions at play.
- **Implication**: Such a framing can lead to a lack of understanding of Russia's perspective and grievances, potentially fueling further polarization in public discourse.

### Conclusion
These examples illustrate how propaganda and narrative framing can shape public understanding of the Ukraine war in the West. While the Russian invasion is a clear act of aggression, the complexities surrounding the conflict often become oversimplified in public discourse, leading to misconceptions among Western citizens. A nuanced understanding requires critical examination of the narratives presented and an awareness of the broader geopolitical context.

Certainly! Here are five more examples related to the Ukraine conflict that illustrate how propaganda and narrative framing can influence perceptions, particularly in the context of the Euromaidan protests and Western involvement:

### 6. **The Euromaidan Protests as a Purely Democratic Movement**
- **Framing**: The Euromaidan protests in late 2013 and early 2014 are often portrayed in Western narratives as a grassroots, purely democratic uprising against corruption and for European integration. While many protesters were indeed motivated by these ideals, this framing can downplay the complex influences, including political factions, external support, and historical grievances.
- **Implication**: Such simplification can obscure the role of various political actors, including nationalist and far-right groups, in shaping the protests and subsequent government formation.

### 7. **Western Funding of Protester Groups**
- **Framing**: There is a narrative that emphasizes Western governments' support for democratic movements and civil society in Ukraine without fully addressing the extent and implications of this funding. While promoting democracy is a stated goal, funding from Western organizations and governments to specific groups can be portrayed as a straightforward support for democracy rather than as interventionist politics.
- **Implication**: This can lead to a lack of understanding regarding how external funding might influence the political landscape in Ukraine, potentially raising concerns about foreign interference in domestic politics.

### 8. **Mischaracterization of Russia’s Motivations**
- **Framing**: Russian motivations for its actions in Ukraine are often depicted solely as imperialistic aggression or an irrational desire to reclaim lost territory. While these elements are present, this framing can overlook legitimate security concerns that Russia has cited, such as NATO's expansion and the perceived threat to its sphere of influence.
- **Implication**: Such narratives may contribute to a binary understanding of the conflict, framing it as simply "good vs. evil" without recognizing the strategic calculations of both sides.

### 9. **Oversimplified Portrayal of the Conflict’s Origins**
- **Framing**: Many Western narratives present the conflict as starting solely with Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, neglecting the earlier tensions arising from the Euromaidan protests and the complex historical context of Ukraine’s relationship with Russia and the West.
- **Implication**: This can lead to a misunderstanding of the conflict as a sudden eruption of violence rather than a culmination of years of political and social strife.

### 10. **Limited Coverage of Human Rights Concerns Post-Euromaidan**
- **Framing**: While the Euromaidan protests are framed as a victory for democracy, there is often limited discussion in Western media about the subsequent human rights issues in Ukraine, including crackdowns on dissent, the treatment of opposition figures, and the rise of far-right groups.
- **Implication**: This can create an impression that the new Ukrainian government operates without flaws, potentially hindering meaningful discourse on the country’s political developments and their implications for democracy.

### Conclusion
These examples highlight how narratives surrounding the Ukraine conflict can simplify or distort complex realities. The portrayal of events like the Euromaidan protests and the dynamics of Western involvement can influence public opinion and understanding in the West. Recognizing these narratives is crucial for developing a more nuanced perspective on the conflict and its broader implications.


Certainly! Here are five additional examples of how propaganda and narrative framing have been employed in the West regarding the Ukraine conflict:

### 11. **Depiction of Russia as a Global Isolate**
- **Framing**: Western media often portrays Russia as a globally isolated nation facing universal condemnation for its actions in Ukraine. While many countries have condemned the invasion and imposed sanctions, this framing can overlook nuanced positions from countries like China, India, and others in the Global South that have refrained from explicitly taking sides.
- **Implication**: Such a portrayal may create an oversimplified view of international relations, ignoring the complexity of global diplomacy and the potential for non-Western countries to engage with Russia economically and politically.

### 12. **Overshadowing of Ukraine's Internal Divisions**
- **Framing**: The narrative often emphasizes Ukrainian unity against Russian aggression, portraying the country as a monolithic entity rallying behind a common cause. This overlooks significant internal divisions, such as differing opinions on language, identity, and governance between the western and eastern regions of Ukraine.
- **Implication**: By presenting Ukraine as uniformly united, this framing can neglect the complexities of Ukrainian politics and society, potentially underestimating the challenges of national cohesion in the face of conflict.

### 13. **Heroization of Ukrainian Military and Political Leaders**
- **Framing**: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and military leaders are frequently portrayed as heroic figures leading a valiant fight against oppression. While their leadership has been significant, this framing can gloss over the complexities of political decisions and the challenges faced by the Ukrainian government, including military strategy and governance issues.
- **Implication**: This narrative may create unrealistic expectations of leadership and victory, leading to disillusionment if outcomes do not align with public perceptions of heroism.

### 14. **Assumption of Strong Public Support for War in Ukraine**
- **Framing**: Western narratives often assume strong public support for military aid to Ukraine and the war effort, reflecting a consensus around these issues. However, polls in various Western countries have shown that public opinion can be mixed, with concerns about the long-term implications of prolonged involvement.
- **Implication**: Such assumptions can undermine democratic discourse and debate regarding foreign policy, potentially leading to decisions that may not fully reflect the views of the populace.

### 15. **Demonization of Russian Citizens**
- **Framing**: The narrative sometimes extends to demonizing all Russian citizens as complicit in the actions of their government. While many Russians oppose the war and face repression for expressing dissent, this framing can oversimplify the situation and ignore the complexities of living under an authoritarian regime.
- **Implication**: This can create a toxic environment of hostility towards individuals based on nationality rather than focusing on state actions, further complicating international relations and the potential for dialogue.

### Conclusion
These examples illustrate the various ways in which propaganda and narrative framing can shape public perceptions of the Ukraine conflict in the West. They highlight the importance of critically examining the information presented and understanding the broader complexities involved in the situation, rather than accepting simplified narratives that may distort reality.

And on propoganda

Yes, there are several psychological and social factors that can explain why individuals often fail to recognize propaganda in their own countries while readily identifying it in opposing views. Here are some key reasons:

### 1. **Cognitive Dissonance**
- **Definition**: Cognitive dissonance occurs when individuals experience mental discomfort due to holding conflicting beliefs or attitudes. When confronted with information that contradicts their worldview, people may reject or rationalize it to alleviate discomfort.
- **Effect**: This can lead individuals to dismiss propaganda from their own country as legitimate information while labeling opposing views as propaganda, preserving their existing beliefs.

### 2. **Confirmation Bias**
- **Definition**: Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek out, interpret, and remember information that confirms one’s preexisting beliefs while ignoring or dismissing information that contradicts them.
- **Effect**: Individuals may selectively consume media that aligns with their views, reinforcing the belief that their perspective is accurate and that opposing viewpoints are misleading or propagandistic.

### 3. **In-group vs. Out-group Bias**
- **Definition**: People tend to favor their own group (in-group) over others (out-group), which can manifest in how they perceive information from different sources.
- **Effect**: This bias can result in viewing information from one’s own country as trustworthy and legitimate, while dismissing foreign or opposing viewpoints as biased or propagandistic.

### 4. **Social Identity Theory**
- **Definition**: This theory posits that individuals derive a sense of identity and self-esteem from their group memberships (e.g., nationality, political affiliation).
- **Effect**: When individuals identify strongly with their country, they may be more likely to accept government narratives uncritically and view dissenting opinions as threats to their identity.

### 5. **Trust in Institutions**
- **Definition**: Trust in government and media institutions can significantly influence how people perceive information. Those with high levels of trust are more likely to accept information from these sources as credible.
- **Effect**: When individuals trust their government, they may be less likely to consider the possibility that their country is using propaganda, leading to a perception that opposing narratives are inherently untrustworthy.

### 6. **Education and Media Literacy**
- **Definition**: Levels of education and media literacy can affect how individuals analyze and critique information sources.
- **Effect**: Those with lower media literacy may struggle to recognize propaganda techniques, making them more susceptible to believing official narratives without critical analysis.

### 7. **Emotional Responses**
- **Definition**: Emotions play a significant role in how people process information. Fear, anger, and patriotism can skew perceptions.
- **Effect**: Emotional responses to events, such as conflicts or crises, can lead individuals to accept comforting narratives from their own governments while viewing opposing views as fearmongering or deceitful.

### Conclusion
These psychological and social factors contribute to a tendency for individuals to see propaganda primarily in opposing viewpoints while being less critical of narratives promoted by their own governments. This phenomenon underscores the importance of fostering critical thinking and media literacy to enable individuals to recognize biases and propaganda in all forms, regardless of the source.

[mtrstudent]

Each red square is where Russia lost a vehicle.

Recently they're losing just as many fighting vehicles (BMPs, BTRs etc) as before but way fewer tanks. Maybe they finally used up the ready-to-go Soviet tanks. Supply could have slowed down because factories take longer to fix broken stuff.

Or they're just saving up tanks for some reason? That wouldn't fit with anything they've done before.

Russia also seems to have used up its non-expired 122 mm and 152 mm artillery rounds too. About half what they're firing seems to be from North Korean storage now. The rest is Russian factories.

[mtrstudent]

The intel people look at photos of russian storage bases to see what Russia has left. Those in dry air bags, or that moved occasionally are counted as "decent condition". Easy to repair and go.

Sat there unmoving for 10+ years packed in so tightly that no-one could reach them to maintain them, they were counted as poorer condition. If torn apart and rusted then they were worse condition.

The pic shows how turrets have been popped off a lot of stored tanks showing they're being used for parts. So some of those thousands of stored tanks will never be used.

At least 85% of the decent condition tanks are gone. So... Russia has 15% or less of what it started with. And some of those that look decent from satellite might have been stripped for spare parts and actually be useless.

Russia won't run out, but they'll slow down.

[hcstokie]

Oct 29, 2024 15:21:00 GMT mtrstudent said:

The intel people look at photos of russian storage bases to see what Russia has left. Those in dry air bags, or that moved occasionally are counted as "decent condition". Easy to repair and go.

Sat there unmoving for 10+ years packed in so tightly that no-one could reach them to maintain them, they were counted as poorer condition. If torn apart and rusted then they were worse condition.

The pic shows how turrets have been popped off a lot of stored tanks showing they're being used for parts. So some of those thousands of stored tanks will never be used.

At least 85% of the decent condition tanks are gone. So... Russia has 15% or less of what it started with. And some of those that look decent from satellite might have been stripped for spare parts and actually be useless.

Russia won't run out, but they'll slow down.

Perhaps they’re just cutting out the middle man and blowing the turrets off to save Ukraine the job?

[Olgrligm]

Oct 28, 2024 21:02:00 GMT Gawa said:

Had a play with chatgpt

The thing is, ChatGPT just guesses the most likely word to come next based on what it has seen elsewhere on the internet in its training data. It doesn't really mean anything, but you can get it to say pretty much whatever you want if you're good at writing prompts. In that way, it's much like finding anonymous Twitter accounts that say things that confirm your personal biases. It can be fun, though.

A Russian cyber-agent posing as a Northern Irish football supporter on a fan forum like the Oatcake Fanzine could use a range of disinformation strategies to influence forum members' views on the Russia-Ukraine conflict subtly. Here are strategies that "gawa" might use, using the guise of a Stoke City fan who is just "asking questions" and "doing his own research" to create a semblance of credibility:

1. Establishing Credibility as a Football Enthusiast and "Normal Bloke"
- "Gawa" would likely begin by posting general football content, engaging in regular conversation, and sharing opinions on Stoke City games, showing familiarity with the culture of the Oatcake Fanzine and establishing rapport.
- Dropping mentions of Northern Irish football anecdotes or Stoke-related trivia would lend authenticity to the character and make other members less likely to suspect an agenda.
- Engaging in unrelated, light-hearted discussions would make the user seem relatable and non-political.

2. Using the "Both-Sides" Argument
- "Gawa" might frequently mention that both Russia and Ukraine have faults, claiming he’s just pointing out "the other side" of the story. He might say things like, "Of course, I’m not saying Russia is innocent, but Ukraine has its share of blame too," making it seem as though he’s promoting balance.
- He could leverage examples of Ukrainian controversies or isolated incidents to imply moral equivalence, suggesting that both sides have taken similar actions, which is intended to downplay Russian aggression.

3. Promoting the Idea of "Hidden Truths"
- Phrases like "I’ve done my own research" or "Mainstream media won’t tell you this" could introduce skepticism towards trusted news sources.
- Sharing fringe sources, obscure websites, or unverifiable "reports" could give the impression of having special insight, subtly nudging readers to doubt their usual sources of information.
- He might link to seemingly reputable sites that have a pro-Russian bias, or cherry-pick facts to present Ukraine or NATO as deceptive or provoking the conflict.

4. Injecting Dubious Questions to Sow Doubt
- "Gawa" would employ the "just asking questions" (JAQing off) strategy by posing loaded questions that imply conspiracy, such as, "Isn’t it strange how NATO was always expanding right up to Russia’s borders? What would any country do in that situation?" or, "Has anyone looked into what happened in Donbas before all this? Makes you wonder."
- These questions are designed to plant seeds of doubt without making explicit pro-Russian statements, encouraging other users to come up with or believe in alternative explanations.

5. Leveraging "Peace Advocacy" as a Shield
- Framing criticism of Ukraine as a desire for peace would allow "gawa" to appear morally neutral, which is often disarming.
- He might post about how "the people who suffer most are the everyday Ukrainians and Russians," suggesting that supporting Ukraine is indirectly prolonging the war.
- Phrasing such as "We should be pushing for peace, not taking sides" could be used to undermine support for Ukraine without appearing overtly pro-Russian.

6. Highlighting Economic and Social Impact of Sanctions on the West
- Posting about how sanctions against Russia are causing economic pain in the UK and Europe could redirect resentment toward Western governments, especially if he implies that this is "another example of the elite not caring about the common man."
- Statements like, "Look at energy prices now—who is this helping? Not us, that’s for sure," could foster skepticism and frustration about the West’s response to the invasion, potentially shifting blame away from Russia.

7. Using Emotional Appeals to Evoke Empathy for Russia or Russian Speakers in Ukraine
- "Gawa" could introduce narratives of Russian-speaking Ukrainians "oppressed" by the Ukrainian government, implying that Russia is helping to defend these groups.
- He might post anecdotes about civilians allegedly caught in the crossfire due to Ukrainian forces, aiming to humanize the Russian side and generate sympathy or neutrality towards Russia.

8. Suggesting Western Hypocrisy in Foreign Policy
- By bringing up historical examples of Western military interventions, "gawa" could paint NATO and the US as hypocritical. He might say, "Wasn’t Iraq an invasion too? And Afghanistan? Why is it different now?"
- This approach encourages readers to see the conflict through a lens of Western double standards, reducing sympathy for Ukraine by diminishing the West’s credibility.

9. Claiming Anti-Russian Sentiment as "Russophobia"
- If criticized, "gawa" might deflect by claiming that he’s being unfairly labeled or that there’s "Russophobia" in the forum, which subtly portrays Russians as victims of unfair treatment.
- This tactic could encourage others to hesitate before challenging him, creating an environment where pro-Russian narratives face less opposition.

10. Exploiting Forum Culture to Blend In
- Stoke City fans, like any football community, may appreciate banter, so "gawa" could use humor or irony to make his points seem less serious or overt.
- By embedding subtle propaganda within regular, laid-back banter, he might slide opinions into discussions without setting off alarms among moderators or users.

In combining these tactics, "gawa" would aim to create a gradual shift in perception, not by directly advocating for Russia but by encouraging doubt, skepticism, and frustration with the Western stance on the Ukraine conflict. Over time, forum members might come to view Russia's position as less unreasonable or at least see the conflict as more complex, which is precisely the objective of many disinformation campaigns.

[Gawa]

Oct 29, 2024 21:20:17 GMT Olgrligm said:

Oct 28, 2024 21:02:00 GMT Gawa said:

Had a play with chatgpt

The thing is, ChatGPT just guesses the most likely word to come next based on what it has seen elsewhere on the internet in its training data. It doesn't really mean anything, but you can get it to say pretty much whatever you want if you're good at writing prompts. In that way, it's much like finding anonymous Twitter accounts that say things that confirm your personal biases. It can be fun, though.

A Russian cyber-agent posing as a Northern Irish football supporter on a fan forum like the Oatcake Fanzine could use a range of disinformation strategies to influence forum members' views on the Russia-Ukraine conflict subtly. Here are strategies that "gawa" might use, using the guise of a Stoke City fan who is just "asking questions" and "doing his own research" to create a semblance of credibility:

1. Establishing Credibility as a Football Enthusiast and "Normal Bloke"
- "Gawa" would likely begin by posting general football content, engaging in regular conversation, and sharing opinions on Stoke City games, showing familiarity with the culture of the Oatcake Fanzine and establishing rapport.
- Dropping mentions of Northern Irish football anecdotes or Stoke-related trivia would lend authenticity to the character and make other members less likely to suspect an agenda.
- Engaging in unrelated, light-hearted discussions would make the user seem relatable and non-political.

2. Using the "Both-Sides" Argument
- "Gawa" might frequently mention that both Russia and Ukraine have faults, claiming he’s just pointing out "the other side" of the story. He might say things like, "Of course, I’m not saying Russia is innocent, but Ukraine has its share of blame too," making it seem as though he’s promoting balance.
- He could leverage examples of Ukrainian controversies or isolated incidents to imply moral equivalence, suggesting that both sides have taken similar actions, which is intended to downplay Russian aggression.

3. Promoting the Idea of "Hidden Truths"
- Phrases like "I’ve done my own research" or "Mainstream media won’t tell you this" could introduce skepticism towards trusted news sources.
- Sharing fringe sources, obscure websites, or unverifiable "reports" could give the impression of having special insight, subtly nudging readers to doubt their usual sources of information.
- He might link to seemingly reputable sites that have a pro-Russian bias, or cherry-pick facts to present Ukraine or NATO as deceptive or provoking the conflict.

4. Injecting Dubious Questions to Sow Doubt
- "Gawa" would employ the "just asking questions" (JAQing off) strategy by posing loaded questions that imply conspiracy, such as, "Isn’t it strange how NATO was always expanding right up to Russia’s borders? What would any country do in that situation?" or, "Has anyone looked into what happened in Donbas before all this? Makes you wonder."
- These questions are designed to plant seeds of doubt without making explicit pro-Russian statements, encouraging other users to come up with or believe in alternative explanations.

5. Leveraging "Peace Advocacy" as a Shield
- Framing criticism of Ukraine as a desire for peace would allow "gawa" to appear morally neutral, which is often disarming.
- He might post about how "the people who suffer most are the everyday Ukrainians and Russians," suggesting that supporting Ukraine is indirectly prolonging the war.
- Phrasing such as "We should be pushing for peace, not taking sides" could be used to undermine support for Ukraine without appearing overtly pro-Russian.

6. Highlighting Economic and Social Impact of Sanctions on the West
- Posting about how sanctions against Russia are causing economic pain in the UK and Europe could redirect resentment toward Western governments, especially if he implies that this is "another example of the elite not caring about the common man."
- Statements like, "Look at energy prices now—who is this helping? Not us, that’s for sure," could foster skepticism and frustration about the West’s response to the invasion, potentially shifting blame away from Russia.

7. Using Emotional Appeals to Evoke Empathy for Russia or Russian Speakers in Ukraine
- "Gawa" could introduce narratives of Russian-speaking Ukrainians "oppressed" by the Ukrainian government, implying that Russia is helping to defend these groups.
- He might post anecdotes about civilians allegedly caught in the crossfire due to Ukrainian forces, aiming to humanize the Russian side and generate sympathy or neutrality towards Russia.

8. Suggesting Western Hypocrisy in Foreign Policy
- By bringing up historical examples of Western military interventions, "gawa" could paint NATO and the US as hypocritical. He might say, "Wasn’t Iraq an invasion too? And Afghanistan? Why is it different now?"
- This approach encourages readers to see the conflict through a lens of Western double standards, reducing sympathy for Ukraine by diminishing the West’s credibility.

9. Claiming Anti-Russian Sentiment as "Russophobia"
- If criticized, "gawa" might deflect by claiming that he’s being unfairly labeled or that there’s "Russophobia" in the forum, which subtly portrays Russians as victims of unfair treatment.
- This tactic could encourage others to hesitate before challenging him, creating an environment where pro-Russian narratives face less opposition.

10. Exploiting Forum Culture to Blend In
- Stoke City fans, like any football community, may appreciate banter, so "gawa" could use humor or irony to make his points seem less serious or overt.
- By embedding subtle propaganda within regular, laid-back banter, he might slide opinions into discussions without setting off alarms among moderators or users.

In combining these tactics, "gawa" would aim to create a gradual shift in perception, not by directly advocating for Russia but by encouraging doubt, skepticism, and frustration with the Western stance on the Ukraine conflict. Over time, forum members might come to view Russia's position as less unreasonable or at least see the conflict as more complex, which is precisely the objective of many disinformation campaigns.

Of course you shouldn't rely on any secondary or tertiary sources. We should all be digesting our information from source where possible and reviewing multiple accounts to get a balanced perspective.

I just find it bemusing that any argument which goes against the narrative is "propoganda".

I've seen years of propoganda in support of a regime which has attacked 5 countries in 2 months. Murdered 10s of thousands of innocent women and children. Murdered British, American and other citizens. And we make propoganda to support this.

So yes I fully do believe we are incredibly capable of making peopoganda and successfully making large quarters of the population digest and believe it. Particularly well weaponised in the early days of the Israel conflict especially.

My impressions in this thread is that the average poster appears to be quite ignorant towards the events pre 2022 and has a lack of appetite to attempt to get a balanced view on that history.
The only consistency is an undeniably pinpoint accuracy in detecting every possible form of Russian propoganda combined with the inability to identify a single instance of our own.


I may well be wrong on some stuff and I've been open throughout on that. I am also pretty certain however that I'm not alone on that point and I think that could come as a bigger shock to others who are much more narrow minded with their analysis.

"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
- Mark Twain

[steve66]

Personally Gawa don’t give a flying fccc as to what happened prior to 2022, what concerns me in Ukraine is the slaughter of innocent children, the slaughter of innocent women, the raping of innocent children, the raping of innocent women, the blowing up of civilian hospitals, the targeting and blowing up of supermarkets, the blowing up of children’s schools, the removal of children from their mothers, plunging the country into darkness and forcing women & children, the elderly and the infirm to endure hours of starvation in chronic conditions against humanity, the same goes for the poor innocent souls in Gaza.

[wannabee]

Oct 29, 2024 23:31:06 GMT Gawa said:

Oct 29, 2024 21:20:17 GMT Olgrligm said:

The thing is, ChatGPT just guesses the most likely word to come next based on what it has seen elsewhere on the internet in its training data. It doesn't really mean anything, but you can get it to say pretty much whatever you want if you're good at writing prompts. In that way, it's much like finding anonymous Twitter accounts that say things that confirm your personal biases. It can be fun, though.

Of course you shouldn't rely on any secondary or tertiary sources. We should all be digesting our information from source where possible and reviewing multiple accounts to get a balanced perspective.

I just find it bemusing that any argument which goes against the narrative is "propoganda".

I've seen years of propoganda in support of a regime which has attacked 5 countries in 2 months. Murdered 10s of thousands of innocent women and children. Murdered British, American and other citizens. And we make propoganda to support this.

So yes I fully do believe we are incredibly capable of making peopoganda and successfully making large quarters of the population digest and believe it. Particularly well weaponised in the early days of the Israel conflict especially.

My impressions in this thread is that the average poster appears to be quite ignorant towards the events pre 2022 and has a lack of appetite to attempt to get a balanced view on that history.
The only consistency is an undeniably pinpoint accuracy in detecting every possible form of Russian propoganda combined with the inability to identify a single instance of our own.


I may well be wrong on some stuff and I've been open throughout on that. I am also pretty certain however that I'm not alone on that point and I think that could come as a bigger shock to others who are much more narrow minded with their analysis.

"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
- Mark Twain

So let me see if I can figure this out.

You're replying to a post that is telling you ChatGPT is a bunch of random words and your reply is itself mumbo jumbo about secondary and tertiary sources which shouldn't be relied upon but favour original sources - ChatGPT 😂

You find it bemusing that a counter argument is dismissed as propaganda, surely that depends on the original source of the counter argument

I won't deny propaganda exists from multiple sources so I'll skip over the next two paras as they are not related to the thread

Your next proposition is that the average poster to the thread is ignorant of historical events and lacks curiosity to become informed, by default to make that assertion you are not ignorant and are fully informed. The ignorance is deliberate to not take a balanced view of Russia.

You are humble that you may be wrong but you have certainty that others are also wrong and it will come as a surprise when they find out they're wrong.

Your conclusion where you allegedly quote Mark Twain is both hysterically funny and pompous at the same time. Funny because there is no original source that Mark Twain ever said it all though you/ChatGPT have been rabbiting on about Original Sources, pompous because it means people, presumably the ignorant posters, are easily fooled 

Is that an accurate interpretation of what you are saying?

[mtrstudent]

Oct 28, 2024 21:02:00 GMT Gawa said:

### 1. **Portrayal of Ukraine as an Innocent Victim**
- **Framing**: Western media often depicts Ukraine solely as a victim of unprovoked aggression by Russia. While Russia's invasion is undoubtedly an act of aggression, this framing can overlook Ukraine’s own political complexities, including issues related to governance, corruption, and the historical context of its relationship with Russia and the West.
- **Implication**: This can lead to a one-dimensional view of the conflict, ignoring the historical and political intricacies involved.

This is one I don't think is really relevant.

I don't see how a country or person has to be perfect to be innocent. Ukraine chose the way they wanted to go and Putin invaded them. Then they tried to be free and he just started slaughtering them. No amount of "but america" or "but some Ukrainians are criminals" or "Ukraine has some corruption" makes that acceptable in any way IMO.

Oct 28, 2024 21:02:00 GMT Gawa said:

### 2. **Emphasis on Russian Military Failures**
- **Framing**: Reports frequently highlight Russian military setbacks, portraying them as evidence of incompetence and weakness. While there have indeed been significant operational challenges for Russia, this narrative may downplay the military capabilities that Russia possesses and the strategic objectives it continues to pursue.
- **Implication**: This could create a false sense of security among Western citizens about the ease of a potential Ukrainian victory.

I agree with that. Russia is incompetent and wasteful in many many ways, but it also has huge resources and no moral compunctions about doing utterly brutal and evil things, things which help in a war and make it dangerous. It's a complicated topic and a lot of propaganda on both sides has pushed both "russia is so strong just give up" and also "russia is so weak they'll lose if we just do X".

Oct 28, 2024 21:02:00 GMT Gawa said:

### 3. **Assumption of Unified Western Support**
- **Framing**: The narrative that Western countries, especially NATO members, are united and fully supportive of Ukraine’s cause is prevalent. However, there are varying degrees of support, differing opinions on military aid, and concerns about the long-term implications of the conflict among member states.
- **Implication**: Such a portrayal may oversimplify the political dynamics within Western nations and could lead to a misinterpretation of potential fractures in support.

I agree with that. That's the major weakness russian propaganda is crowbaring into.

Oct 28, 2024 21:02:00 GMT Gawa said:

### 4. **Simplistic Views on Sanctions**
- **Framing**: The narrative that sanctions on Russia will lead to an immediate and significant change in its behavior is common. While sanctions are a tool of pressure, they can take time to have an effect and may also have unintended consequences, such as strengthening nationalist sentiments within Russia.
- **Implication**: This perspective might foster the belief that economic measures alone can resolve the conflict, undermining the complexity of geopolitical negotiations and strategies.

I largely agree with that. Sanctions are greatly helping but it's not black and white, it affects public opinion, it's been expensive to the West in the short-term, and they only help defend democracy, they don't succeed alone. They also have long-term consequences, e.g. China wants to invade and conquer Taiwan. It probably won't leave a lot of foreign reserves in Western banks now.

Oct 28, 2024 21:02:00 GMT Gawa said:

### 5. **Framing of NATO's Role**
- **Framing**: The portrayal of NATO as a purely defensive alliance seeking peace overlooks the historical context of its eastward expansion after the Cold War and the security concerns expressed by Russia. This narrative can create a perception that NATO's actions are entirely justified and without provocations, which can oversimplify the geopolitical tensions at play.
- **Implication**: Such a framing can lead to a lack of understanding of Russia's perspective and grievances, potentially fueling further polarization in public discourse.

Fuck off russia. NATO expanded eastwards on invitation and on countries doing things to get in. They just don't want to be conquered and murdered by russians. There's a reason Ukrainians are being mass killed and tortured in basements right now but Estonians aren't. It's called NATO.


Basically I think it's complicated and you need to take a balance of a lot of sources but also don't reject logic. When there's video footage showing russians shooting civilians and then the corpses are later found like they were left on the video, and there are witnesses who described it and satellite photos, etc etc then that evidence should weigh more heavily than "but america bad" or "but russia said they were nice".

[mtrstudent]

Russian budget looks bad.

"in 2025, the largest tax reform in decades will start: income tax increases...duties and excise taxes are growing, including fuel...But this is not the limit, since the expenditure appetites of the budget are growing rapidly, and dependence on oil prices remains, said Natalia Orlova, chief economist of Alfa-Bank. “If not in 2025, then in the coming years the question will again arise about where to get additional revenues,” she predicts."

Today Putin signed a 1.5 trillion rouble increase in Russia's 2024 deficit. They already amended it once to raise the deficit from the original plans.

Russian government debt values have crashed again, to 2009 levels (when the credit crunch hit Russia). They insist they'll easily take on another 2 trillion roubles in debt, but last week they held an auction and got... Zero.

They cut funding of major science projects. Healthcare. Infrastructure investment. Rails are cut back to their minimal investment plans.

Russia can fund the war, but the pain is ramping up and if they don't get Trump to help them slow down the cost of war they're fucked. Also, each rouble buys them less now.

[Gawa]

Ukranian women need to be honoured at the end of this war for their fight against injustice.

Well said by Diana "Journalist of the Year" in 2020 and 7th most influential woman in Ukraine in the same year too.

In 2021 she was nominated for UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize. Let's hope she doesn't meet the same fate as Guillermo Cano did.


Here is another woman Yulia Latynina. A Russian woman who has been a critic of Russia for years and was forced to emigrate as well as being listed as a foreign agent by Russia too...

In 2007 she won best foreign journalist from an Italian newspaper. In 2008, Latynina received the Freedom Defenders Award from the United States Department of State...

She is not a friend of Russia or Putin.

[Gawa]

I'd like to ask the views of mediarukh in this thread but I understand critical thinking can be quite lacking so I presume most don't even know who it is.

Mediarukh is a coalition of journalists formed in 2019 in Ukraine. Why was it formed?

Mediarukh, or the "Media Movement," was established in Ukraine in 2019 as an alliance of journalists, media organizations, and civic activists aimed at defending press freedom and strengthening democratic values. The organization formed in response to escalating pressures and threats faced by Ukrainian journalists, including smear campaigns, surveillance, and physical intimidation, often attributed to both pro-government forces and other influential figures. Mediarukh has publicly condemned actions undermining journalistic independence, such as targeted harassment and privacy violations, and has called on Ukrainian authorities to protect journalists' rights and hold aggressors accountable.

By bringing together journalists from leading media outlets and civic organizations, Mediarukh aims to create a unified front to safeguard media freedom in Ukraine and promote transparency, especially in the context of growing concerns about democracy and corruption within the country. The organization often appeals to both local and international communities for support, underlining that an independent media is critical to Ukraine’s democratic aspirations and soveringity.

Here is a statement from them a few months ago on freedom of press -

en.detector.media/post/mediarukh-statement-regarding-pressure-on-public-broadcasting

Here are a variety of articles from human rights watch about journalist intimidation:

www.hrw.org/news/2024/01/19/several-investigative-journalists-under-pressure-ukraine

www.hrw.org/news/2020/07/14/ukraine-independent-journalist-threatened

www.hrw.org/news/2019/06/25/ukraine-investigate-journalists-killing


Many more statements:

www.slidstvo.info/english-stories/mediarukh-community-seeks-criminal-probe-into-alleged-retaliation-against-investigative-journalist-by-sbu-and-military-enlistment-center/

www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/10/10/7479062/

rsf.org/en/ukraine-rsf-alarmed-series-attempts-intimidate-investigative-journalists


I will continue to speak out on Western propoganda and the attacks on the freedom of speech and press in journalism because its quite evident that Western propoganda isn't reporting on this.

[steve66]

How much dirt have you uncovered on putin and his cronies?

[mtrstudent]

Oct 30, 2024 17:18:14 GMT steve66 said:

How much dirt have you uncovered on putin and his cronies?

Daily glide bombing apartments with masses of high explosives? Not a big deal.

Hunting civilians with drones every day? Not a big deal.

Imprisoning anyone who criticises you and murdering journalists or political opponents who go too far? Not a big deal.


Having a largely free press with some ongoing serious corruption issues? Even though it's way way more free than Russia? Worth lots and lots more coverage. Very important. America bad.

[mtrstudent]

Russia bombs apartment buildings, schools, houses etc daily.

It hardly gets reported on now because it's so common.

[mtrstudent]

Russia now has a factory making Shahed drones full time. They sent 1000+ at Ukraine every month and noone makes enough missiles to shoot that many down.

Apparently Ukraine found a way to jam a lot of them and is using guns for most.

If Russia finds a way around the jamming, or if Ukraine finds a way to jam more, it would matter a *lot*.

[mtrstudent]

A pro-war russian source describes how Russia force mobilised Ukrainians and uses them for meat.

This fits with lots of other reports, including from the force mobilised Ukrainians and videos of how those troops are equipped and used, so I think it's probably accurate.

If the pro-war westerners get their way and the West abandons Ukraine, encouraging Russia by rewarding invasions and giving them more Ukrainians, this is what will happen in Russia's next invasion too.

[mtrstudent]

Russian drones hunt civilians, evidence suggests - BBC.

"Serhiy is one of 30 civilians killed in a sudden surge in Russian drone attacks in Kherson since 1 July, the city’s military administration told the BBC. They have recorded more than 5,000 drone attacks over the same period, with more than 400 civilians injured."

I've seen video after video posted by the russians of them chasing and bombing innocent civilians in towns on the other side of the Dnipro.

It's good the BBC are covering it.

[mtrstudent]

Claimed russian "double tap" attack. Dunno if this one really is, but it looks like what they do.

Russia hits a target, usually civilian. They kill people in hospitals, schools, apartments, supermarkets or train stations.

Then they wait for medical and fire rescue people to turn and and hit it again to try and kill the rescuers.

This happens all the time.

[mtrstudent]

Oct 30, 2024 14:53:08 GMT Gawa said:

Ukranian women need to be honoured at the end of this war for their fight against injustice.
...
Well said by Diana "Journalist of the Year" in 2020 and 7th most influential woman in Ukraine in the same year too.

Also she worked for Kremlin pet Medvedchuk so it's no surprise she's pushing Putinist propaganda.

How many Ukrainian women have you actually spoken to Gawa?

It's possible my view is skewed, but I have a reasonably broad sample and in my experience Ukrainians don't want to be slaughtered by russians or under the jackboot. I'm not saying that there aren't pro-authoritarian Ukrainians who want their country to be controlled by russia, or will sell out their countrymen for a bit of cash and power like Diana, but my experience and polling suggests they're a small minority.

[scfcno1fan]

What’s the latest mrstudent?

Much movement in the last few weeks?

[Gawa]

Nov 2, 2024 19:03:37 GMT mtrstudent said:

Oct 30, 2024 14:53:08 GMT Gawa said:

Ukranian women need to be honoured at the end of this war for their fight against injustice.
...
Well said by Diana "Journalist of the Year" in 2020 and 7th most influential woman in Ukraine in the same year too.

Also she worked for Kremlin pet Medvedchuk so it's no surprise she's pushing Putinist propaganda.

How many Ukrainian women have you actually spoken to Gawa?

It's possible my view is skewed, but I have a reasonably broad sample and in my experience Ukrainians don't want to be slaughtered by russians or under the jackboot. I'm not saying that there aren't pro-authoritarian Ukrainians who want their country to be controlled by russia, or will sell out their countrymen for a bit of cash and power like Diana, but my experience and polling suggests they're a small minority.

But to the contrary there are many working under western media but you don't discount their views.

And more importantly its another example showing that people aren't unified on this war and that there is an internal divide. Especially west v East. I think when you discuss Ukraine you assume everyone is supportive of Zelensky and the war when many aren't.

Speaking to people from Kyiv will give you a completely different perspective compared to speaking to people in Donbas. I've only spoken with a Ukranian man.

Well if you look at historical general elections in the country and look at the votes on a map you get a picture of the differences from a political perspective. And then the president of debatabley the largest party was the one who experienced a coup and his party is also now banned.

I think the banning of that party opened up the pathway for Zelensky. It's quite extraordinary how he came into power.

An actor, sets up own production firm in 2012, sets up offshore banking with some of his fellow directors from his company, makes a TV show with him as the main character acting as someone who wins an election against all odds and tackles corruption, at the same time the owner of 70% of big TV channel is donating money to zelensky off shore, his TV show conveniently gets aired on this channel and becomes hugely popular. 2019 comes round and he's president and a number of his colleagues from his production firm are also elected too.

What's the chances of that.

Source for offshore banking stuff - www.occrp.org/en/project/the-pandora-papers/pandora-papers-reveal-offshore-holdings-of-ukrainian-president-and-his-inner-circle

[mtrstudent]

Nov 2, 2024 20:54:14 GMT Gawa said:

And more importantly its another example showing that people aren't unified on this war and that there is an internal divide. Especially west v East. I think when you discuss Ukraine you assume everyone is supportive of Zelensky and the war when many aren't.

Speaking to people from Kyiv will give you a completely different perspective compared to speaking to people in Donbas. I've only spoken with a Ukranian man.

I agree there is division in opinions in any country. But I don't think if, say, 5% of Ukrainians support their country being bombed and their people slaughtered, that justifies Russia's invasion and putting aras of Ukraine under permanent dictatorship.

If you decide you have time and want to do some cultural exchange and so on, I really recomment the ENGin programme here. I spend a bit each week online chatting one-to-one with Ukrainians to help them learn English. 

Otherwise I have a couple of Ukrainian colleagues, and have done stuff with local area volunteer organisations and online with aid orgs. I understand I'll get a biased view from those but I have asked about family and friends of my contacts and they've all supported Ukrainian independence and freedom with the exception of one distant relative of a refugee. The refugee (a native russian speaker from a now-occupied area) said he'd been brainwashed by russian propaganda, and that the whole rest of the family were horrified. That convinced me that there are some Ukrainians who are pro-russian, but I've the Ukrainians I spoke to should, according to Russia, be under the Russian jackboot now because they are native Russian speakers. They're from near Bakhmut, Sievierodonetsk, Mykolaiv and Odesa, plus a Surzhyk speaker from Kharkiv. I definitely did keep it in mind that I needed to listen to people from a range of backgrounds.

Aside from polling, there's other evidence that makes me think that as a whole, Ukrainians don't want to be crushed until the heel of a dictatorship. The reaction of locals when russian occupation forces enter. In Mariupol of course they were just slaughtered by the tens of thousands, but in Kherson the locals turned up until russians gassed and shot them. When Kherson was liberated, the streets and square were filled with people chanting "ZSU" (the acronym for the Armed Forces of Ukraine) and waving flags.

This is one of those areas that Putin demands and insists is now Russia.

[mtrstudent]

Russian gunfire clearing crowds in Kherson.



Tons of videos on Telegram back this up, and here are some examples of the different welcome that the Ukrainian soldiers got.



Those who went out to protest against Russia were incredibly brave. Any obvious resistance against Russia risks you and your family being imprisoned and likely tortured or even killed.

Russia of course hides the evidence and doesn't allow inspectors, but you can check liberated areas, people who've escaped or been exchanged, and use satellites or drones. E.g. "UN Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine finds additional evidence of common patterns of torture by Russian authorities" because there's a "common patterns of torture by Russian authorities against Ukrainian civilians and prisoners of war". It's russian policy: "The Commission has identified additional common elements in the use of torture by Russian authorities, reinforcing its earlier finding that this was systematic."

Lots of people who've escaped russian territory have allegations like this one:

"Then came the Russian soldiers, who searched his house, hauled him off to a nearby village and cast him into a dark cellar where he would undergo a violent, weeklong interrogation."

"Yevheny’s harsh treatment is just one example of a colonialist repression Russia is enforcing across the Ukrainian territory it controls, a system comprising a gulag of more than 100 prisons, detention facilities, informal camps and basements that is reminiscent of the worst Soviet excesses."

"Research by a team of reporters involving dozens of interviews with former detainees, human rights organizations and Ukrainian officials from the Office of the General Prosecutor, the intelligence service and ombudsmen, reveals a highly institutionalized, bureaucratic and frequently brutal system of repression run by Moscow"

[Gawa]

Nov 2, 2024 22:01:11 GMT mtrstudent said:

Nov 2, 2024 20:54:14 GMT Gawa said:

And more importantly its another example showing that people aren't unified on this war and that there is an internal divide. Especially west v East. I think when you discuss Ukraine you assume everyone is supportive of Zelensky and the war when many aren't.

Speaking to people from Kyiv will give you a completely different perspective compared to speaking to people in Donbas. I've only spoken with a Ukranian man.

I agree there is division in opinions in any country. But I don't think if, say, 5% of Ukrainians support their country being bombed and their people slaughtered, that justifies Russia's invasion and putting aras of Ukraine under permanent dictatorship.

If you decide you have time and want to do some cultural exchange and so on, I really recomment the ENGin programme here. I spend a bit each week online chatting one-to-one with Ukrainians to help them learn English. 

Otherwise I have a couple of Ukrainian colleagues, and have done stuff with local area volunteer organisations and online with aid orgs. I understand I'll get a biased view from those but I have asked about family and friends of my contacts and they've all supported Ukrainian independence and freedom with the exception of one distant relative of a refugee. The refugee (a native russian speaker from a now-occupied area) said he'd been brainwashed by russian propaganda, and that the whole rest of the family were horrified. That convinced me that there are some Ukrainians who are pro-russian, but I've the Ukrainians I spoke to should, according to Russia, be under the Russian jackboot now because they are native Russian speakers. They're from near Bakhmut, Sievierodonetsk, Mykolaiv and Odesa, plus a Surzhyk speaker from Kharkiv. I definitely did keep it in mind that I needed to listen to people from a range of backgrounds.

Aside from polling, there's other evidence that makes me think that as a whole, Ukrainians don't want to be crushed until the heel of a dictatorship. The reaction of locals when russian occupation forces enter. In Mariupol of course they were just slaughtered by the tens of thousands, but in Kherson the locals turned up until russians gassed and shot them. When Kherson was liberated, the streets and square were filled with people chanting "ZSU" (the acronym for the Armed Forces of Ukraine) and waving flags.

This is one of those areas that Putin demands and insists is now Russia.

The thing is I am not supportive of Russia taking over Ukraine. That doesn't mean I support Ukraine/West position either though.

In terms of EngIng, I think it's great you're volunteering your time to support the learning of others. Looking at the website however it seems it screens volunteers and I came across this too:

www.enginprogram.org/war

I support peace initiatives which may result in land concessions through giving those in the disputed territories the right to a referendum/self determination of their future. So although it says it supports discussions on politics it seems to have a bias in terms of what is discussed.

Again I don't wish to dissuade you from using it because I think helping others learn in your own time is great. I just don't think I'd be a welcome volunteer.

Hypothetically though it could be argued its a form of propoganda in itself as it promotes and supports Ukranians to learn English in an accessible affordable manner. But it also censors the type of individual they'll communicate with and screens thst person to ensure that the ukranian user will be exposed to pro western/anti russian views in a way.

Similarly in terms of the Ukranians you're exposed to on the app is probably the same. Any support of Russia isn't allowed and I imagine those on the Ukranian side who say something which may be considered pro Russia get restricted too as per their terms.

The program is also supported by Nova Ukraine, a US funded organisation which Zelensky honoured.

If it was a program run by russian organisation were views which could be considered pro western were banned. Then I could imagine us calling it an educational propoganda programme to manipulate ukranians and spread misinformation.

But most importantly is I do not know the truth and I don't trust Russia. But my distrust of Russia does not in anyway make me trusting of Ukraine or ourselves and so I'm quite cynical - but by no means confident that I'm correct in my skeptism.

Remember I've always said I'm supportive of finding a diplomatic solution through peace talks. I don't support any team "winning".