RUSSIA VS NATO

I don't believe any of it.

At most, I see the reports as "interesting possibilities" (that may or may not be true).

There will be propaganda coming from both sides. Especially during a war because they also try to out-do each other in this regard, hence the other aspect of it, which is the propaganda war.

It's well worth keeping in mind that governments believe that they have the right to lie. This is practically an official position taken by the governments in the West. I would not expect it to be different elsewhere, either. Because, that's the game. Some places may be less bad than others, perhaps.

Just try to do a web search using the terms: "Do governments lie" and see the results. It's not even denied, the questions are rather along the line of "when is it ok to do it". So it probably goes without saying and it's probably quite safe to assume, that all governments lie.

The only real way to know is to wait for the outcome i.e. "Time will tell." That's mostly how all news reports such as these are viewed personally, especially when it's not material that can be easily confirmed.

In the meantime, many people think it's worth their time to argue about which side's propaganda is the best. This could perhaps be seen as funny (?) but not sure if that is being very smart. It's probably not very reasonable, to argue about things we don't actually know.

Time will tell which was true, or which was closer to true.

What seems more reasonable, is to view it as interesting possibilities that may or may not be true and to take it all with some grains of salt, until it can be confirmed, which may not be possible until the end of it.

4 Likes

I agree. And in order for this one needs to view many interesting possibilities and weigh them, compare them, look at various aspects of them etc and compare them with what one has learned previously etc...

If I've given anyone the appearance of trying to argue that some side's propaganda is the best I apologize for not communicating clearly enough.

And here we come again to the word argue which can be interpreted in quite differing ways.

Argue:

  1. Give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view.

I do not see anything wrong with this. However, there are times when the aims of persuading others to share that view isn't relevant/feasible/worth while.

  1. Exchange or express diverging or opposite views, typically in a heated or angry way.

I do not enjoy this and strive to never become angry.

I believe there is something else to gain here on the forum than just seeing who is right for the sake of being right or any other fruitless behavior.

What I enjoy is logical truthful communication with integrity.

Key aspects of integrity include:

  1. Honesty - Being truthful and transparent in communication and behavior.
  2. Moral uprightness - Adhering to ethical principles and doing what is right.
  3. Consistency - Aligning words, actions, and values, maintaining them across all contexts.
  4. Accountability - Owning one’s decisions and their consequences.
  5. Reliability - Being trustworthy and dependable.
1 Like

So there is an equivalence here or shall we compare how many countries one side has invaded ( I am talking USA here not Ukraine, let's not fool ourselves who calls the shots here) as compared to the other in recent history and their respective death counts, or do we look at historical cause of the conflict? Or do we want to to be classic liberal and say they are both just as bad as the other, as it let's "our side" off the hook. Sure both sides lie, but there is a much larger case of it on one particular side, I will let you try and figure out what particular side that might be.

Do we also want to consider who caused the war, and why it started in the first place, or do we just give blame equally?

The same arguments are of course trotted out in the middle east to justify Israel's murder of the native populations of the region, and of course it is the same countries - the west - enabling these slaughters too.

How about we look at the lies which lead to wars. In the US case - Gulf of Tonkin incident ( Vietnam) - a lie, Weapons of mass destruction ( Iraq ) - a lie, 9/11 ( multiple ) - a false flag attack, sinking of the USS Maine ( Spainish-American War ) - a false flag attack. Do we still give the US equivalence here when these wars were all caused by lies? After the Minsk Accord the Ukrainians murdered 17,000 Russian speakers in the Donbass between 2014-2022, mostly by artillery fire, this is why Russia "invaded".

Sure, but I was thinking of it more generally. Humanity as we have known it, has always been at war. I once heard it said, that being at war is the default state for humanity. Not everyone knows it, but those who understand this (in governments, the military and in other areas of society) tend to "play the game". Acquiring more resources, land and to then be able to decide how people should be and live in those areas. It seems for the most part, to be the present reality still, even if it has become more sophisticated, than in the past. So if that is a given, then the reality is that people will continue to fight, until somebody (a grouping) of people eventually "wins" it all (unless it ends before that, or something else happens). Like the song, "Everybody wants to rule the world" (One headline, why believe it?). Those with more influence and power, will be able to do more of it while they hold the power to be able to do it to the others, who have less influence at that time. But if the tables turn, then the same thing happens again. Governments strive for influence and power, so they will use whatever tools they feel they need to use and have at their disposal.

I've seen (i.e. read their comments) a person (or persons) from the US, who says he/they have a connection with the MIC, literally laughing at Russia. He (or they) project/s the idea that Russia is bluffing and so they will never use their nukes. There are people who literally think that Russia is weak and that it will eventually be collapsed and then broken up into a bunch of smaller countries. I believe, based on them saying such things, that they have no doubt in their mind about what "the game" is all about, as they see it. It's about ruling the world and coming out on top (and think they think they can do it). So, war in their minds is seen as a good and necessary thing since it's inevitable anyway (so, why waste time with stalling) and looking at the world like a chess board. (edited, after I realised an inaccuracy)

But what I wonder about is what China makes of all of it and what will they be doing in the meantime. If they can see "the game" that has been going on (and it's probably a given that they can and they know), then what are they going to do in preparation for if/when it is their turn to be threatened. These same people mentioned earlier, don't seem to think China is a big deal either, because they have some demographic problems. But from what I've understood, the Chinese are a proud Nation, perhaps even more than Russia(?). For a long time I didn't want to think it, but it does seem to be the case, that the reality is that people will continue to fight, until someone eventually wins "the game" and then becomes "the boss" (or close enough to it), at least, or so it appears.

Russia has not invaded the same amount, but, that could just be because they weren't ever strong enough, or felt in a position to be able to do it. (They didn't get to have the Petro dollar, the US won that one.) But there is human nature all around, that is universal.

People can and do adapt to conditions, though. I'm not a history expert by any means, so please don't quote me, but for instance, if one looks at a smaller Nation like Japan and how much they have adapted and changed. They used to invade other countries. they were said to have been quite brutal in war, but then they lost (and were nuked). Now, that is considered history by the new generations and in general, the Japanese people seem to absolutely love the USA and feel close to the USA. Basically, the USA is seen like a big brother. Japan is now full of cute stuff everywhere and that has become a known characteristic of the culture (kawaii), and they feel that Japan and the USA respect each other and each other's culture.

"If you can't beat them, join them". But, people will try to beat the other, first. So, I tend to think that it's mostly just a matter of how far nations think they are going to be able to push others, and then once that has been figured out, it gets acted on accordingly. I could be completely mistaken, but that is at the moment how it seems to me.

2 Likes

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/risks-unregulated-tanker-fleet-rising-un-shipping-chief-says-2025-01-14/

For those that require MSM info.

1 Like

On CAM: U.S. and British Army Officers along With 180 Ukrainian Soldiers Were Blown To BITS in SUMY

NATO Chief Mark Rutte Admits Russia Produces More in Three Months What All NATO Countries Produce in a Year