Twitter, Meta kill hundreds of pro-Western troll accounts Well known for an abundance of anti-western troll accounts and propaganda, Twitter and Meta are reporting that they've taken down nearly 200 accounts that, for the past five years, have been amplifying pro-Western messages in the Middle East and Central Asia. Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO) and Graphika, a social media …
What I take from this is that we are now officially living in a Post Truth Society.
Scrolling down to the last couple of pages of the report it looks like all the trouble happening in Yemen is being caused by Iran, and has nothing to do with Saudi Arabia (posting this Anon, for obvious reasons - but still a little nervous TBH).
I am actually feeling a little scared of MY OWN GOVERNMENT now and also the US Government.
I read a lot of comments on Twitter (and Unherd as well as Spiked!) about the whole Ukranian war being a convenient proxy war stirred up by the USA, and egged on by the UK. Did we actually want to poke the bear, and provoke Putin into war... because reasons? These Tweets could be coming from the other side.
I guess the BBC is now banned from Twitter and Facebook, because the content is pretty much what they say but just takes things a little further.
It's hard to know who to believe.
We live in a time of expediency (to paraphrase Alec Leamas in "The spy who came in from the cold").
On the one hand we have politicians saying they support democracy in China/Iran/North Korea, while pimping this country to the most despotic dictatorship by-definition non-democracy anywhere - Saudi Arabia. If Saudi Arabia was buying Russian weapons instead of Western weapons, it would be a different story.
What you write about Russia and Ukraine is true. It is not a war which either Russia or Ukraine wants. NATO has expanded ever eastwards, with the anti-missile "defence" shield on Russia's doorstep. Who is benefiting from this war? Is it Europe (as a whole)? Or is it American oil and gas companies, now exporting overpriced gas to Europe?
"It is not a war which either Russia or Ukraine wants."
If Russia didn't want a war, all they had to do was not fucking invade Ukraine. If they want the war to end, all they have to do is leave. What this war demonstrates to a lot of people is that Europe and NATO were correct in wanting missile defenses on their eastern borders to blunt a possible Russian invasion. Europe by and large has been content to maintain rump military forces, and the invasion of Ukraine is forcing a reconsideration of that stance and encouraging a military buildup throughout Europe. So . . . great job, Putin.
-> If Russia didn't want a war, all they had to do was not fucking invade Ukraine.
It's not quite that simple, is it? NATO on their doorstep?
-> Europe and NATO were correct in wanting missile defenses on their eastern borders to blunt a possible Russian invasion
That was never the stated reason for the missile "defences". It was said time and time again that they were "needed" for defence against Iran, and specifically not Russia. But as shown in your comment, it was all a big lie.
"NATO on their doorstep?"
NATO was already on their doorstep. I suggest you look at a map and consider the location of Estonia, for example. Now, thanks to Putin's strategic genius, Finland is likely to join NATO, adding one more "doorstep" nation to the alliance. Ukraine will also certainly join, once they've thrown out the invaders. In short, a diplomatic solution to Russia's concerns seems like it would have yielded better results. That's armchair quarterbacking, of course; who knows what would have happened if the invasion had not turned into the current clusterfuck?
In any case, Ukraine was not a member of NATO and seemed to be content to follow a policy of Finlandization, continuing to be a neutral buffer state between the EU/NATO and Russia, but that wasn't good enough for Russia, so they invaded a sovereign nation.
As to the purpose of the missile defenses, why would Russia care if Russia didn't have imperialist ambitions in its pocket?
"Ukraine will also certainly join, once they've thrown out the invaders. "
That's a mighty confident statement. Winter is approaching, and will soon freeze the status quo for 6 months, which is a mighty long time to allow the Russians to buckle in. Russia has already de facto annexed Crimea, and the most probable outcome is that it will de facto annex eastern Ukraine. Ukraine is already evacuating it's citizens out of eastern Ukraine to the western parts.
The probability of western nations supplementing their provision of weapons to Ukraine with their own military (ie Nato actually declaring war on Russia) are as close to zero as makes no difference. And the probability of Ukraine successfully retaking eastern parts of Ukraine, let alone Crimea, on its own are vanishingly small.
That sucks, but it is what it is.
Ukraine a neutral buffer state ? You can't be serious. There's too much hate between the two countries for neutrality and there's too much at stake for them and especially for others. If Ukraine wanted the neutrality, all they had to do is offer autonomy to its Eastern provinces and as you say, continuing to be a neutral buffer state between the EU/NATO and Russia. Did they do this ? I can't tell since only information available is sourced by Western media, US/EU and Ukrainian officials.
As for the diplomatic solution, US didn't like it since they stand to be the biggest winner of this war. Imagine, defeating Russia, their nuclear arch-enemy without firing a single bullet and without spending the life of a single US soldier. On top of that, lots of economic benefits (USD/Euro parity finally happened), forcing NATO members to increase military spending and buying weapons from let me think,,, could it be US ?, weakening the EU etc., what's not to like it ?
As an added bonus, transforming the actual president from "sleepy Joe" into the hero whose wise leadership helped defeat Russia thus putting him straight into the history books. I don't know about you but I would call this a bargain.
Now can you please tell where a diplomatic solution would fit into this ?
> It's not quite that simple, is it?
I find that "there is no possible justification for starting a war of annexation" is one of those rare cases where a sentence about politics can be both simple and correct at the same time.
> NATO on their doorstep?
If this is the problem, then why did Putin respond to this by taking an action that was all but guaranteed to push into NATO every bordering country in Europe that wasn't in it already, including whatever is left of Ukraine once the war is somehow over? Any idiot could have foreseen that result, and I really don't think that Putin is an idiot.
FFS, before this war, NATO's popularity was at an all-time low. Military spending in Europe was consistently well short of the NATO-agreed target. We had a few politicians in Italy that were actually talking about leaving NATO - not that it would've actually happened, but still.
Putin wiped out all of that. The EU is suddenly getting serious about defense, which it never had before. Military spending on a sharp rise. Countries that have never considered NATO are screaming to get in. So, I reiterate: is he the biggest idiot on the planet, or maybe the point is that the invasion of Ukraine has nothing to do with "NATO on their doorstep", and is in fact exactly what it looks like: a brazen-faced landgrab?
You are right in that it looks indeed as a brazen-faced land-grab. However, their desire to protect a Russian minority in Ukraine could be seen as a legitimate motive. Let's not forget that a couple of decades ago US/NATO/Europe used it to carve out a portion of the Serbian territory and nobody objected, not even Russia. So what's different now ?
As for the military spending and NATO popularity, I remember the ex-president Donald Trump has openly admonished Western Europe on this matter. Now this war plays straight into their hands and I have a hard time considering US the innocent virgin in all this.
Kosovo doesn't make Ukraine any better, not even a little bit. I don't think anyone wants a world where ethics is defined by what the West did in the past. That would be a very bad criterion. We've done even worse than Kosovo, and it cannot be used a justification for anything.
Similarly, if suddenly making everyone love NATO is playing into the USA hands, then my argument is even more valid. I don't think Putin really loves the USA that much, so, again, either he's an idiot, or this is just a landgrab.
or this is just a landgrab
of course it's a land-grab. So what ? The BIG question is: why is this particular land-grab treated differently from other recent land-grabs:
- Falkland Islands of UK by Argentina
- Golan Heights of Syria by Israel
- Karabagh of Armenia by Azerbaidjan
Another approach would also try to understand whether there might be a good reason for this land-grab ? Like, for example, that Ukraine has cut-off water supply to Crimea, which actually proves that even Ukraine doesn't consider that Crimea is part of Ukraine ? So Russia invaded that part of Ukraine that provides water to Crimea ... exactly what Israel is doing with the Golan Heights of Syria. Water is life, and water is a reason to go for war.
If Ukraine didn't want some of its land to be taken by a neighbor, they shouldn't have cut off water supply to that neighbor. It's quite Darwinian really.
<quote>
FFS, before this war, NATO's popularity was at an all-time low. Military spending in Europe was consistently well short of the NATO-agreed target. We had a few politicians in Italy that were actually talking about leaving NATO - not that it would've actually happened, but still.
Putin wiped out all of that. The EU is suddenly getting serious about defense, which it never had before. Military spending on a sharp rise. Countries that have never considered NATO are screaming to get in.
</quote>
One might wonder what was said at brain-storming sessions on fixing NATO decline: Whether anyone ever said, "if only Russia would start a war.'
"If Russia didn't want a war, all they had to do was not fucking invade Ukraine. If they want the war to end, all they have to do is leave."
Yes, absolutely correct
"Europe and NATO were correct in wanting missile defenses on their eastern borders to blunt a possible Russian invasion"
Except that 20 years ago, there was zero possible reason to think that Russia might want to invade Europe or even Ukraine, and yet NATO (meaning the US, as they are in the driving seat and all the other members follow) continued to insist on eastward expansion. And the EU followed suit. Why on earth would the EU want to admit Turkey or Ukraine in, when there is already clear evidence of culture clash with the ex-eastern bloc members who already have been admitted? What benefit would the EU have to expand until it borders Iran and Iraq??
To be clear, Russia is clearly to blame as it is the invading country, but lets' not forget that the US was the one poking the bear and encouraging the EU to join in, and is the one now benefiting that the EU is reducing it's dependency on Russian energy, while increasing it's dependency on US energy. And now it's the EU caught up with a war at it's borders and an energy crises to deal with.
From a European perspective, we need to stop reflexively agreeing with the US on everything and look at our own strategic interests as distinct from those of the US.
Countries wanted to join
well, not Ukraine, whose government (by Viktor Ianoukovytch) turned down an offer of the EU in November 2013 for a closer relationship. This lead to the EuroMaiden and the overthrowing of the democratically elected government by the Ukrainian nazi battalions.
Russia is a fascist regime that has started the war. Don’t blame NATO for Putin’s dream to leave a legacy by restoring Russian empire in its former tsarist glory.
Blaming NATO for countries who are afraid of Russia clamouring to join it because they know where the real threat to them comes from.
"It's hard to know who to believe."
This is exactly what the shit-stirrers want - flood the internet with enough shit that enough of it will stick to cause doubt. One of the main reasons it works is the large number of people with very limited capability of critical and independent thinking*. Some tips to help knowing who to believe...
- start by, in principle, not believing anything from any source, without compelling evidence
- corroborated by multiple independent sources (note - multiple websites are unlikely to be independent, they mostly get their stories from the same sources or from each other)
- find original sources where possible
- 'on the ground' reporting - citizen journalists' videos and first hand reports. Note that many fakes take videos out of context or report that they are a different context than that in which they occurred
- track record - do you believe a group like ICIJ with a proven track record of publishing stories based on firm documentary evidence or a random twitter account?
- quick rule for any situation is 'qui bono?' - who has to gain from a situation (also known as 'follow the money')
- understand that in a large group of humans there are bound to be people with differing agendas and some incompetent dweebs. If your conspiracy theory is based on 3 people conspiring together it's plausible. If it's based on an army of thousands of diverse people successfully conspiring together over an extended period of time, it's highly unlikely
*I contend that a lot of this is by design - most school systems are set up to churn out people who are capable enough to do the jobs needed to keep the economy ticking over but having ingrained into them an acceptance that whatever the 'authorities' say is not to be questioned. The governments who control the education system like it this way for their own reasons. This is possibly one reason for the lack of scientists reported by the industry - we tend to be nosy buggers who follow the evidence and use our brains
> most school systems are set up to churn out people [...]
Of course, you need the masses to be docile and naive. As you said, they need to be trained to follow orders without ever questioning their betters, it has been a major point of education since always.
As for misinformation, what's making it look so overwhelming is Internet, which makes everything so much easier. In the past you would have to set up and run expensive short-wave radio stations ("Radio Free Whatever") or dump fliers over a country. Nowadays you have social medias, blogs and fake online news agencies to work with, all of which cost peanuts and can be operated by a handful of persons. As a result propaganda has increased to levels humanity had never seen before, and I'm afraid we're just at the beginning: Let them time to get into gear and soon the Internet will be part propaganda, part marketing (although one could argue they're the same)...
In regard to the question of how a diplomatic solution might have avoided the conflict, it's hard to answer that question because most of us here don't really know what Russia wanted from the invasion. If the desired outcome was unfettered access to Ukraine's resources without the bother of having to negotiate with the Ukrainian government, then it's hard to see a diplomatic outcome that would meet that requirement while maintaining Ukraine's sovereignty.
> don't really know what Russia wanted from the invasion
What does any country want when it invades another country? To distract its own population from any internal problems, and have them gather behind their government against the common enemy. "War on Stuff" and all that.
There is nothing like a war to silence naysayers, bury problems, and help your friends make a quick buck.
because most of us here don't really know what Russia wanted from the invasion
I can tell you that:
- water for Crimea
- an international financial system independent from US pressure, allowing high raw-material prices
- an Ukraine not part of NATO
so far, they have achieved 100% success: all they need is to maintain a low-intensity war and Ukraine will never join NATO. There is probably another goal:
- throwing the USA out of Europe.
On this one, they still have some way to go.
> That will cure the problem
I'm afraid not. Most of those people are on a "holy mission", so no amount of hardship will deter them, it will just allow them to eventually reach the much coveted "martyr" status.
(The terminology showing that politics is, more often than not, just another religion.)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
