Geopolitics

under fascist ideology
For reference:
"After socialism, Fascism trains its guns on the whole block of democratic ideologies, and rejects both their premises and their practical applications and implements. Fascism denies that numbers, as such, can be the determining factor in human society; it denies the right of numbers to govern by means of periodical consultations; it asserts the irremediable and fertile and beneficent inequality of men who cannot be leveled by any such mechanical and extrinsic device as universal suffrage."
- Benito Mussolini, "The Doctrine of Fascism", 1932
 
Ukraine’s Propaganda War
Since the Russian offensive inside Ukraine commenced on Feb. 24, the Ukrainian military has cultivated the image of a plucky little army standing up to the Russian Goliath. To bolster the perception of Ukrainian military mettle, Kiev has churned out a steady stream of sophisticated propaganda aimed at stirring public and official support from Western countries.

The campaign includes language guides, key messages and hundreds of propaganda posters, some of which contain fascist imagery and even praise Neo-Nazi leaders.

Behind Ukraine’s public relations effort is an army of foreign political strategists, Washington, D.C., lobbyists, and a network of intelligence-linked media outlets.

Ukraine’s propaganda strategy earned it praise from a NATO commander who told The Washington Post, “They are really excellent in stratcom — media, info ops, and also psy-ops.” The Post ultimately conceded that “Western officials say that while they cannot independently verify much of the information that Kyiv puts out about the evolving battlefield situation, including casualty figures for both sides, it nonetheless represents highly effective stratcom.”

Key to the propaganda effort is an international legion of public relations firms working directly with Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs to wage information warfare.

According to the industry news site PRWeek, the initiative was launched by an anonymous figure who allegedly founded a Ukraine-based public relations firm.

“From the first hour of war, we decided to join the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to help them distribute the official sources to show the truth,” the nameless figure told PR Week. “This is a hybrid war: the mix of bloodily struggling fight with a huge disinformation and fake campaign lead by Russia [sic].”

According to the anonymous figure, more than 150 public relations firms have joined the propaganda blitz.

The international effort is spearheaded by public relations firm PR Network co-founder Nicky Regazzoni and Francis Ingham, a top public relations consultant with close ties to the U.K.’s government. Ingraham previously worked for Britain’s Conservative Party, sits on the U.K. Government Communication Service Strategy and Evaluation Council, is chief executive of the International Communications Consultancy Organisation, and leads the membership body for U.K. local government communicators, LG Comms.

“We’ve been privileged to help coordinate efforts to support the Ukrainian Government in the last few days, “ Ingham told PRovoke Media. “Agencies have offered up entire teams to support Kyiv in the communications war. Our support for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine is unwavering and will continue for as long as needed.”

With an anonymous Ukrainian figure joining two of the top public relations figures in the Kiev government’s propaganda blitz, Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs distributed a dossier folder (archived) with materials instructing public relations agencies on “key messages,” approved language, content for debunked propaganda constructs, far-right and Neo-Nazi propaganda.

The folder is run by Yaroslav Turbil, described on his LinkedIn page as “Head of Ukraine.ua — Ukraine’s digital ecosystem for global communications. Strategic Communications & Country Brand Promotion.” Turbil has worked at multiple “civil society” organizations closely linked to the U.S. government and interned at Internews, a U.S. intelligence-linked organization that operates under the guise of promoting press freedom.

Among the propaganda constructs distributed in the dossier, is a video of the Snake Island incident, which was quickly proven false, in which Ukrainian border guards stationed on a small island were reported to have been killed after they told an approaching Russian warship that had urged them to surrender to “Go f*** yourself.” President Volodymyr Zelensky held a press conference announcing he would award the men the Hero of Ukraine medal as mainstream media spread the story widely. However, the supposedly-dead soldiers quickly turned up alive and well, proving their heroic stand to be a farce.

Despite the story being proven as fake, the dossier contains a propaganda video promoting it.

Another folder in the dossier is run by Ukrainian MFA graphic artist Dasha Podoltseva and contains hundreds of propaganda graphics submitted by artists in Europe and the United States.

Some feature generic “no war” messages, while dozens of other images celebrate “The Ghost of Kiev” – a heroic Ukrainian pilot who turns out to be non-existent – and the phony “Snake Island 13” incident.

Many use xenophobic and racist language, and some are explicit in their praise of prominent Ukrainian Neo-Nazis, including C14 leader Yevhen Karas, the Right Sector fascist paramilitary, and the Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion. Multiple images call for “Banderite smoothies” – a reference to Molotov cocktails named for the late OUN-B commander Stepan Bandera, who collaborated with Nazi Germany in the mass murder of Jews and ethnic Poles during World War II. Another image depicts a book titled the: ”Encyclopedia of Incurable Diseases,” listing Russia, Belorussia, North Korea, Syria, and Eritrea.

While the Ukrainian government says tens of thousands have answered their call, some commentators expressed doubt at those figures, calling it a “PR exercise.”

However, the foreigners who have traveled to Ukraine have encountered a much more severe reality than they anticipated.

Russia’s air force bombed military installations adjacent to where the foreign fighters were sleeping. Having fled to neighboring Poland, a Spanish fighter described the bombing as a “message” that could have killed thousands.

Similarly, an American fighter who hid in an ambulance to escape the frontlines warned that Ukrainian authorities were killing foreigners who decided not to fight, calling it a “trap.”

Correct Wording
One document inside the dossier delineates acceptable language on the conflict with Russia as determined by the Ukrainian government.

“Such Russian clichés like ‘referendum in Crimea’ or ‘will of the people of Crimea’ are absolutely unacceptable,” the document states, in reference to the 2014 overwhelmingly successful referendum to separate from Ukraine.

The document deems unacceptable the terms “Civil war in Donbass,” “Internal conflict,” “Conflict in Ukraine” and “Ukrainian crisis” to describe the Ukrainian military’s war with the breakaway republics of the Donbass region. This, despite the fact that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights estimates that 14,200 people, including 3,404 civilians, have been killed in internal fighting in Ukraine since 2014.

In place of these phrases, the document calls for the use of the terms “Armed aggression by the Russian Federation in Donbass, international armed conflict, Russian war against Ukraine, Russian-Ukrainian conflict armed conflict.”

Key Messages
Another document titled “Key Messages” contains specific propaganda claims that were widely disseminated in mainstream Western media, but which have since been discredited. One section claims the “entire Europe was put on the brink of nuclear disaster, when the Russian troops began shelling the largest in Europe Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant.”

However, International Atomic Energy Agency’s director-general, Rafael Mariano Grossi, said that the building hit by a Russian “projectile” at the Zaporizhzhia plant was “not part of the reactor” but instead a training center. Russian troops also left Ukrainian workers to continue operating the plant.

Another section thanks Turkey for the decision “to block the access of Russian warships to the Black Sea.”

However, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan closed the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits to all military vessels, preventing both NATO and Russian vessels from accessing the Black Sea.

Among the document’s key messages is a statement of gratitude to the “Anti-war demonstrations held by citizens of many nations throughout the world demonstrate strong support to Ukraine in defending against Russia.”

This refers to large pro-Ukraine demonstrations in Europe which have featured calls for the U.S. and NATO to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine and shoot down Russian military aircraft, potentially transforming the conflict into a world war between nuclear-armed powers.

“Despite Russia’s propaganda, there is no discrimination based on the race or nationality, including when it comes to the crossing of the state border by foreign citizens,” claims the Ukrainian document.

However, numerous videos and reports have documented Ukrainian authorities preventing Africans from fleeing the fighting. Even The New York Times – hardly a bastion of Kremlin propaganda – published a report documenting these racist practices.

One message says that “On 16 March, the Russian forces dropped a bomb on a drama theatre where up to 1300 civilians were being sheltered. The number of casualties is still unknown.”

However, as Max Blumenthal reported the explosion appears to be the result of a false flag operation designed by the Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion and aimed at triggering a NATO intervention.

NATO-Backed Troll Farms
Another anonymously-penned investigation shows how Ukrainian public relations firms have used targeted advertisements to astroturf Russian internet and social media networks with messaging calling to economically isolate Moscow and “stop the war.” This effort is led by Bezlepkin Evgeny Vitalievich, who uses the alias Evgeny Korolev, along with Pavel Antonov of the Targetorium organization. From behind his Korolev pseudonym, the Ukrainian information warrior composed a post on his Facebook page (now private) boasting that his firm’s Facebook ads achieved 30 million hits in three days.

At the same time, Facebook has blocked Russian state-owned media outlets from running ads and monetizing content. Several fake accounts for media outlets like Russia 24 have sprung up, burying the authentic account under a series of impostors. Facebook has also marked statements from Russian officials, including the Ministry of Defense, as “false.”

This campaign has reportedly been carried out upon recommendation from StopFake, a self-described “fact checking” outlet that is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy, Atlantic Council, Czech and U.K. foreign ministries and the International Renaissance Foundation, which is funded by billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundation.

StopFake was hired by Facebook in March 2020 to “curb the flow of Russian propaganda” but was found to be employing multiple figures closely tied to violent Neo-Nazis. The journalist who co-authored the exposé received death threats and ultimately fled Ukraine.

Those revelations have apparently not prevented Facebook from relying on the organization for censorship guidance.

Meanwhile, Russian hackers located a public Google document (since made private, uploaded here) detailing the propaganda operation, which has been distributed in Telegram channels of “creative farms.”

“Here you can find links to Ukrainian media that need promotion, bot accounts with logins and passwords from which anti-war messages and messages with fakes about the Ministry of Defense were sent to users, theses and specific instructions on which posts and which audiences to embroider,” the investigation reads.

Another campaign is run by Nataliya Popovych, the founder of the public relations agency, One Philosophy, in Kiev. Popovych’s LinkedIn profile shows she has worked with the U.S. State Department and advised former President Petro Poroshenko. She is also co-founder and board member of Ukraine Crisis Media Center, a propaganda arm funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, the National Endowment for Democracy, the U.S. embassy and NATO, among many others.

A Campaign Asia article profiles several public relations firms involved in the effort. Among them is Richard Edelman, CEO of Edelman PR. Edelman is also a member of the Atlantic Council’s Board of Directors and the World Economic Forum.

“Geopolitics has become the new test for trust. We saw this with the allegations of human rights abuses in Xinjiang and the war between Ukraine and Russia has only reinforced it,” he said, linking the U.S. propaganda campaign surrounding China’s deradicalization campaign for Uyghur Muslims.

PR Approved Media Outlets
An article in PRWeek profiles several figures partaking in what they describe as a “PR army” that is “fighting on the informational frontline” against Russia’s “barbaric genocide of Ukrainians.”

“Propaganda is the same as real lethal weapons,” declares Marta Dzhumaha, PR manager at healthcare company BetterMe.

Julia Petryk, head of public relations at MacPaw, offers a list of approved media outlets, authored by her colleague Tetiana Bronistka, a former employee of Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s Office. The list includes Russian and English language sources, as well as Telegram channels. However, these “verified sources that objectively cover what is happening in Ukraine” are anything but independent. Most of them are tied to the U.S. and European governments and billionaire foundations.

She also lists several Russian-language websites:
Among the Telegram channels listed are:
  • Radio Svoboda – CIA-founded propaganda organ Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
  • Espresso TV, largely owned by the wife of former Ukrainian member of parliament Mykola Knyazhytsky
  • Censor.net, formerly the largest media site in Ukraine, whose motto is “To bring down Russia”, and whose owner operates a “parade of international trolls.”
Intelligence Operations
While the public relations firms distribute content, CIA cutouts and billionaire foundations run the media outlets they derive it from. At the core of this operation is a project called the Russian Language News Exchange that was the product of a network of opposition media outlets founded in 2016 that operate in post-Soviet countries, as revealed by an investigation by the Russian media agency, RIA FAN.

In July 2021, a group of journalists flew to Warsaw for media training after being exempted from coronavirus-related restrictions and quarantine orders by Poland’s top medical authorities.

Among the six journalists were Andrey Lipsky, deputy editor-in-chief of Novaya Gazeta, and Yuliia Fediv, CEO of Hromadske TV media, one of the most-watched networks in Ukraine.

Hromadske’s financial reports show it is funded by numerous governments and foundations, including the U.S. embassy in Ukraine, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, the European Endowment for Democracy and Free Press Unlimited. Silicon Valley billionaire Pierre Omidary was also involved in creating the outlet.

Hromadske recently hosted a commentator demanding genocide of ethnic Russians in the Donbass, saying it is populated with 1.5 “superfluous” people that “must be exterminated.”

The training, held behind closed doors from July 19 to July 21, was titled “Media Network 2021+” and closely tied to Mediaset, also known as the Russian Language News Exchange, a network founded in 2015. Russian Language News Exchange’s website is sparse, with little available information on its activities – apparently made private since the publication of RIA FAN’s investigation.

While it claims to be independent, Russian Language News Exchange is a project of Free Press Unlimited, funded by the Dutch government and the European Commission.

Today, it includes 14 media outlets that act as “nodes,” cross-publishing each other’s articles in various countries.

The website’s introductory video is hosted by Maxim Eristavi, a former Radio Free Europe reporter and founder of Hromadske. Today, he heads the Millennium Leadership Program at the NATO and arms industry-backed think tank, the Atlantic Council.

Since its inception, Mediaset has coordinated between outlets in Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine. In March 2021, Mediaset expanded with the Colab Medios Project, created through the Free Press Unlimited Viable Media for Empowered Societies (VIMES) program. This program created training for journalists and saw articles from the El Salvadoran outlet El Faro published in Euroradio (Belarus), Coda(Georgia), and Ziarul de Garda (Moldova).

On March 4, several days after Russia launched its military offensive, a new project called the Media Lifeline Ukraine was created.

The next day, Free Press Unlimited held an emergency conference for Ukraine featuring Hromadske co-founders Maxim Eristavi and Nataliya Gumenyuk. The meeting called to raise 2 million euros for the project. “Only with ongoing external support, will local media entities be able to continue to do their work,” its introductory page asks.

Days later, Free Press Unlimited announced a partnership to support a new joint project of Reporters Without Borders and its Ukrainian partner, the Institute for Mass Information, called The Lviv Press Freedom Center. The Institute for Mass Information is headed by USAID communications officer Oksana Romaniuk and funded by USAID and the UK government.

Washington DC Lobbyists Wag the Dog
While public relations firms and intelligence-linked propaganda operations target the public, Washington, D.C., lobbyists are agitating in Congress to extend the war in Ukraine

Daniel Vajdich, a registered foreign agent and lobbyist for the Ukrainian Federation of Employers of the Oil and Gas Industry, the largest in Ukraine, is working on behalf of Volodymyr Zelensky to lobby members of Congress to approve more weapons shipments to Ukraine. Now the head of Yorktown Solutions, he previously advised Ted Cruz and Scott Walker’s campaigns and is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.

“Stingers, Javelins, and let’s figure out the fighter aircraft issue,” he told Politico, claiming Russia is attempting to carry out a “genocide” and “depopulate certain areas of Ukraine.”

Vajdich also wrote Zelenskyy’s March 16 speech to U.S. Congress, in which he quoted Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech to call for a no-fly zone over Ukraine.

Ukrainian Permanent Representative at the United Nations Sergiy Kyslytsya’s Feb. 23 speech to the United Nations General Assembly was written by D.C. lobbying firm SKDKnickerbocker Managing Director Stephen Krupin, a former senior speechwriter to President Barack Obama who worked extensively on Biden’s 2020 campaign.

Most prominent among the registered lobbyists promoting Ukrainian government and business interests is Andrew Mac, who also contributed to writing Zelensky’s speech to Congress. Mac registered as a lobbyist for Zelensky in 2019 and runs the Washington, D.C., office of Ukrainian law firm Asters Law.

The lobbying firm Your Global Strategy, founded by Shai Franklin, who has been affiliated with numerous Zionist organizations including the World Jewish Congress and Anti-Defamation League, is also using its influence with local officials in the U.S. Franklin has set up meetings between Kharkiv Mayor Ihor Terekhov and U.S. mayors, including Eric Adams in New York City, Michelle Wu in Boston and Lori Lightfoot in Chicago. He is also attempting to set up a meeting between U.S. officials and the mayors of Odessa and Kiev. A media outlet owned by the mayor of Kiev’s wife recently featured a presenter calling for genocide against Russians, beginning with children.

Franklin said he’s working with Zelensky’s administration to help set up virtual meetings between mayors of Odessa and Kiev and U.S. counterparts.

Maryland-based lawyer Lukas Jan Kaczmarek is also working on behalf of the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense to increase U.S. weapons shipments, specifically seeking to arrange shipments of guns from Kel-Tec CNC Industries based in Cocoa, Florida, to the city of Odessa, Ukraine.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul described the network of public relations professionals and lobbyists surrounding Zelensky. “These are people around Mr. Zelenskyy who are like the intermediaries and interlocutors. They’ve been interacting with the American elites and American media for a long time,” he said.

McFaul and John E. Herbst, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center, act as informal advisers to Zelensky. McFaul told Politico that he speaks to Ukrainian government officials “probably everyday,” and “has helped them make connections with NBC or MSNBC producers.”

McFaul recently told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that “Hitler did not kill German-speaking people,” facing accusations of Holocaust denial.

Zelensky also held a “strategic video call” with McFaul before he spoke to House democrats.

With a powerful Russian military fighting alongside DPR and LPR forces, the Ukrainian military’s defeat seems to be imminent unless the United States and NATO directly confront Russian forces, a scenario President Joe Biden has already ruled out. Lobbyists nevertheless persist in their campaign to portray the Ukrainian military as underdogs scoring blow after blow against Russian hordes. In doing so, they help extend the war and continue the carnage.

https://consortiumnews.com/2022/03/23/ukraines-propaganda-war/

Earning much Rubles?
 
In Yemen, the other side is Iran. It is the Saudis vs Iran. Do you think that Iran is for "freedom and democracy"?

In Yemen the other side is the Zaidis and the Shia population in Yemen. Not Iran. Iran to the Zaidis is as (USA) to Ukraine in todays wars.
 
I can't see any similarities at all.

Ukraine is a European democratic country that wants to join EU and NATO. Naturally, EU and NATO want to help them.

Yemenis were not democratic, they wanted saria law. Which is the opposite of democracy. Why would EU and NATO support them against Saudi Arabia? It doesn't make sense.

I don't understand why some people keep bringing Yemen into these discussions. Why don't the Middle East countries resolve these problems? The EU and NATO have absolutely nothing to do with this! Why don't you all complain that the Middle East countries don't do anything? Or perhaps UN.
So many wrong points I dont know where to begin :lol:
 
If you're going to just use an emoji, then you might explain why you think my statement is wrong.
Your statement is so wrong that it does not need any explanation. But sure, I can say why it is wrong. It is wrong because it is an insult to the millions of people that lost there lives defending their countries against British colonialism and imperialism while you are throwing to them the bone of "semblance of democracy". If I were you, I would apologise.
 
A military agreement with Poland had nothing to do with its sovereign freedom when it was invaded by fascists? Sorry, but its sovereign freedom as nation was destroyed by that invasion - and fascists aren't exactly big fans of freedom either. Your claim is just a tired old cynicism in which there is nothing good in the world, no principles and always only naked self-interest. I think you're wrong about that.

So what if there were some fascists in Britain? They were only a small minority and they exist in every country.

Your cynicism applies to Ukraine also. The West is supporting Ukraine, at least in part (the major part I believe), because of freedom and democracy.

You don't believe that a part of Hitler's purpose, under fascist ideology, was to crush freedom and democracy? That's absurd. It doesn't matter if territorial expansion was also part of his purpose. Once he gained any territory, the Nazis then set about crushing all freedoms in that territory.
In 'freedom and democracy', 'freedom' usually refers to civic liberties, like the right to expressing opinions the government doesn't like. You're now switching that to 'sovereign freedom' for Poland, which has nothing to do with political and civic systems; it's a geopolitical concept.

So yes, the UK objected to Germany conquering Poland and ending its existence as an indepdendent entity, but that has nothing to do with opposition to fascism or support of democracy. And even there, I would argue that the UK's support of Poland here wouldn't have been out of sympathy with Poland or because the UK considered territorial integrity sacrosanct, but because of their concern for the European geopolitical balance, which they felt the German invasion of Poland damanged too much. (The last bit being important, since obviously they didn't object as strongly to the German annexation of Sudetenland or Austria.)

Of course Hitler crushed freedoms in conquered territories, cause those territories were brought under his totalitarian rule. He wasn't going to rule different parts of his empire in different ways. That wouldn't have been the goal of the invasion though, rather an inevitable byproduct. Or can you point me to a single source (that's not just propaganda but reflects actual arguments) where a high-ranking German of the time said that they were going to invade a country specifically because of its democratic system or civic freedoms? Cause if what I'm saying is so absurd, support for your claims should be available somewhere outside these really strong personal assertions in your posts.

Finally, I don't think there is only self-interest in international relations; there is also altruism and moral righteousness. But I think that, on balance, self-interest plays a bigger role (a far bigger role) in actions taken. I think it makes no sense to put it black and white (only this or only that); but if that's the approach that you insist on, I would bounce your words back to you and say it's painfully naive to see you claim that the single most important motivation would be something other than self-interest.
 
Unfortunately you quoted everything but the byline:


By Dan Cohen
in Washington, D.C.
MintPress News


"Dan Cohen is an American journalist and filmmaker based in Washington, D.C.. He is the host of Behind the Headlines. Formerly of RT America" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Cohen_(journalist)

"Described as a conspiratorial website,[9][2][10] MintPress News publishes disinformation and anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, according to researchers at Rutgers University.[11] A report from New Knowledge includes MintPress News as part of the "Russian web of disinformation."[12][13] The source of MintPress News's funding remains opaque.[6]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MintPress_News


unlucky.

I take it john pilger is on putin's payroll aswell ?

 
Of course truth is the first victim in wars. Just don't assume its only a victim on one side.

So let's not ask questions and hook that Russian propaganda straight into our veins, right?
 
So let's not ask questions and hook that Russian propaganda straight into our veins, right?

You don't even want to read it, anything that goes against what you've been fed is automatically propaganda.

Don't respond to me regarding this topic, I don't want to waste my time and yours also.

Lets assume whatever you post is western propaganda and whatever is posted contrary to that is russian propaganda.
 
Your statement is so wrong that it does not need any explanation. But sure, I can say why it is wrong. It is wrong because it is an insult to the millions of people that lost there lives defending their countries against British colonialism and imperialism while you are throwing to them the bone of "semblance of democracy". If I were you, I would apologise.

The British empire legacy of parliamentary democracy in India is a matter of historical fact.

It's also a fact that in recent times, under an increasingly authoritarian leader (Modi), the workings of democracy in India have been weakened considerably.

I don't need to apologise for stating facts, even if the increasingly hysterical Hindu Nationalist supporters of Modi don't like it.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/11/28/modi-india-democracy-hindu-nationalism-ethnic-jaffrelot-review/
 
Total rubbish. WWII was instigated by a fascist (Hitler), aided and abetted by another fascist (Mussolini), both of whom were dedicated to crushing freedom and democracy and replacing it with fascist rule.

You wish to sweep all this under the carpet and pretend that WWII had nothing to do with fascism? That's incredible, laughable, fantasy level stuff.

Sorry you're a bit underequipped with facts here, you're characteristic enthusiasm doesn't really save face when it comes to history.

Britain did not enter the war to fight fascism not even 1%, fighting a fascist yes that isn't the same and if you can't understand why i can't help you. You mention Mussolini but if you knew anything of that period you'd know Britain supported him not too long before WW2.
 
You don't even want to read it, anything that goes against what you've been fed is automatically propaganda.

Don't respond to me regarding this topic, I don't want to waste my time and yours also.

Lets assume whatever you post is western propaganda and whatever is posted contrary to that is russian propaganda.

I'm aware that Ukrainian propaganda is a real thing and I'm sceptical of every report I read from the country. But that doesn't mean I have to entertain claims that might as well come straight out of the Kremlin for fake balance. I haven't made up the propaganda claim, I took it from Wikipedia and that tweet by the author of your article tells me all I need to know about his biases.
I have also skimmed through the article. It's a long list of bullet points, a lot of them sourced by Russian/Ukrainian sites that could show cooking recipes for all I know, or not at all. I guess I'll have to take the Russian "If we want to stop this war we need to protest the US government" propagandist by his word and hope he's an honest chap this time..
 
Last edited:
The British empire legacy of parliamentary democracy in India is a matter of historical fact.

It's also a fact that in recent times, under an increasingly authoritarian leader (Modi), the workings of democracy in India have been weakened considerably.

I don't need to apologise for stating facts, even if the increasingly hysterical Hindu Nationalist supporters of Modi don't like it.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/11/28/modi-india-democracy-hindu-nationalism-ethnic-jaffrelot-review/
That fact is irrelevant in the conflict, millions lost their lives, no small benefits from British colonialism will cover the mass losses India suffered on the hands of imperialistic Britain.
 
In 'freedom and democracy', 'freedom' usually refers to civic liberties, like the right to expressing opinions the government doesn't like. You're now switching that to 'sovereign freedom' for Poland, which has nothing to do with political and civic systems; it's a geopolitical concept.

So yes, the UK objected to Germany conquering Poland and ending its existence as an indepdendent entity, but that has nothing to do with opposition to fascism or support of democracy. And even there, I would argue that the UK's support of Poland here wouldn't have been out of sympathy with Poland or because the UK considered territorial integrity sacrosanct, but because of their concern for the European geopolitical balance, which they felt the German invasion of Poland damanged too much. (The last bit being important, since obviously they didn't object as strongly to the German annexation of Sudetenland or Austria.)

Of course Hitler crushed freedoms in conquered territories, cause those territories were brought under his totalitarian rule. He wasn't going to rule different parts of his empire in different ways. That wouldn't have been the goal of the invasion though, rather an inevitable byproduct. Or can you point me to a single source (that's not just propaganda but reflects actual arguments) where a high-ranking German of the time said that they were going to invade a country specifically because of its democratic system or civic freedoms? Cause if what I'm saying is so absurd, support for your claims should be available somewhere outside these really strong personal assertions in your posts.

Finally, I don't think there is only self-interest in international relations; there is also altruism and moral righteousness. But I think that, on balance, self-interest plays a bigger role (a far bigger role) in actions taken. I think it makes no sense to put it black and white (only this or only that); but if that's the approach that you insist on, I would bounce your words back to you and say it's painfully naive to see you claim that the single most important motivation would be something other than self-interest.

Sovereign freedom for a country has everything do with political and civic systems. How else can a nation choose its own path destiny unless it has its own intact political and civic systems? Hitler destroyed everything that was Polish.

So now you're reduced to arguing that Britain opposition to fascism and its favouring of freedom and democracy was entirely divorced from its opposition to Hitler - what nonsense.

You also claim that no "high-ranking German of the time said that they were going to invade a country specifically because of its democratic system or civic freedoms". May I remind you that the right to exist is a "civic freedom": one of Germany's explicit and key aims was to exterminate Jewish people - to "cleanse" Europe of Jews.
 
The British empire legacy of parliamentary democracy in India is a matter of historical fact.

It's also a fact that in recent times, under an increasingly authoritarian leader (Modi), the workings of democracy in India have been weakened considerably.

I don't need to apologise for stating facts, even if the increasingly hysterical Hindu Nationalist supporters of Modi don't like it.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/11/28/modi-india-democracy-hindu-nationalism-ethnic-jaffrelot-review/

You're right. Britain needs to invade India again to revive democracy.
 
And it is a lie to say that the West never helped Democracy.

Do you think that the Baltic countries would exist today if they were not in NATO? What about Croatia and Bosnia? They have had peace for the last 20 years, only because there are no dreams for a "Great Serbia" any more, thanks to the West. What about Taiwan? Taiwan survives only because the West supports it. Is Taiwan going to improve if the West abandons it?

In reality, the West lost a lot of times. The West lost in Vietnam, they lost in Cuba, they lost in Somalia, they lost in Afghanistan, they gave up Hong Kong. What did the winners achieve in those countries? Is their population free now? Did they develop a better democracy?

No one said that, though. What's being said is that the West doesn't help democracies for democracy's sake. They help or attack countries based on their own self interest, and sometimes that leads to defending democracies. Sometimes it leads to funding genocide.

The foreign policy of the West is not altruistic, it's based on self interest. It's absurd that this is a controversial claim.
 
Of course truth is the first victim in wars. Just don't assume its only a victim on one side.

A sovereign nation has been invaded, it's civilians are being massacred. There is only one victim in this situation.
 
That fact is irrelevant in the conflict, millions lost their lives, no small benefits from British colonialism will cover the mass losses India suffered on the hands of imperialistic Britain.

Now you're switching onto entirely different ground, without the grace of admitting that what I said was correct.

But OK, you regard the establishment of a democratic system of government as a "small benefit". Many, including me, would disagree with that assessment. And nor was it the only benefit - e.g. banning the practice of Sati, a tradition where a woman was expected to throw herself into the fire of her husband's funeral.

However, as I've already said, there were also many very bad aspects of British rule in India
 
That fact is irrelevant in the conflict, millions lost their lives, no small benefits from British colonialism will cover the mass losses India suffered on the hands of imperialistic Britain.

Worth restating again and again that under British rule, 35 million people starved to death, and Britain extorted USD$45 trillion from India during that period.

Even if we credit Britain with introducing parliamentary democracy, that's not exactly an equal transaction....
 
I think "that's it" is a bit of an understatement when Russia is sanctioned by two of the three economic super powers in the modern world and the 4 close Asian allies include the second and third strongest economies of the continent after China. I mean, EU, US, UK, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Turkey and Australia alone account for >15% of the world population. At the UN, 141 countries voted against Russia, 35 abstained and only 5 supported it.

Moreover, I doubt that China would face no sanctions if it were to attack Taiwan. They may not be as severe but it would definitely happen, especially after Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

It isn't an understatement at all. I'm not talking about the significance of the actors which have decided to enact sanctions but the number of countries which have done so and the geographical spread. Not a single Central American, South American or African country have joined the sanctions. Only 3 'actual' countries in Asia have joined them and 2 in Australasia. Not exactly in keeping with this supposed global showdown between democracy and dictatorships is it?

Turkey are also not part of the sanctions by the way.

I don't think I suggested that China would face no sanctions if they invaded Taiwan. Just chuckling at the suggestion that Spanish and Italian aircraft carriers are going to go around the world to fight in the South China Sea against China.
 
Do you think the levels Russia has escalated to in anyway come close to what the US and EU (and the UK) would now stretch to in times of conflict though?

Have to say that given the current state of affairs in Ukraine - and the news coming out of Bucha - this thread is growing more and more tone deaf by the minute. I had assumed posters had tuned out once Russia's escalation and war crimes clearly surpassed anything we've likely seen in living history (Agent Orange aside imo).

Your points are valid in a time of peace, but we are now clearly dealing with the most dangerous and active dictator since the mid-20th century. There is little room for nuance in his actions, and the black and white nature of this conflict is unnervingly stark and surpasses anything currently going on.

One thing that is worth noting on the point of democracy however is the acceptable level of response to conflicts waged by the democratic West by the aggressors citizens. There is almost always mass and public displays of disapproval to these conflicts which go without punishment, and eventually you have a system that will judge it's leaders and governments by said public. No war waging democratic leader survives for long (compared to Putin's current leadership). Try finding the grounds for this in virtually any warmongering state actively opposing the West currently.

I know this isn't something you're arguing against, and I agree it's through rose tinted glasses to argue the West fights it's wars with a noble pro-democratic vision in mind, but however it manifests, there's a system to judge a government's actions where democracy is present. It's hard to see a system of governance that replicates this within the current oppositional states to the West.

What's more, for those referring back to 17-19th century imperialism and the barbarous actions taken there (stretched into 20th century in India), the only state currently looking to expand via those means and with that level of disregard for human life is Russia. If you're anti-colonialist (as I would claim to be), then Russia should surely be your number one current main concern.

I don't think this thread is particularly tone deaf to be honest.

The problem is slightly that one poster in particular allows posters to caricature all arguments into a ridiculous corner. I totally agree and have said strongly before that for all my criticisms of the West and the foreign policy of many of its countries, I would 100% prefer to still live in a US dominated world than one dominated by China or Russia.

For me, saying India has democracy because of the UK is as ridiculous as saying that propaganda is better in the West than in Russia.

I think the point about democracies and the response to war is an interesting one and for me, has shown the disconnect that some people have. Earlier in this thread, when we talked about the consequences for Russia as a country in this illegal war vs the (non existent) consequences for the UK and USA in their (multiple) illegal actions, someone replied talking about the PTSD suffered by western soldiers in Iraq. I had to pull out my tiny violin.

And of course, we had protests in the West, against Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam. Then what happened? We went to war anyway. People got bored and went on with their lives and the war continued. Not only did the two main leaders suffer no international consequences (they both roam free, are both multi millionaires, have both had a rehabilitation of their image of sorts in the recent past) but didn't even suffer any domestic consequences, with both leaders handily winning their next election.

The moral equivalence argument to me is often nonsensical on both sides. As I said, I'd much prefer to live in a world dominated by the USA compared to one dominated by Russia. But ultimately a bomb which wipes out your family is still a bomb that wipes out your family whether it's an American bomb or a Russian bomb. Iraqi children don't sit there thinking....Well my parents may be dead. But at least those bombs are democracy bombs.

Which is something that some on here would do well to remember while they're patting themselves on the back about how the west goes to war for democracy.
 
You need to specify exactly what "fairy-tale" thinking you're referring to, because I don't see any.

As for the rest, does China have a lot of experience fighting against an enemy that can fight back? No. Nor is Taiwan "literally right on China's doorstep" - it's separated at its closest point by 100 miles of sea: half of any Chinese invasion fleet would be sunk - some of them by carrier-launched jets - before they even reached the Taiwanese coast.

The reason for not recognising Taiwan is to avoid unnecessarily antagonising China. And recognising Taiwan would not add materially to its defence. It's simply an unnecessary step at this point. However, were China to start making pre-invasion preparations (such things being easily detectable), then I'm pretty sure that several carrier groups would start heading to the South China sea

The fairy-tale is about this team America-esque worldview where you think the West goes around the world fighting its wars for freedom and democracy only, as opposed to each countries' self-interest like others. You can also extend this to your comments about Indian democracy and British motivations for fighting in WW2.

That is literally on their doorstep. As opposed to the almost 12,000 miles by sea a British carrier (along with its entourage) would need to travel to get to Taiwan. Well within Chinese missiles and airforce range.

Why are we not antagonising China? I thought the world is stuck in a battle between democrats and autocrats and we conduct out foreign policy with this in mind? Why have we been lining the pockets of a country who's stated aim is and always has been reunification with Taiwan?
 
I don't think this thread is particularly tone deaf to be honest.

The problem is slightly that one poster in particular allows posters to caricature all arguments into a ridiculous corner. I totally agree and have said strongly before that for all my criticisms of the West and the foreign policy of many of its countries, I would 100% prefer to still live in a US dominated world than one dominated by China or Russia.

For me, saying India has democracy because of the UK is as ridiculous as saying that propaganda is better in the West than in Russia.

I think the point about democracies and the response to war is an interesting one and for me, has shown the disconnect that some people have. Earlier in this thread, when we talked about the consequences for Russia as a country in this illegal war vs the (non existent) consequences for the UK and USA in their (multiple) illegal actions, someone replied talking about the PTSD suffered by western soldiers in Iraq. I had to pull out my tiny violin.

And of course, we had protests in the West, against Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam. Then what happened? We went to war anyway. People got bored and went on with their lives and the war continued. Not only did the two main leaders suffer no international consequences (they both roam free, are both multi millionaires, have both had a rehabilitation of their image of sorts in the recent past) but didn't even suffer any domestic consequences, with both leaders handily winning their next election.

The moral equivalence argument to me is often nonsensical on both sides. As I said, I'd much prefer to live in a world dominated by the USA compared to one dominated by Russia. But ultimately a bomb which wipes out your family is still a bomb that wipes out your family whether it's an American bomb or a Russian bomb. Iraqi children don't sit there thinking....Well my parents may be dead. But at least those bombs are democracy bombs.

Which is something that some on here would do well to remember while they're patting themselves on the back about how the west goes to war for democracy.

thats an excellent post. The bold part is important, because we (as in the western public) really really don't want to think about this and pretend that this part doesn't exist.
 
Sovereign freedom for a country has everything do with political and civic systems. How else can a nation choose its own path destiny unless it has its own intact political and civic systems? Hitler destroyed everything that was Polish.
I'm starting to think you're just trolling me here. If not: are you really suggesting that civic freedoms and democracy are necessary for a country's Independence? Cause I still fail to see how responding to a country's sovereignty equates to protecting democracy and civic freedoms.

Or to put it another way: do you think the UK would not have declared wat on Germany if Poland had been a repressive, totalitarian state?

So now you're reduced to arguing that Britain opposition to fascism and its favouring of freedom and democracy was entirely divorced from its opposition to Hitler - what nonsense.
I have no idea how you got there, but surely you aren't arguing here that the UK was opposed to Hitler personally? Or if that's not your point, then I have no idea what you're saying here.
You also claim that no "high-ranking German of the time said that they were going to invade a country specifically because of its democratic system or civic freedoms". May I remind you that the right to exist is a "civic freedom": one of Germany's explicit and key aims was to exterminate Jewish people - to "cleanse" Europe of Jews.
Germany did not invade Poland to exterminate the Jews, did it? And even if so, they could have theoretically done that and let all others retain all their civic freedoms and democracy. (That they didn't is besides the point with this argument you're providing.) It's not the evidence I was asking for.
 
The fairy-tale is about this team America-esque worldview where you think the West goes around the world fighting its wars for freedom and democracy only, as opposed to each countries' self-interest like others. You can also extend this to your comments about Indian democracy and British motivations for fighting in WW2.

That is literally on their doorstep. As opposed to the almost 12,000 miles by sea a British carrier (along with its entourage) would need to travel to get to Taiwan. Well within Chinese missiles and airforce range.

Why are we not antagonising China? I thought the world is stuck in a battle between democrats and autocrats and we conduct out foreign policy with this in mind? Why have we been lining the pockets of a country who's stated aim is and always has been reunification with Taiwan?

You are ascribing views to me that I haven't expressed. I haven't said that the West only fights for freedom and democracy. I've said that it sometimes fights for freedom and democracy - which is a hell of a lot more than can be said for most other nations. But of course it also sometimes fights for reasons more centred on self-interest.

Everything I've said about India and democracy is entirely true. If you think otherwise, then best tell what you claim is not true. The same goes for Britain's motivations during WWII.

Ukraine is literally on Russia's doorstep - since they share a common land border. 100 miles of open sea is something quite different, especially if a country is attempting to send an invasion force across it. Sink even one boat - and several thousand troops may go down with it before they even reach the fight - and Taiwan is stuffed to the gills with sophisticated weapons, including anti-ship missiles.

I've already explained why at this point there's no point antagonising China by formally recognising Taiwan. And yes, the world does face an existential struggle between democracy and freedom vs tyranny and oppression. But that doesn't mean we have to gung-ho declare war on China. Such conflict will arise if and when China attempts to take Taiwan by force. And by the way, the benefits of trade works both ways - it's not just to China's benefit.

12,000 miles to China by sea doesn't mean that much when you consider that (a) some of the carrier groups concerned - of which there at least 17 across pro-Western nations (not counting helo carriers) - will be much closer at any one time; and (b) we would know about any Chinese preparations for invasion weeks in advance.

And if such ships were to become well within Chinese missile and airforce range, then the same thing applies in reverse to any Chinese invasion fleet, missile bases and military airports. Many of the Chinese ships would be sunk before they even got halfway to the Taiwanese coast.
 
Last edited:
I'm starting to think you're just trolling me here. If not: are you really suggesting that civic freedoms and democracy are necessary for a country's Independence? Cause I still fail to see how responding to a country's sovereignty equates to protecting democracy and civic freedoms.

Or to put it another way: do you think the UK would not have declared wat on Germany if Poland had been a repressive, totalitarian state?


I have no idea how you got there, but surely you aren't arguing here that the UK was opposed to Hitler personally? Or if that's not your point, then I have no idea what you're saying here.

Germany did not invade Poland to exterminate the Jews, did it? And even if so, they could have theoretically done that and let all others retain all their civic freedoms and democracy. (That they didn't is besides the point with this argument you're providing.) It's not the evidence I was asking for.

If Poland had been a repressive, totalitarian state then Britain would not, in the first place, have signed a mutual aid military agreement with them. Which means that with no treaty obligation to intervene and no moral imperative to come to the aid of a fascist state, then no, Britain would not have declared war on Germany at that point, preferring instead to let two fascist states fight each other.

Germany did invade Poland partly to exterminate Jews, and partly also to gain territory for its own sake (expanding space for German people to populate). The two aims went hand in hand, with the latter being necessary if they were to proceed with the former. I repeat: a key aim of the Nazis was the Europe-wide extermination of Jews.
 
If Poland had been a repressive, totalitarian state then Britain would not, in the first place, have signed a mutual aid military agreement with them. Which means that with no treaty obligation to intervene and no moral imperative to come to the aid of a fascist state, then no, Britain would not have declared war on Germany at that point, preferring instead to let two fascist states fight each other.

Germany did invade Poland partly to exterminate Jews, and partly also to gain territory for its own sake (expanding space for German people to populate). The two aims went hand in hand, with the latter being necessary if they were to proceed with the former. I repeat: a key aim of the Nazis was the Europe-wide extermination of Jews.
Let's leave it here. I think we've both amply had our say by now.
 
With regards to the propaganda war, I actually sympathised with Russia and thought the US was blowing things out of proportion... until they actually invaded.

I couldn't believe it.

Since then there's definitely propaganda on both sides, but Russia's propaganda is so insanely absurd that it's impossible to believe it if you have half a brain.

Russia's propaganda is specifically designed for their people, and not for an audience outside of Russia.
 
I don't think this thread is particularly tone deaf to be honest.

The problem is slightly that one poster in particular allows posters to caricature all arguments into a ridiculous corner. I totally agree and have said strongly before that for all my criticisms of the West and the foreign policy of many of its countries, I would 100% prefer to still live in a US dominated world than one dominated by China or Russia.

For me, saying India has democracy because of the UK is as ridiculous as saying that propaganda is better in the West than in Russia.

I think the point about democracies and the response to war is an interesting one and for me, has shown the disconnect that some people have. Earlier in this thread, when we talked about the consequences for Russia as a country in this illegal war vs the (non existent) consequences for the UK and USA in their (multiple) illegal actions, someone replied talking about the PTSD suffered by western soldiers in Iraq. I had to pull out my tiny violin.

And of course, we had protests in the West, against Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam. Then what happened? We went to war anyway. People got bored and went on with their lives and the war continued. Not only did the two main leaders suffer no international consequences (they both roam free, are both multi millionaires, have both had a rehabilitation of their image of sorts in the recent past) but didn't even suffer any domestic consequences, with both leaders handily winning their next election.

The moral equivalence argument to me is often nonsensical on both sides. As I said, I'd much prefer to live in a world dominated by the USA compared to one dominated by Russia. But ultimately a bomb which wipes out your family is still a bomb that wipes out your family whether it's an American bomb or a Russian bomb. Iraqi children don't sit there thinking....Well my parents may be dead. But at least those bombs are democracy bombs.

Which is something that some on here would do well to remember while they're patting themselves on the back about how the west goes to war for democracy.
Can't argue with any of that.
 
With regards to the propaganda war, I actually sympathised with Russia and thought the US was blowing things out of proportion... until they actually invaded.

I couldn't believe it.

Since then there's definitely propaganda on both sides, but Russia's propaganda is so insanely absurd that it's impossible to believe it if you have half a brain.

Russia's propaganda is specifically designed for their people, and not for an audience outside of Russia.

That is not correct, is it? Russia use different propaganda for different audiences. Their own people get the hardcore delusional stuff, for western audiences they water down the rhetoric and sprinkle it with whataboutism, they tap into the (far) left's disdain for the US and Nato to get them to spread their talking points on their own, with convicton, (this thread offers quite a lot of examples) and they also have scripts for the far right, who maybe go more into the direction of "my country first".
 
Last edited:
That is not correct, is it? Russia use different propaganda for different audiences. Their own people get the hardcore delusional stuff, for western audiences they water down the rhetoric and sprinkle it with whataboutism, they tap into the (far) left's disdain for the US and Nato to get them to spread their talking points on their own, with convicton, (this thread offers quite a lot of examples) and they also have scripts for the far right, who maybe go more into the direction of "my country first".

I was referring to their war propaganda, which is complete nonsense, rather then general political propaganda.

I don't think the rise of nationalism can be wholly attributed to Russian influence. I think as globalisation has increased in the last few decades, there is a natural fear in people about losing their national identities.

I have asked many European people over the last couple of decades (way before brexit) what they thought of the idea of a United States of Europe, to push the EU project one step further. Very few are warm to the idea, so that suggests to me that there is an upper limit to collectiveness that people are willing to adopt.
 
Last edited:
The foreign policy of the West is not altruistic, it's based on self interest. It's absurd that this is a controversial claim.

Its not, the foreign policy of all countries is based on self interest, there maybe some altruistic elements in the policy of some countries, but self interest is primary everywhere.