Ukraine and Endless War for Profit

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 hours ago, Peter said:

You are not being neutral or isolationist, in my opinion.

Peter,

This is part of our problem.

I write things like this:

11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I have already showed my disapproval of Putin and his pals and my disapproval of the Ukrainian government. So, I have registered that I disapprove their initiation of force. Both of them--meaning in a war between gangsters. And what do I do with that disapproval in the current Ukraine Russia situation?

Nothing.

Absolutely nothing.

Not my problem.

I have written this kind of thing over and over using different words each time, and right here, you tell me in your opinion I am not being neutral.

I also write that I want not one American life wasted on this particular hostility, and right here, you tell me in your opinion I am not being isolationist.

I don't like your word "isolationist" here because I think this is a loaded term that means whatever the wielder wishes it to mean, but if it means not sending American soldiers to this particular conflict, that's exactly what I mean.

One more thing on you saying I am am not isolationist. You have to have read me say over and over that US is part of NATO and things like that. My most recent comment of this nature was as follows:

5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

If China invades Taiwan, I'm all for war. And war to win, not this endless war for profit horseshit.

What is hard to understand about that?

I am writing simple sentences in the English language.

 

On another point, you wrote, in answer to me asking you if the US should invade Ukraine or Russia:

7 hours ago, Peter said:

No. I have never even come close to hinting at that.

After the huge number of invasions the USA has perpetrated the world over that ALWAYS start with the rhetoric you are citing and following right now, don't you see that going in this direction ONLY leads to US invasions of other countries? 

How many times does it have to happen before a pattern emerges? After all, it's ALWAY the same. It's never different.

So if you haven't come close to hinting that the US should invade Ukraine or Russia, please tell me how the current nonstop war mongering in the media and among regime-change mongering politicians can avoid leading to US invading Ukraine or Russia.

They always do this and it always leads to invasions. Sometimes with soldiers. Sometimes only with aircraft and/or drones shooting and dropping weapons on the people below.

Reality exists irrespective of wishes.

I haven't even mentioned nuances, like "regime change war" is a concept for the US to apply to much weaker third world countries, not to a major nuclear power, for God's sake.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

14 minutes ago, anthony said:

Interesting. Seems Ukraine claimed its independence...

Tony.

Those people over there have been fighting each for thousands of years and they will still be fighting each other thousands of years from now.

All this war mongering about it couldn't fix it even if that were the real intent.

But that's not the real intent.

A hotspot of longstanding hostility is nothing but a juicy opportunity for the military-industrial complex to make money.

Michael

[anthony]

23 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony.

Those people over there have been fighting each for thousands of years and they will still be fighting each other thousands of years from now.

All this war mongering about it couldn't fix it even if that were the real intent.

But that's not the real intent.

A hotspot of longstanding hostility is nothing but a juicy opportunity for the military-industrial complex to make money.

Michael

Sure, I don't deny the motive and greedy lure for more and more unearned wealth by so many. Unprecedented in scale, often illicit, dirty and immorally gained by people who are actually small without that wealth and the power that comes with it.

Consider this too. It's not only money. I was thinking about the enigma of Putin, the time he arrogantly told that NATO guy he wanted membership for Russia - before those other less important counties and he wasn't going to wait in line. The Brit told him you need an invitation. I imagine this Eton educated twerp looking down his nose at this crude upstart and thug, and getting a kick out of rebuffing Russia's entry into the Old Boys Club.  Russia in NATO! God forbid, old chap! (Foolishly I think, in his smug prejudice he couldn't see the future value of having Russia on board, which could have been a turning point in European history, away from this present outcome ).

What I'm driving at is how much of the doings of men and women are determined by small, often petty remnants of the child in the adult, a throwback to the schoolyard. Some of that's fine and good, one doesn't need to stifle, can still enjoy the girl in the woman and appreciate one's boyishness in one's grown man. Putin probably felt a certain shyness - stick with me here!- concealed under his arrogant approach - then, felt personally humiliated at his country being disallowed from joining the civilized West on equal footing, and left on the outside looking in. Several years on, I suspect that some of his later actions were determined by that NATO refusal. That's not to justify, only to understand.

My main point, a theory of a phenomenon I've seen at work, best characterized by "Revenge of the Nerds". You can spot it everywhere. That the "Jocks and the Nerds" of our young days is still operative at some level. Still there, after having gone through multiple off-shoots, we, the inner boy and girl, still recognize each of those initial archetypes. Each person once identified with - or was identified by others - by them, as most subconsciously still do. Except, the sporty, muscular, insensitive-seeming Jock in a loud group of his buddies who ruled campus and social life once, has clearly been bested in recent decades by the weedy, intellectual-looking Nerd (probably with Das Kapital carried ostentatiously under his arm) who'd once have to suffer slights and bullying from the Jocks. But that Nerd became hip and cool, when brainpower, sensitive behavior, arty pursuits (especially in music and pop bands) etc.etc. became 'cool' - and now have the money and prestige (and girls) - once owned by the all-action Jocks. And - the biggest cause of the power shift: the advent of computers that attracted and gave the Nerd almost unlimited power in his expertise with them and the Net, on to social media.

And now, they as the new elite have been 'sticking it to' the "deplorable" Jocks in a large pay back.

Basically, all pre-conscious nonsense.

There's no mutual exclusivity or innate attributes between those (physical-intellectual) 'groups'.  It's just perception or practiced image. The big, rough guy's exterior might contain a thoughtful intelligence, another Jock-ish type may be a gentle violinist - and so on.

These archetypes are deterministic only to the extent people allow them to be. But the early perceptions and self-concepts are the most stubborn to change.

There's much more to this I could go on with, but briefly by example, anyone can recognize the Jock in Putin ( "a bully" -of course! - who looks and throws his weight about just like those large guys at school one knew) - the Nerd in (e.g.) Gates and Zuckerberg. Etc. And many identify with/loathe either according to their own pre-conceptual proclivity from school days.

However: With their newfound influence, power and wealth in every institution from Big Tech to movie production, from within the Gvt. to universities and Big Media, the "Nerds" seem to have emerged as the latest bullies and most childish grown-ups.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Now the peace talks are ongoing and I have to steal a line from Ben Harnwell. Guess who is involved in the peace talks?

Yup.

The oligarchs.

They are all cutting backroom deals to see who gets to be Mr. Ten Percent in the reconstruction of Ukraine.

(Man, do I wish I had thought of that line.  )

And, of course, normal everyday people (including Americans) are left to pay the tab through meta-level accounting gimmicks and jargon-speak.

 

That's what it's all about on the Western end.

That's all it's been all about.

 

At least this time it looks like there will be no lives of young American men and women as part of that payment.

Michael

[anthony]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/praising-putin-roger-stone-aaron-lewis-laud-russian-war-1324749/

Fascinating reading. Reveals how the Left, weaving in and out of fantasy and reality, is matched by the "far right" counterparts they attack, doing the same.

The "far right" get it (facts/opinions) more right than wrong, though, and definitely, hold the higher values.

Not easy for one to hold a straight line in one's course in this blizzard of opinions. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Tony,

I think the rightwing people go overboard, but somebody has to cut through the propaganda bullshit flooding the airwaves with war-mongering.

You can't get the public's attention unless you do something like they are doing (praising Putin). The honk and roar from the propagandists is just too loud.

If this counter-propaganda stops the endless war for profit machine in its tracks, at least this go around, I say it is worth it. 

The oligarchs and predator class will have to be satisfied with rebuilding Ukraine, not with endless unwinnable war to feed on.

As Ayn Rand said, "Don't bother to examine a folly. Ask only what it accomplishes."

(I think I got that right. If not, the gist is 100% accurate.)

That is a far better rule to use on judging what people are really saying with propaganda than intellectual accuracy.

Michael

[anthony]

On 3/29/2022 at 11:28 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

I think the rightwing people go overboard, but somebody has to cut through the propaganda bullshit flooding the airwaves with war-mongering.

You can't get the public's attention unless you do something like they are doing (praising Putin). The honk and roar from the propagandists is just too loud.

If this counter-propaganda stops the endless war for profit machine in its tracks, at least this go around, I say it is worth it. 

The oligarchs and predator class will have to be satisfied with rebuilding Ukraine, not with endless unwinnable war to feed on.

As Ayn Rand said, "Don't bother to examine a folly. Ask only what it accomplishes."

(I think I got that right. If not, the gist is 100% accurate.)

That is a far better rule to use on judging what people are really saying with propaganda than intellectual accuracy.

Michael

I think that's good advice. The propaganda alone, "honk and roar" - or repetitive whisper -  that has seeped into everybody's heads for so long, can, advisedly, justify a counter-response in the other direction.

When one sees one's friends and sensible individuals be taken in, perhaps permanently, by spin-doctoring, you realize how insidious and effective the campaign has been. For the last three or four years, especially during Covid and now, this war.  

I always ask myself which of the opinionistas is the more avid in finding out factual truth wherever it lies, and - who aspires to the good, at least better, at least, some values?

In nearly every case I find both initiatives coming from the conservatives and right. The left have visibly lost touch with both. Now, for them, it's reduced to control over mass minds at all costs.

I can live fine with honest religionists who readily acknowledge everyone else's freedoms, I cannot with deliberately dishonest, power-mad nihilists who'd tear everything down. 

 

[anthony]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiY9NvK_fD2AhWPQEEAHRLlDNAQFnoECAkQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FWar_in_Donbas&usg=AOvVaw3MfXEnME0dY1VpCoVvIcKZ

The war didn't start yesterday. Casualties of non-combatants were well higher* in the prior 8-year 'unofficial little war' than the present one, so far. A million or two became refugees and civilian areas were damaged, buildings destroyed. Kyiv wasn't happily going to allow the rebels independence, evidently.

By contrast, the attention given to "Putin's war" has made the run-up conflict in the Donbas insignificant ancient history. But who'd put in effort to unravel the mess, the complexities and rights/wrongs/injustices from both sides in that time and place. Doesn't play well to the world's knee-jerk moral judgment and media fed outrage, over the present "slaughter" and "blood bath".  

*5,795 civilian Russian East Ukrainians killed (by Ukraine govt. forces), 12,700 - 13,700 wounded. 4,641 W Ukraine civilians killed by separatists (see the Wiki side bar)

[william.scherk]

On 3/29/2022 at 2:28 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

As Ayn Rand said, "Don't bother to examine a folly. Ask only what it accomplishes."

(I think I got that right. If not, the gist is 100% accurate.)

I grabbed this lengthy quote from an earlier discussion ...

  

On 10/18/2015 at 3:33 PM, william.scherk said:

The full Randian paragraph from Toohey`s speech [...] I`ve added paragraphs for those old fuckers like me who cannot happily read an unbroken splodge of text of this length.

“You. The world. It's only a matter of discovering the lever. If you learn how to rule one single man's soul, you can get the rest of mankind. It's the soul, Peter, the soul. Not whips or swords or fire or guns. That's why the Caesars, the Attilas, the Napoleons were fools and did not last. We will.

 

The soul, Peter, is that which can't be ruled. It must be broken. Drive a wedge in, get your fingers on it--and the man is yours. You won't need a whip--he'll bring it to you and ask to be whipped. Set him in reverse--and his own mechanism will do your work for you. Use him against himself. Want to know how it's done? See if I ever lied to you. See if you haven't heard all this for years, but didn't want to hear, and the fault is yours, not mine. There are many ways. Here's one. Make man feel small. Make him feel guilty. Kill his aspiration and his integrity. That's difficult. The worst among you gropes for an ideal in his own twisted way. Kill integrity by internal corruption. Use it against itself. Direct it toward a goal destructive of all integrity.

 

Preach selflessness. Tell man that he must live for others. Tell men that altruism is the ideal. Not a single one of them has ever achieved it and not a single one ever will. His every living instinct screams against it. But don't you see what you accomplish? Man realizes that he's incapable of what he's accepted as the noblest virtue--and it gives him a sense of guilt, of sin, of his own basic unworthiness.

 

Since the supreme ideal is beyond his grasp, he gives up eventually all ideals, all aspiration, all sense of his personal value. He feels himself obliged to preach what he can't practice. But one can't be good halfway or honest approximately. To preserve one's integrity is a hard battle. Why preserve that which one knows to be corrupt already?

 

His soul gives up its self-respect. You've got him. He'll obey. He'll be glad to obey--because he can't trust himself, he feels uncertain, he feels unclean. That's one way. Here's another. Kill man's sense of values. Kill his capacity to recognize greatness or to achieve it. Great men can't be ruled. We don't want any great men. Don't deny the conception of greatness. Destroy it from within. The great is the rare, the difficult, the exceptional.

 

Set up standards of achievement open to all, to the least, to the most inept--and you stop the impetus to effort in all men, great or small. You stop all incentive to improvement, to excellence, to perfection. Laugh at Roark and hold Peter Keating as a great architect. You've destroyed architecture. Build up Lois Cook and you've destroyed literature. Hail Ike and you've destroyed the theater. Glorify Lancelot Clokey and you've destroyed the press.

 

Don't set out to raze all shrines--you'll frighten men. Enshrine mediocrity--and the shrines are razed. Then there's another way. Kill by laughter. Laughter is an instrument of human joy. Learn to use it as a weapon of destruction. Turn it into a sneer. It's simple.

 

Tell them to laugh at everything. Tell them that a sense of humor is an unlimited virtue. Don't let anything remain sacred in a man's soul--and his soul won't be sacred to him. Kill reverence and you've killed the hero in man. One doesn't reverence with a giggle. He'll obey and he'll set no limits to his obedience--anything goes--nothing is too serious.

 

Here's another way. This is most important. Don't allow men to be happy.

 

Happiness is self-contained and self-sufficient. Happy men have no time and no use for you. Happy men are free men. So kill their joy in living. Take away from them whatever is dear or important to them. Never let them have what they want. Make them feel that the mere fact of a personal desire is evil. Bring them to a state where saying I want' is no longer a natural right, but a shameful admission.

 

Altruism is of great help in this. Unhappy men will come to you. They'll need you. They'll come for consolation, for support, for escape. Nature allows no vacuum. Empty man's soul--and the space is yours to fill.

 

I don't see why you should look so shocked, Peter. This is the oldest one of all. Look back at history. Look at any great system of ethics, from the Orient up. Didn't they all preach the sacrifice of personal joy? Under all the complications of verbiage, haven't they all had a single leitmotif: sacrifice, renunciation, self-denial? Haven't you been able to catch their theme song--'Give up, give up, give up, give up'?

 

Look at the moral atmosphere of today. Everything enjoyable, from cigarettes to sex to ambition to the profit motive, is considered depraved or sinful. Just prove that a thing makes men happy--and you've damned it. That's how far we've come. We've tied happiness to guilt. And we've got mankind by the throat. Throw your first-born into a sacrificial furnace--lie on a bed of nails--go into the desert to mortify the flesh--don't dance--don't go to the movies on Sunday--don't try to get rich--don't smoke--don't drink.

 

It's all the same line. The great line. Fools think that taboos of this nature are just nonsense. Something left over, old-fashioned. But there's always a purpose in nonsense. Don't bother to examine a folly--ask yourself only what it accomplishes. Every system of ethics that preached sacrifice grew into a world power and ruled millions of men.

 

Of course, you must dress it up. You must tell people that they'll achieve a superior kind of happiness by giving up everything that makes them happy. You don't have to be too clear about it. Use big vague words. 'Universal Harmony'--'Eternal Spirit'--'Divine Purpose'--'Nirvana'--'Paradise'--'Racial Supremacy'--'The Dictatorship of the Proletariat.'

 

Internal corruption, Peter. That's the oldest one of all. The farce has been going on for centuries and men still fall for it. Yet the test should be so simple: just listen to any prophet and if you hear him speak of sacrifice--run. Run faster than from a plague. It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there's someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.

 

But if ever you hear a man telling you that you must be happy, that it's your natural right, that your first duty is to yourself--that will be the man who's not after your soul. That will be the man who has nothing to gain from you. But let him come and you'll scream your empty heads off, howling that he's a selfish monster. So the racket is safe for many, many centuries.

 

But here you might have noticed something. I said, 'It stands to reason.' Do you see? Men have a weapon against you. Reason. So you must be very sure to take it away from them. Cut the props from under it.

 

But be careful. Don't deny outright. Never deny anything outright, you give your hand away. Don't say reason is evil--though some have gone that far and with astonishing success. Just say that reason is limited. That there's something above it. What? You don't have to be too clear about it either.

 

The field's inexhaustible. 'Instinct'--'Feeling'--'Revelation'--'Divine Intuition'--'Dialectic Materialism.' If you get caught at some crucial point and somebody tells you that your doctrine doesn't make sense--you're ready for him. You tell him that there's something above sense. That here he must not try to think, he must feel. He must believe.

 

Suspend reason and you play it deuces wild. Anything goes in any manner you wish whenever you need it. You've got him. Can you rule a thinking man? We don't want any thinking men.”

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

I grabbed this lengthy quote from an earlier discussion ...

William,

Yeah...

The line was originally used in an evil context--the opposite of being used for good.

I noticed that a long time ago when I first started mucking around with propaganda.

But the line still works for good when you need it to.

Cognitively, it is a propaganda technique and nothing more.

And since normatively, propaganda can work for good when you do it right, the line works against evil at times.

Just stay off the slippery slope because that one is greased...

This sucker works and, as the saying goes, power corrupts...

Michael

[anthony]

Excellent chat

 

[anthony]

Blame Putin, Sure, But Also Blame Biden | Merion West

MERIONWEST.COM

---

"The fact—one that should surprise no one—is that the same folks who gave us the grossly mismanaged withdrawal from Afghanistan have...

 

[anthony]

On 3/31/2022 at 10:54 PM, william.scherk said:

I grabbed this lengthy quote from an earlier discussion ...

  

 

"It's all the same line. The great line. Fools think that taboos of this nature are just nonsense. Something left over, old-fashioned. But there's always a purpose in nonsense. Don't bother to examine a folly--ask yourself only what it accomplishes. Every system of ethics that preached sacrifice grew into a world power and ruled millions of men". [Ellsworth Toohey]

--------

The context to be kept of Toohey's statement is ... sacrifice. Beginning at small self-sacrifices of anything the individual takes comfort or pleasure in, and maximum sacrifices one spiritually and meaningfully aspires to - have to be, by necessity, the precursor to "world power".

I.e. Domination of mankind can't occur where self-sacrifice is absent.

And ET understands that better than his adversaries. He knows intimately the good of men's minds that he has a need to control and crush and the method to go about it - and openly confides in Keating - making him the most evil character.

Anyone willingly giving up even the little things that matter, amounts eventually to everybody giving up all the personal agency they have, and the power-controllers are ready to move in and take over.

The "folly" lies in considering those little things made taboo and surrendered, to be silly and unimportant; these habituate people to more sacrifices.

("But there's always a purpose in nonsense").

What's "accomplished"? The outcome and consequences, are what some could predict and anyone can see happening in actuality: "Ask yourself".  

"Don't bother to examine a folly". But premises, preconditions and causes of self-sacrifice - must, of course - be examined/identified/reasoned [this is Toohey's 'voice' speaking not Rand's]

Thanks for the excerpt William.

[Peter]

“Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” John F. Kennedy

I came from a military family, so I liked that quote at first. But then I remember reading an editorial by an American conservative about how you can be patriotic but not at the beck and call of your country. We are ensured rights through the U.S Constitution and we can choose to fight for our country. But outside of a world war as an example, our citizens should not be conscripted into the military. Our country “freely exists” to govern, keep the peace but most importantly to protect its citizens rights. So, what would be a better, patriotic, objectivist slogan or thought? “Ask what your country can do for you; BUT ask what you can do for your country?” Ayn Rand had some thoughts on the matter. Peter   

The following is an excerpt from Ayn Rand's "Philosophy: Who Needs it," (An address given to the graduating class of the United States Military Academy at West Point on March 6, 1974.) I wish I had been there to hear it. ". . . In conclusion, allow me to speak in personal terms. This evening means a great deal to me. I feel deeply honored by the opportunity to address you. I can say - not as a patriotic bromide, but with full knowledge of the necessary metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, political, and esthetic roots - that the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and, in its original founding principles, the ONLY moral country in the history of the world. There is a kind of quiet radiance associated in my mind with the name West Point - because you have preserved the spirit of those original founding principles and you are their symbol. There were contradictions and omissions in those principles, and there may be in yours - but I am speaking of the essentials. There may be individuals in your history who did not live up to your highest standards - as there are in every institution - since no institution and no social system can guarantee the automatic perfection of all its members; this depends on an individual's free will. I am speaking your standards. You have preserved three qualities in character which were typical at the time of America's birth, but are virtually nonexistent today: earnestness - dedication – a sense of honor. Honor is self-esteem made visible in action.

You have chosen to risk your lives for the defense of this country. I will not insult you by saying that you dedicated to selfless service - it is not a virtue in my morality. In my morality, the defense of one's country means that a man is personally unwilling to live as the conquered slave of any enemy, foreign or domestic. THIS is an enormous virtue. Some of you may not be consciously aware of it. I want to help you to realize it.

The army of a free country has a great responsibility: the right to use force, but not as an instrument of compulsion and brute conquest - as the army of other countries has done their histories - only as an instrument of a free nation's self-defense, which means: the defense of a man's individual rights. The principle of using force only in retaliation against those who initiate its use, is the principle of subordinating might to right. The highest integrity and sense of honor are required for such a task. No other army in the world has achieved it. You have.

West Point has given America a long line of heroes, known and unknown. You, this year's graduates, have a glorious tradition to carry on - which I admire profoundly, not because it is a tradition, but because it IS glorious. Since I came from a country guilty of the worst tyranny on earth, I am particularly able to appreciate the meaning, the greatness and the supreme value of that which you are defending. So, in my own name and in the name of many people who think as I do, I want to say, to all the men of West Point, past, present, and future: Thank you.

[anthony]

The barbarians are at the gate.

And - not only the Russian Army and Putin. To the Russian artists dead and living, but also those ordinary people singly picked out for little more than names ending with -sky, -off, 'cancelled' by the self-righteous.

 

The Cancellation of Tchaikovsky  ⋆ Brownstone Institute

BROWNSTONE.ORG

---

The Cardiff Philharmonic Orchestra canceled a Tchaikovsky concert, calling it “inappropriate at this time.”

 

[ThatGuy]

On 4/2/2022 at 2:49 PM, anthony said:

The barbarians are at the gate.

And - not only the Russian Army and Putin. To the Russian artists dead and living, but also those ordinary people singly picked out for little more than names ending with -sky, -off, 'cancelled' by the self-righteous.

 

The Cancellation of Tchaikovsky  ⋆ Brownstone Institute

BROWNSTONE.ORG

---

The Cardiff Philharmonic Orchestra canceled a Tchaikovsky concert, calling it “inappropriate at this time.”

 

Geez, Louise...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Fog of war question.

 

Quote

Is it normal for an army that is already facing worldwide disinformation campaigns to massacre civilians right as they are leaving town, knowing that photos of the evidence will be captured hours later?

 

I can answer that.

No. That is not normal.

Unless one works for the mainstream media.

Then anything goes. Truth, no object...

Michael

[anthony]

The United Kingdom leads for gung-ho military intervention. 42% blind fools want in:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj9g7Tek_r2AhUNO8AKHayuAuoQFnoECBMQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.forbes.com%2Fsites%2Falisondurkee%2F2022%2F03%2F08%2Fmore-support-military-intervention-in-ukraine-than-oppose-it-poll-says---but-financial-aid-still-preferable%2F&usg=AOvVaw16EbRit9eHfGIPvaKEZ4GN

[anthony]

 

Deleted. Cant' find the vid apparently debunking 'the massacre' claim any more.

 

 

[william.scherk]

Bellingcat has a lot of options to consider ...

Russia’s Bucha “Facts” Versus the Evidence - bellingcat

WWW.BELLINGCAT.COM

---

Open source evidence appears to contradict Russian claims of elaborate fakes in Ukrainian town where dead bodies were found strewn across street.

 

[anthony]

"Contradict Russian claims" - yes, and adds little else to prove the contrary. Only a "timeline". The subjective claim of "a moving hand" was too ludicrous anyway. 

Anyone of sense should know atrocities do take place on both sides in war. One isolated platoon of crazed soldiers will be all it takes, are they representative of the Army and its generals?

Both parties are very conscious that the war is, almost as critically, being played out in the "court of public opinion" (public emotion). That's why these flying claims and counter-claims and denials.

Anyway. Let's assume this was a Russian atrocity. Along with other civilians inadvertently caught in crossfire and shelling. Where were all the others? If torturing and attacking civilians were the Russian policy, this should have happened scores and hundreds of times in these 6 weeks allover the country.

Except, I insist on maintaining, civilian casualties have been extremely low, disproportionate to the combatant casualties on several fronts, even accepting a large undercount. That is indicative of general restraint, the Army's standing order.

Truth, the first casualty of war, someone said.  

 

[anthony]

The Telegraph, exalting the NLAW's performance in Ukraine (similar to the Jaguar and half the cost):

 

http://t.email3.telegraph.co.uk/r/?id=h36202fef%2C42c6cd55%2C3734b0f5&WT.mc_id=e_DM1554919&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_Edi_New_Sub&utmsource=email&utm_medium=Edi_Edi_New_Sub20220331&utm_campaign=DM1554919&s=WikE6-VS9GAijFV0UfwZgcNzw2b8_DQT5JjfCG1LEtw

 

[anthony]

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Bellingcat has a lot of options to consider ...

Russia’s Bucha “Facts” Versus the Evidence - bellingcat

WWW.BELLINGCAT.COM

---

Open source evidence appears to contradict Russian claims of elaborate fakes in Ukrainian town where dead bodies were found strewn across street.

 

I don't know what is the aim of this. Ask yourself: what does it "accomplish?" To conclusively prove that wars and invasions are ugly? That Putin is evil? And "we" are smugly on the side of good.

Or to stir up public emotions enough to get one's (Western) country involved in more bloodbaths?

Try telling, as I have, such an outraged individual that his intervention notion will get tens of thousands MORE civilians dead. And will sacrifice his own soldiers in a cause unrelated to his nation's proper interests, spreading war to other countries. He doesn't care. All of a sudden, his earlier compassion disappears.

He/she can't take it in. They don't understand the causal nature of "escalation".

Nope, it's not a quick end to this war, a settlement and perhaps an eventual peace treaty that warmongers want. They want an eye for an eye.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

10 minutes ago, anthony said:

I don't know what is the aim of this. Ask yourself: what does it "accomplish?"

Tony,

We are in fog of war. If anyone makes a definitive claim or a definitive rebuttal, run away. Don't walk away. Run.

Whatever they want to accomplish, truth is not part of it.

And you, even when we disagree, are a man who pursues the truth to the very best of your understanding.

I can't say for sure, but I don't think you have a manipulative bone in your body.

Mucho respect...

 

Michael

[william.scherk]

Here's an opinion piece from RIA-Novosti, translated into English. A portion from a page I copied -- you can download the text-to-speech audio file (kudos to MSK for recommending Blakify, which has some near-human sounding voices):

Original location: Mariia Kravchenko's Medium post

 

Quote

 

What should Russia do with Ukraine?

Timofey Sergeytsev

We wrote about the inevitability of Ukraine’s denazification as early as last April. We do not need a Nazi, Banderite Ukraine, the enemy of Russia and a tool of the West used to destroy Russia. Today, the denazification issue has taken a practical turn.

Denazification is necessary when a considerable number of population (very likely most of it) has been subjected to the Nazi regime and engaged into its agenda. That is, when the “good people — bad government” hypothesis does not apply. Recognizing this fact forms the backbone of the denazification policy and all its measures, while the fact itself constitutes its subject.

This is the situation Ukraine has found itself in. The fact that the Ukrainian voter was choosing between the “Poroshenko peace” and the “Zelenskyy peace” must not deceive you: Ukrainians were quite happy with the shortest way to peace via a blitzkrieg, which was strongly alluded to by the last two Ukrainian presidents when they were elected.

[...]