>”He didn't have intelligence on what a US supermarket was like?”
Take this all with a grain of salt because this is just what I remember from reading stories online of people who used to live in the USSR, but the average person realized the West had more material prosperity but they were under the impression the upper class folks were the only ones with real access to it. They believed the common worker still had to deal with limited selection and shortages, much like they did.
Additionally, with whatever glimpses they saw of western consumerism they were told that the abundance was intentionally staged, like a Potemkin village. This was not uncommon for the USSR to do when dignitaries or journalists came to visit. So it made sense that the West would do this too.
I have to imagine that as a Soviet citizen and dignitary he assumed everything he saw on his trip was staged or choreographed in some way. They intentionally made an unplanned stop to try and confront this. Perhaps he and his entourage already knew he was going to find a well stocked supermarket, but I can’t help but think cognitive dissonance kept him from really accepting it until he saw it firsthand.
In 1989, I was a child growing up on the streets of a small town in Siberia. During those years, I believed everyone in America was prosperous - the 'common worker' didn't exist, and it was wealth all the way down. My family was not connected, and we were firmly middle class (in the "all animals are equal" way). The Soviet propaganda machine was compelling before my time, but by the 90s, common folks in the USSR were not under any delusion that life in the US was equally bad.
I was born in 1961, was a child growing up on the streets of a small town in Siberia just like yourself but I guess I am an older version by what looks to be 10-15 years. The town was satellite science type called Akademgorodok. We were middle class "equals" just as you described but that was in 70s. In the 80s as far as I can remember neither myself nor my friends believed any of that Soviet Propaganda. Our parents were mostly scientists and some (very few yet) had visited the West and we had pretty good ideas what's in the stores over there ;)
My grandfather was born in St. Petersburg (then Leningrad) and lived there as a child through the Nazi siege. In the 40's and 50's in the USSR he and his friends saw through the propaganda and knew that things in the US were much better.
But you know what's strange? He lives in NJ now, he's been there for the last 25 years. He watches Russian state TV and also CNN and thinks he gets both perspectives. When Russia invaded Ukraine, he defended Russia, and spit out all the lines about the "nazi leadership" of Ukraine. "Bucha was faked," all that. I think he realized that he was in the minority and toned it down, but this definitely made an impression on me. It's not that certain people are immune to propaganda and some aren't. Anybody can fall into it.
Well, one year long invadion should give you a hint. Detaining people for calling it war instead of "special operation" is another one. Calling other neighbours "fake/artificial" countries is another bad sign that Russia's intentions are not good.
People were not detained in the USA for using the wrong nomenclature to describe the Iraq invasion, and yet that was also an unspeakably cruel, venal war of cynical aggression knowingly perpetrated on laughably false pretenses. To this day roughly half of Americans think it was the right move - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/19/iraq-war-co...
So I don't think factors like that are so good at separating "good" invasions from "bad" ones.
The thing is, there's vanishingly few "good invasions".
Even fewer when you're intent on annexing territory and capturing resources and large numbers of people.
The logic error you've committed above: Stifling dissent about the war with authoritarian measures may not be a necessary condition for an invasion to be bad, but it still can be a hint that the invasion is bad.
Rejecting the territorial integrity of the country invaded, similarly, can be a pretty good hint.
>"Even fewer when you're intent on annexing territory and capturing resources and large numbers of people."
As ugly as it sounds I would actually prefer that the US had annexed countries it had invaded. This way it would at least be responsible and people would leave in more decent place than before. Instead they came in, murdered and otherwise fucked people and then left without much remorse and repercussion.
I don't understand how this is supposed to be a gotcha. Are you assuming that everyone opposed to Russia's invasion of Ukraine think the USA invasion of Iraq was good? I think in both cases it's very easy to identify which side is in the wrong, and it's the one invading another country.
When McCarthy did it, it didn't show how strong McCarthy was; it showed how weak he was. When Putin does it, it doesn't show how strong Putin is, either.
To see Putin as a weak evildoer is falling for US propaganda.
The truth is more nuanced. Strong powers take advantage of weak powers and the US is no exception. We do it by expanding NATO territory. There are also arguments to be made that the US pushed Putin into the war. As it is a strategic move to have russia use up its arms fighting a neighbor rather than the US. The war also greatly increased US natgas exports to Europe.
It's pretty immoral / weak to for the world's superpower to push neighboring countries into war for these reasons.
1. NATO expansion isn't driven by US imperialism. We aren't conquering countries and forcing them to join; they are asking to join - and not because we're tying a big aid package to NATO membership. They're joining because they're worried about Russian imperialism.
2. You say it's accepting propaganda to see Putin as weak. But you see him as being pushed into war by the US. That's not something that happens to someone who is strong.
3. "As it is a strategic move to have russia use up its arms fighting a neighbor rather than the US."
Absolutely. More: It's to NATO's advantage to have Russia use up its arms fighting a non-NATO-member.
Sure, Putin is not a good leader for Russia, he's power-hungry and does not seem to have the best interests of the Russian people in mind. However by those same metrics you should consider US leadership as also being a weak evildoer.
Is it good or evil to push other countries into war knowing that thousands will die?
Is it good or evil to profit off the resulting energy crisis?
Is it even smart to risk a global nuclear war to destroy outdated arms and decades old tanks?
Is it good or evil to trigger economic collapse via sanctions causing starvation both inside the country and to export nations? Don't we consider Mao and Stalin some of the most evil people that ever lived for doing the same? Starvation is a terrible way to die yet it isn't even seen as collateral damage.
Putin will die anyway in the next couple decades. It made no sense to poke the bear and trigger all this. It ultimately just strengthens China and increases the amount of global suffering.
Dan Carlin has a great 'Poking the Bear' episode that goes into detail on the many ways in which the US provoked Russia/Putin. Of course Putin was the primary cause of the war but it is foolish to believe that the US is blameless.
Well, I think mislabeling as a “one year long invasion” what is a decade long war with Ukraine intentionally shelling urban centers in violation of a negotiated peace speaks to having been taken in by propaganda.
The crimes in Bucha were corroborated by not only the testimony of the residents there, but also the security cameras left in homes and businesses and even satellite photography. The Russians left corpses laying out in the streets for weeks as they occupied the town.
I do know that US media has lied or propagandized numerous aspects of this war — from the origins to the current status.
My question was that broader one:
How do you know this isn’t like Iraq (where the media lied about reasons) or Afghanistan (where the media lied about status, until the sudden collapse)?
> both sides have presented evidence of war crimes
Both sides always do. One side, in this case, has international validation. If you’re ignoring evidence and going off headlines, of course you’ll have a shallower view.
Not sure if this is a troll or a bot but I'll take the question seriously and answer it seriously. After all, this did occur to me at the time.
What convinced me that I'm not falling for Western propaganda? What it came down to was the following argument, and it has to be an argument and not a soundbite because in order to get beneath the propaganda we have to go deep.
- Many of Russia's claims against Ukraine are either true or have real elements of truth to them. Yes the founder of Azov is an avowed nationalist*. Yes, there have been laws passed in Ukraine that required greater use of Ukrainian language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_Ukraine#201.... Yes, the parliament of Ukraine considered giving Hero status to Stepan Bandera, who is a controversial figure because (among other things) he did work with the Nazis in WWII. Yes, there was fighting in Donbas, and while I don't know about Ukraine intentionally shelling civilians, I can imagine that at least there were civilians killed as a result of Ukrainian fire in that area since 2014.
- None of these arguments rise to the level of necessitating military intervention.
- Russia did not take steps to de-escalate the conflict. There were so many things Russia could have done if it was genuinely interested in peace and friendly relations with a sovereign Ukraine. If you're worried about persecution of Russians in Ukraine, make it easy for them to get to Russia. If you're concerned about fighting, use your status as a UNSC member to call for a peacekeeping mission. Russia did none of these things.
I could go on, but the main argument is that when you look past the emotionally charged arguments, the substance and the necessity of military action just aren't there. Bandera's quite a character, but put his history aside for a moment and ask yourself what's his relevance to the current conflict: Yushchenko awarded him hero status in 2010. Yanukovich cancelled this a couple months later. In 2019 Ukraine's parliament took up the issue and decided against giving him an award. And Russia wants to send in soldiers for that? Because they considered him for an award and rejected the idea?
* He (Andriy Biletsky) is quoted as having said something about "lead the white races .. against Semite-led untermenschen" but the Guardian article that makes the claim provides no citation.*
> while I don't know about Ukraine intentionally shelling civilians, I can imagine that at least there were civilians killed as a result of Ukrainian fire in that area since 2014
Ukraine has intentionally shelled urban centers for a decade — and you think Russia is wrong to protect ethnic Russians from that?
> Russia did not take steps to de-escalate the conflict. There were so many things Russia could have done if it was genuinely interested in peace and friendly relations with a sovereign Ukraine.
Do you mean like asking France and Germany to negotiate a peace that protects the people of Donbas while remaining part of Ukraine?
Russia did that in 2014 — and it was cynically exploited to arm Ukraine for this conflict by NATO, who refused to protect the people in Donbas from Ukrainian shelling.
What should Russia have done to protect the ethnic Russians in Donbas — having tried to negotiate a peace only for Ukraine to shell their cities for another decade?
> I could go on, but the main argument is that when you look past the emotionally charged arguments
You’re the one making emotional strawmen about Banderites rather than focusing on the stated Russian objective of protecting Donbas after a decade of diplomacy failed.
Is that because you learned about the Russian “position” from NATO propaganda rather than directly from RT?
This is the Russian position, according to RT:
> Russia sent troops into Ukraine on February 24, 2022, citing Kiev’s failure to implement the Minsk agreements, designed to give Donetsk and Lugansk special status within the Ukrainian state. The protocols, brokered by Germany and France, were first signed in 2014. Former Ukrainian president Pyotr Poroshenko has since admitted that Kiev’s main goal was to use the ceasefire to buy time and “create powerful armed forces.”
So to protect the people of Donbas, Russia fires missiles at Kiev, Kherson, Odessa, Lvov? To protect those people it launches an invasion and calls on the Ukrainian army to overthrow its government? To protect those people it annexes Kherson?
To protect those people it tries to decimate the energy infrastructure of Ukraine so that people will freeze in the winter and beg their government to stop fighting?
Do you honestly believe that Putin actually has the best interests of the people of Donbas at heart? Do you really think that's what this is about? When Russian journalists get murdered he shows no compassion. He doesn't give a fuck about the people of Donbas, he doesn't even give a fuck about his own people.
> So to protect the people of Donbas, Russia fires missiles at Kiev, Kherson, Odessa, Lvov?
> To protect those people it tries to decimate the energy infrastructure of Ukraine so that people will freeze in the winter and beg their government to stop fighting?
This is the brutality of war — and why Russia tried to make the Minsk agreements work.
> Do you honestly believe that Putin actually has the best interests of the people of Donbas at heart? Do you really think that's what this is about?
Yes — I believe that a substantial reason for this is what happened in Donbas. Russians are angry at Putin for being weak and allowing this violence against ethnic Russians.
I certainly believe that this is more about protecting Donbas and Russia than the past decade of events has been good faith by NATO — Russia’s story makes sense, while NATO is openly lying by pretending this was an unprovoked attack.
- - - - -
You didn’t answer:
What specifically should Russia have done when a decade of diplomacy failed?
You're 100% wrong here. This is not the brutality of war but the brutality of Russia. If the main goal is to protect the ethnic Russians of Donbas, why fire missiles at Lvov? Why try to send tanks into Kiev? Why capture Kherson? You know why? Because protecting Donbas is not the goal! It was a paper-thin excuse for some non-sense power politics and territorial expansion.
I already answered what Russia should have done. Russia claims "diplomacy has failed" and it's so paper thin. Even the US went before the UN in the case of Iraq. Russia did not go to the UN in this case. Their news programs (which I watch) will tell you they did, and their ambassador probably put forth some slapdash resolution, but did they take it seriously? No. Did they raise legitimate concerns and act like a partner interested in resolving a problem, as opposed to someone looking to escalate a problem into an excuse? No. They accuse Zelensky of being a drug-addicted fascist. Have you seen him? Have you seen Putin? Did you not see the anger and hatred in Putin's face on Feb 24? I did. I was shocked by it. I'd never seen his face so contorted. And this wasn't some propaganda show that took a clip out of context, I watched his whole speech on Russia's channel one.
I'm pretty sure you're just trolling at this point. Don't you have better things to do? I do, and I'm going to go see to them. Good day, sir.
> Did they raise legitimate concerns and act like a partner interested in resolving a problem, as opposed to someone looking to escalate a problem into an excuse?
They spent a decade trying to work with countries like France and Germany to enact the Minsk accords — which those countries promised to guarantee.
Did those NATO countries act like a partner interested in resolving a problem? — did they even do what they’d promised in that treaty?
> Have you seen him? Have you seen Putin? Did you not see the anger and hatred in Putin's face on Feb 24?
Yes — Putin’s speeches have been thoughtful and considered, explaining their reasons. Especially compared to the vapid virtue signaling from Ukraine and NATO.
> I'm pretty sure you're just trolling at this point.
This is a bad faith ad hominem because you’re uncomfortable answering the questions of someone who disagrees with you.
That’s a sign you don’t have good support for your beliefs — notice how you’re bothered but I’m not?
> Yes — I believe that a substantial reason for this is what happened in Donbas. Russians are angry at Putin for being weak and allowing this violence against ethnic Russians.
There was no violence to speak of. In all of 2021, only 25 civilians died, lowest annual figure since the war in Ukraine began in 2014. These deaths were mainly due to land mines in regions illegally occupied by Russia. To build support for the new invasion, Russian state media has blown these deaths out of proportion for years, depicting the situation as if people were living under constant artillery attacks and hiding in basements year after year.
> What specifically should Russia have done when a decade of diplomacy failed?
Cut funding and arming of the so-called "separatists" and remove Russian tanks, guns and military personnel from Ukraine. Politically, if they want a stable neighbour with exemplary human rights record, then they should encourage the integration of Ukraine into NATO, OECD and the EU. All countries in the region that have integrated with western organizations have seen dramatic improvements in all areas of human development.
Considering Iraq invasion and how it was "presented" at the time everything is possible but it's hard to me to understand how can someone trust an authoritan regime lead by someone like Putin. I think some people are just pissed off and try to find something against the system that treated them "unfairy"
Not sure if this provides any insight to you, but FWIW my grandfather is not pissed off. He's one of the most easy-going, happy-go-lucky people I know. He doesn't really care a whole lot about the conflict, those are just his conclusions from what he's seen. And he has interests in life outside of what's covered on news programs, he just likes to keep up with the news, as do most normal people.
As to how anyone can trust the regime, if the only information you consume is what's curated by the regime, and if interesting-but-crtical views are not pushed forward, your thinking will be skewed. This is human nature.
In the 1970s, one of my professors was assigned to be guide/translator for a group of visiting Soviet social scientists in Los Angeles. He asked them what they wanted to see and they insisted on a tour of Watts, so they could see the "real America" behind the Potemkin villages. So they all got into a schoolbus and went over to Watts. The Soviets wouldn't believe that they were really seeing Watts, because this neighborhood singled-out in Soviet propaganda as a pit of misery actually seemed to show a better quality of life than what they had at home. So, they insisted on getting off the bus to ask random people on the street what area they were really in.
There is a soviet joke. Two workers in France discuss, one really wants to move to the soviet union, the paradise for workers, the land of plenty. The other is more hesitant, he also heard stories of famine and repression. All capitalist propaganda, says the first one, and I made up my mind, I am going. Well, says the other one, I might join you, but first you go, and you tell me how it is, and if it is what you say it is, I go too. But if it is what those capitalists say it is, you might not be free to write your mind so let's devise a code: if you can write freely, write in black ink, if you are coerced, use red ink, and I will know I shouldn't come.
A month later, he receives a letter, in black ink, saying "the soviet union is fantastic, workers are really cared for here, we have freedom, food, prosperity, everyone is happy. The only inconvenience is that I really cannot find any red ink anywhere".
> but the average person realized the West had more material prosperity but they were under the impression the upper class folks were the only ones with real access to it
This propaganda technique is called reverse cargo cult. They don't try to directly refute the facts on the ground. They just claim that clever people realize it's all an illusion. It's devastatingly effective. No one wants to be on the wrong side of a sneer. https://hanshowe.org/2017/02/04/trump-and-the-reverse-cargo-...
"In a regular cargo cult, you have people who see an airstrip, and the cargo drops, so they build one out of straw, hoping for the same outcome. They don’t know the difference between a straw airstrip and a real one, they just want the cargo.
In a reverse cargo cult, you have people who see an airstrip, and the cargo drops, so they build one out of straw. But there’s a twist:
When they build the straw airstrip, it isn’t because they are hoping for the same outcome. They know the difference, and know that because their airstrip is made of straw, it certainly won’t yield any cargo, but it serves another purpose. They don’t lie to the rubes and tell them that an airstrip made of straw will bring them cargo. That’s an easy lie to dismantle. Instead, what they do is make it clear that the airstrip is made of straw, and doesn’t work, but then tell you that the other guy’s airstrip doesn’t work either. They tell you that no airstrips yield cargo. The whole idea of cargo is a lie, and those fools, with their fancy airstrip made out of wood, concrete, and metal is just as wasteful and silly as one made of straw.
1980s Soviets knew that their government was lying to them about the strength and power of their society, the Communist Party couldn’t hide all of the dysfunctions people saw on a daily basis. This didn’t stop the Soviet leadership from lying. Instead, they just accused the West of being equally deceptive. “Sure, things might be bad here, but they are just as bad in America, and in America people are actually foolish enough to believe in the lie! Not like you, clever people. You get it. You know it is a lie."
I see parallels to this now all the time - in conspiracy believers, and people from the Midwest who take it as common knowledge that life in California is a complete hellscape right now, because their preferred media sources tell them so every day.
Aka "everybody does it". People paid to go to pro-Putin demonstrations don't believe that people who go (maybe... used to go) to contra-Putin demonstrations were not paid. That's where I first heard about it.
It's also the defense many people use to comfort/lie to themselves when the politician they support is caught lying/being a scumbag: "Aaah, politicians, they're all the same!".
Their intelligence officers must have known. They lived here as diplomats and free access to just travel around. Maybe people like Yeltsin didn't believe them or the KGB was afraid to tell people, but they should have known.
Take this all with a grain of salt because this is just what I remember from reading stories online of people who used to live in the USSR, but the average person realized the West had more material prosperity but they were under the impression the upper class folks were the only ones with real access to it. They believed the common worker still had to deal with limited selection and shortages, much like they did.
Additionally, with whatever glimpses they saw of western consumerism they were told that the abundance was intentionally staged, like a Potemkin village. This was not uncommon for the USSR to do when dignitaries or journalists came to visit. So it made sense that the West would do this too.
I have to imagine that as a Soviet citizen and dignitary he assumed everything he saw on his trip was staged or choreographed in some way. They intentionally made an unplanned stop to try and confront this. Perhaps he and his entourage already knew he was going to find a well stocked supermarket, but I can’t help but think cognitive dissonance kept him from really accepting it until he saw it firsthand.