The criticisms in this article are all valid. However, Russia is the one who has surrounded Ukraine with 100,000 troops, tanks, helicopters, and equipment. The worst we can say about the media in the US is that they seem perversely and disgustingly excited that this is happening. Still, I don't consider this disturbing behavior to be "pushing for war." The US media has no control over Russia.
Not to mention when Russia annexed Crimea, in which the expectation was that Crimea was welcoming (or "welcoming", point is they aren't welcoming the Russians with arms of their own), they sent 40k troops, to somewhere with an area of 27000km^2.
If you do a dumb-as-a-post scale up of that to Ukraine, purely with troops / area, you'd expect a lot more than 500,000 troops; and unlike Crimea, such an invasion will be met with resistance.
I recommend the Blowback podcast. [0] It really puts the role of the media in starting, or at least helping setting the stage and muster public support for wars, into perspective.
Oh come now. We’re not talking about things that have happened. We’re talking about provoking world war 3. No matter what you think of the US media, they aren’t capable of provoking the US into starting a world war.
No matter? Uhm. Well. What about thinking of the media as the public-relations branch/chearleaders of "them/Deep-State/Whatever-Complex", drumming for support of the feeble sheeples, which can only say *Baa, baa, baa!" to anything that comes down the line, because they have been indoctrinated with shocks that there is no alternative to learned helplessness?
> OTOH, the Brazilian Ambassador in Ukraine says the situation there is "quiet and normal".
Somehow, I don't think Brazil has exactly top of the line technical or human intelligence on either side of the conflict, nor are they particularly likely to have a good feed from anyone who does, so even if we trust them, aside from telling us that an invasion hasn't started yet, I’m not sure what we’re supposed to take from that.
Brazil was not too long ago the 5th economy in the world. It's the largest military in Latin America. It's in good diplomatic terms with pretty much all countries in the globe.
The ambassador lives in Ukraine and is definitely much more aware of the real situation than any one of us getting fed Fox News, CNN, the BBC or The Guardian from our couches.
Brazilian intelligence/spy services are perhaps not at the same level as the US's or Russia's but they're far from useless.
> Brazil was not too long ago the 5th economy in the world
When? Sources I can find have it topping out at 6th in 1995, which (aside from not being 5th) is quite a while ago.
> It's the largest military in Latin America.
And if we were discussing their ability to take Uruguay in a fight, that might be relevant.
> It's in good diplomatic terms with pretty much all countries in the globe.
Sure, few countries have any significant disputes with Brazil because Brazil isn't exactly deeply involved beyond its immediate region. That's great in a lot of ways for Brazil, but it's not exactly an endorsement of them being likely to be especially well informed of the prospects of war in Ukraine.
> The ambassador lives in Ukraine
Which would make him a very good source on whether there is active fighting in his immediate vicinity, but beyond that...?
> and is definitely much more aware of the real situation than any one of us getting fed Fox News, CNN, the BBC or The Guardian from our couches.
He’s probably reading the same communiques from the governments more directly involved and much of the same media coverage based on those communiques as everyone not in one of the involved countries is seeing.
> Brazilian intelligence/spy services are perhaps not at the same level as the US's or Russia's but they're far from useless.
Probably not, but also probably aren't really historically intensely focussed on the security situation in Eastern Europe.
Right. I can't shake off your condescending tone, so the only thing I'll contribute here at this point is this:
> Sources I can find have it topping out at 6th in 1995, which (aside from not being 5th) is quite a while ago.
You're right, it was 6th, not 5th, but it was that as of 2012 [0], which is less than a decade ago. I believe it kept the position for another year or 2 but I can't find the data to back that.
Everything else in your post is downplaying how much information on geopolitics a Brazilian ambassador might have relative to yourself, and clearly from your point of view you have the upper hand. I can't beat that.
>The worst we can say about the media in the US is that they seem perversely and disgustingly excited that this is happening.
As bad as that possibility is, it's not the worst. The worst would be that the US Government is using its media assets to push this narrative. Judging by the past history of Jake Sullivan in regards to Ukraine/Russia [1], this seems more likely.
I think that there's another angle here too. That Putin made demands of NATO publicly and NATO rejected them completely just as publicly has backed him into a corner. Perhaps he only meant to bluff to extract concessions in the beginning, but now there's no way out without looking weak. I think he has to at least make a symbolic invasion now for political reasons. I feel very sorry for the Ukrainians caught up in this game, as they don't seem to have a win condition, and they're the ones going to pay the ultimate price.
This could easily be a diplomatic chess piece like how North Korea spent the last 3 decades saber rattling about ICBMs. By making withdrawing troops become the primary interest, all of the other things that threatened their power become de-prioritized (ie, pushback against their existing powergrabs in Crimea/east Ukraine, intervention in Syria, Putins power in general, etc).
Everyone knows North Korea doing anything to South Korea would be suicide. Russia knows there's far more to lose as well. Yet they could solidify their existing gains by keeping an even worse option on the table.
It's modern authoritarian bully politics 101, especially in an era where landwars are rare, unless they are asymmetric.
NATO basically has to react in this game (the media's unquestioning obedience is a different question).
Russia overtly wants a sphere of influence that includes (among other neighbors) Ukraine, and Ukraine isn’t voluntary giving in to it's desire for that, so Russia keeps waging war and taking bits of Ukraine. Ultimately, that obviously ends with Russia taking the whole country to achieve that goal, unless it gives it up.
Russia would rather have surrender without further invasion (it's too late for “without war”), but it's also clearly willing to fight an escalating war to achieve it's goals.
The narrative here is that the media is pro-war because they want the money from increased readership or viewership, and they're attacking anyone who wants peace by questioning their loyalty.
I'm sure there are some hawkish editorials out there, but if that were really true, I should have run into it multiple times with all the coverage I've read.
And strangely, no mention of the Russian media at all.
I see this mostly coming from US and UK based news outlets, and of course the White House. I have this nagging feeling the US really wants a proxy war in Ukraine for whatever reason. It only needs a trigger, like the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Whatever gets the ball rolling. I hope cooler heads will prevail.
> I have this nagging feeling the US really wants a proxy war in Ukraine for whatever reason
For what reason? There's no upside for the US. Russia overtly wants a protected hegemonic sphere of influence in Eastern Europe — heck, it expressly uses the idea of such a fear as it's argument, and it's propaganda proxies invoke the idea of a parallel US sphere in North America as a defense — and overtly wants NATO not merely not to expand to include Ukraine but to withdraw troops (and demonstrate a lack of security commitment) to other Eastern European states to facilitate that hegemonic sphere.
Russia is the only side with anything to gain by war (establishing a Ukrainian puppet state) or it's threat (getting NATO to back off and enable Russian hegemony in Eastern Europe beyond Ukraine.)
It’s also the only side doing anything threatening. The US has moved forces too small to be anything but tripwire forces against conflict spilling out of Ukraine to other Eastern European allies, while pulling trainers and civilians out of Ukraine with the overt explanation that it is doing so because military intervention to extract them in the event of an invasion would lead to a world war. It is doing everything possible (including not mobilizing forces that would give it credible capacity to intervene) to indicate that it will not fight Russia, not only not aggressively, but also that it won't allow itself to be drawn into conflict if Russia invades Ukraine. Russia, on the other hand, has stripped the entire country to deploy essentially the entire combat power of it's military exactly where you’d want it for an invasion of Ukraine, and unleashed propaganda about whose fault it will be if it chooses to use it.
The US doesn't want a strong Russia. Looking at the US track record of invading Iraq, destabilize Lebanon and Yemen, I can see why Russia is protective of its borders.
"It’s also the only side doing anything threatening."
NATO and US forces have been creeping up since 30 years and the buffer zone that once existed is pretty much gone short of Belarus. I'm not rooting for Russia but I can see why they are on edge given the history and tactics of the US.
There is often a complete lack of seeing things from the Russian perspective.
> There is often a complete lack of seeing things from the Russian perspective.
...you say after rephrasing the exact hegemonic sphere of influence argument described as the Russian goal in the post you are responding to.
Understanding why Putin wants Lebensraum doesn't make that desire a justification for invading and occupying neighbors anymore than understanding why Hitler wanted it did.
(And understanding that the US committed unjustified aggression in Iraq in 2003 doesn't justify Russian aggression against Ukraine because yada yada NATO yada yada in the same way that Iraq’s aggression in 1990 doesn't justify aggression against them directly, not merely someone connected by alliance, in 2003.)
Oh come on. Don't try comparing modern Russia to Nazi Germany. The reason for the tension is simple and you just need to look at it from other side. If Russia made a coalition in South America that would be spanning into mexico, US would act the same way. I see the argument that Russia deserves to be looked down upon because it's a threat to nations around it, but the same can be said about the US. US is no stranger to invasions of nations in South America or even brutal economic domination of them. What Russia is doing is your standard and even rational geopolitics.
> The reason for the tension is simple and you just need to look at it from other side. If Russia made a coalition in South America that would be spanning into mexico, US would act the same way.
Even if one were to agree that that were true, it wouldn't be a justification. Customary international law, the UN Charter, and the multilateral treaty Russia signed on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine do not admit to any “unless they make friends with people we don’t like” exception.
Whataboutism—and even moreso hypothetical counterfactual whataboutism—doesn’t change that. This is an extension of the ongoing crime of aggression being committed by Russia against Ukraine, for which Russia is solely responsible and culpable.
Agreed. Also, Russia has been attacked 3 times in its history already: Napoleon, Wilhelm II + Hitler, despite there being buffer zones back then. And peace is never eternal.
To play the devil's advocate, if the US were to allow Ukraine to enter NATO, that would be just as "aggressive" from Russia's point of view as Russia projecting its influence further into Eastern Europe would be from a US perspective.
Also, the US always has a lot to gain through war, or even the threats thereof. Even though no war has been declared, loads of expensive military equipment has been sold and shipped to the front lines just because of this saber-rattling exercise. The revolving door between the boards of Raytheon and Lockheed, lobbyist groups, and the cabinets of elected politicians means someone in a position of power always stands to gain from keeping the arms trade rolling.
The corporate media has always played lackey to those interests, and this time is no different. That can be true AND the fact that Russia is behaving aggressively can also be true at the same time.
USA has compliant neighbours that if necessary, they can crush, easy peasy. Then it's surrounded by two oceans. Transit across the pacific for a US carrier group is around 7 days.
Latvia and Estonia, NATO members, shares land borders with Russia.
Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey, also NATO members, have coasts on the Black Sea, right around the area.
Last time the US has anything to worry about hostile military hardware on its doorsteps was in the 60s.
You might justifiably disagree with almost all the suppositions in this article, but I think it is correct to say that the US does not want the Nord Stream II pipeline to become operational. If Russia invades, the US would have a good excuse to block the pipeline a part of the imposed sanctions. I doubt the US policy is as focused on achieving this as the article implies, but it would be an upside.
Not if you ship them to Ukraine for free. And even if it stops being the case Ukraine is still too poor to be lucrative customer in high-tech weaponry that US would like to sell.
The upside to USA is to distract from problems at home such as: soaring food prices, energy prices 5 year highs, soaring rent house prices, collapsing COVID lockdown narrative, ridiculous levels of govt debt, Pres polls in toilet with midterm elections approaching.
> The upside to USA is to distract from problems at home such as: soaring food prices,
War would exacerbate that.
> energy prices 5 year highs,
War would really exacerbate that
and it's the single strongest economic force, historically, against the party of the sitting President.
> ridiculous levels of govt debt,
While the GOP wants to make that a narrative (as they usually do when out of power, despite running it up when in power), it doesn't really seem to be working, so I don't think anyone cares about distracting from it. (And certainly not the GOP.)
> Pres polls in toilet with midterm elections approaching.
Yes, I’m sure that’s why leading members of the GOP in Congress and GOP-aligned media are pushing for a firm stand and that “Congress must do more” on Russia, they are desperately worried to get the attention off the President’s sagging approval numbers.
If this was the runup to the NATO-Yugoslavia war in the 1990s, the wag-the-dog domestic politics argument would at least make some sense, and be consistent with the domestic alignment of views, but for that to work in this case you have to think that both the major parties want—enough to start a war— to get people's minds off a bunch of things that (1) are very good for one of those parties, (2) about half of which would be intensified by war.
And that, in pursuit of getting this US-involved war of distraction started, they are carefully pulling US civilians and troops out of Ukraine so that there is no excuse for the US to get involved even if a war does start there, while deploying US troops in numbers FAR too small to meaningfully intervene in Ukraine, but far too large for the message to be missed by Russia, to neighboring NATO countries to deter any action beyond Ukraine that would oblige US involvement under the terms of the Washington Treaty.
Lots of upsides for the US here: democracy vs. autocracy, oil fields, strategically important military base in Sevastopol, take a bite out of Russian/Soviet history, weaken Putin, expand sphere of influence (plus later NATO), and, most importantly, to get the money-making war machinery moving again - the country’s biggest industry.
No one, among the prime actors, wants war. What they all want is for the other side to back down.
The danger is that this doesn't happen before Putin runs out of non-military options. Doesn't happen before the ground turns to mud, troops get tired of sleeping in tents, fresh blood stocks go stale.
Either Zelenskyy or Biden needs to find his inner adult, and announce that Ukraine won't be joining NATO any time that's on his own watch. Soon.
> The danger is that this doesn't happen before Putin runs out of non-military options.
Putin has the non-military option of being the one to back down.
> Either Zelenskyy or Biden needs to find his inner adult, and announce that Ukraine won't be joining NATO any time that's on his own watch.
NATO hasn't even approved admitting Ukraine to the Membership Action Plan; it's pretty clear that they have no near term prospects for membership. What Russia wants is more NATO abandonment of existing members.
There are news hast currently talking about implementing sanctions already. Russia has not yet invaded but they are talking about imposing sanctions as of they did.
At this point it probably doesn't even mater if Russia invades, according to these news channels Russia will be sanctioned.
Can you provide sources for any preemptive sanctions towards Russia? I only know about US Republican party initiative, but it was rejected by ruling party (Democrats).
I see this as well and I can't watch them at the moment.
The local Swiss news are more cautious as to what they say and there is also a feeling of that there is still hope of preventing this war.
Like all conflicts this is an extremely complex situation and the US painting it black and white is neither right nor a way to find a peaceful solution.
I don't see the same thing as you. Everyone knows that NATO will deny Ukraine's application if they make one because it requires all 30 countries to accept it. Biden has slow rolled the process, publicly supporting their potential "application" but helping prevent them from doing so. France, Germany, and others are very hard no's as far as I remember. They're afraid to poke Russia and dislike Ukraine in general.
Whatever Putin's ultimate goals, I think NATO has already accepted they are fait accompli, but will still pump out some empty rhetoric to quell their conscience.
Any sanctions down the road will be a joke, Europe is too reliant on Russian gas to do more than sabre rattling.
Germany has blocked 3rd path arms shipments to Ukraine and is bypassing Ukraine with a gas pipeline directly to Russia. Something like half of Germans supported the Crimea annexation and their Head of Navy had to resign after causing international outcry by publicly backing Putin. They’ll pay lip service to the idea, but Ukraine will never be “ready” to join NATO in their eyes.
Macron is calling for a new security order in Europe that doesn’t involve NATO, and has been working to that end. He seeks appeasement and has been meeting and speaking with Putin directly. If Russia annexes Ukraine I’m sure he’ll speak out against it, but that’s all it seems he’ll do.
That’s only my take at least, based on reading major US/EU news sites.
Can someone clarify for me, if Snowden is an asylee in Russia, then why should I consider his opinion as neutral? Would he, under any circumstances, express the opposite view?
He has a long history of speaking the truth even if has led to him upending his life (never being able to go back to his home country.) That's a good track record.
Can someone clarify for me, if the US intelligence services and the Western mainstream media are domiciled in FVEY countries, why should I consider their opinions as neutral? Why would they, under any circumstances, express the opposite view?
I have a hard time understanding why NATO keeps expanding despite the fact that the threat it was created to guard against collapsed 30+ years ago. I find the Russian demand that NATO not expand to Ukraine fairly reasonable given the history they have with NATO. I look at this as similar to the US declaration that missiles in Cuba were not acceptable back in the 1960's.
Because countries keep asking to be included in NATO. And why do they do that? Because they keep feeling threatened by Russia. And why do they feel threatened? Because Russia keeps doing things like invading Georgia and Ukraine. Countries flee to NATO for protection, if they can.
One quote from - I believe - Lawrow was how the US would react if Cuba or Venezuela were asking to be accepted into that anti-NATO Russia has apparently been building.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but I think it's a valid question to ask if the argument is purely about the freedom of countries to make their own decisions.
> Noting that "the U.S. and NATO are pouring in high-tech weaponry and training up Ukraine's armed forces, making it a much more militarily capable foe," Gill wrote Friday that "from where the Russians are sitting, the deployment of billions of dollars worth of new U.S. and U.K. military hardware on its borders is a sign of escalation, rather than defense."
I may just be ill-informed, so I'm completely willing to hear alternative views, but isn't this complete lunacy? Putin has been encroaching on the Ukraine and pushing to invade it for a while now, and has already invaded Georgia and Crimea, no? And he's been lining up the military on the border? How is the US and NATO mobilizing in response not defense? Is the claim here that Putin is genuinely afraid of the US invading Russia and simply operating in self-defense?
Edit: I'm being downvoted, which seems strange, considering there hasn't been a substantive response to why this is false.
In politics inconvenient truths are generally ignored. Russia would prefer Ukraine to be easily crushed even if they don’t actually invade it’s useful for them to be surrounded by weaker countries.
What they say is largely just for public consumption not political talks.
Russia has been carrying out the same military exercise on its Ukraine border for the last decade. But NATO flooding Ukraine with arms is new, I think.
I don't get it. The media is reporting because there are 130k troops at the Ukraine border and many countries are telling their citizens to leave Ukraine and evacuating embassies. I'm sure US is very well aware of what is going on.
Putin demanded that NATO promises Ukraine will never be allowed in. NATO stated they cannot do that.
US sent military to Poland including several fighter jets.
Things are serious. Why wouldn't media report on these things? I'm sure most people around the globe are hoping for a peaceful resolution. Russia can back off at any moment and the media reporting stops.
WESTERN MEDIA cannot start this war. US will not make a move, NATO will not make a move. Any moves from western side will occur after Russia invades, but I doubt US wants to get involved.
Maybe it was not such a great idea to elect a TV show to your government, Ukraine?
this is copied from an older comment
The Ukrainian government has a... fascinating origin story.
Ever hear people say "oh politicians are just actors reading lines"?
Well, the President of Ukraine is an actual actual actor and comedian. His last acting job was the lead in a series that ran from 2015 to 2019, when he was elected president. The role? An ordinary guy rants online about government corruption, goes viral, and is elected President of Ukraine.
That is not a mistake. The actual President of Ukraine was elected months after staring in a series as the unlikely President of Ukraine! https://imdb.com/name/nm3305952
To win the election, Zelensky had to beat Yulia Tymoshenko. At the last minute, a third candidate entered the race, incidentally also called Y. Tymoshenko. So there where now 2 Y Tymoshenkos on the ballot, causing confusion. And a comedian won the race for president. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yulia_Tymoshenko#2019_presiden...
After being elected, Zelensky said
"Don't worry. We will not have nepotism. "
During the first year of Zelensky's presidency, more than 30 people who previously worked for, or with Kvartal 95 or its subsidiaries, received government positions.
Some highlights from the current roster..
Serhiy Trofimov - First Deputy Head of the Administration (Head of the Office) of the President of Ukraine , formerly - Executive Producer of the Quarter 95 Studio;
Yuriy Kostyuk - Deputy Head of the Administration (Head of the Office) of the President of Ukraine , screenwriter and author of the Studio "Quarter 95", creative producer of the series "Servant of the People"
Serhiy Shefir - First Aide to President Zelensky, formerly Screenwriter, Producer and Director of Kvartal 95 Studio;
It gets better....
Iryna Pobedonostseva - Director General of the Directorate for Information Policy of the Office of the President of Ukraine [30] , formerly (according to media reports) - Director of Development of the Studio "Quarter 95";
And my favourite...
Ivan Bakanov - Head of the Security Service of Ukraine , formerly a lawyer and head of the Studio "Quarter 95";
So, the government of Ukraine is made up of actors, screenwriters, and producers, who's work resembled a post-modern Ukrainian Monty Python. It is like John Cleese started the Monty Python party, got elected, and is now pushing for nuclear war.
There is nothing more grotesque than a media pushing for war.
To say this about the media without making the same critique about the actions of the current leadership your host country -- which is very obviously the party doing the "pushing" here -- smacks of cognitive dissonance, or worse.
