326 000 is 5 days' worth in terms of Russian invasion of Ukraine at its peak intensity. Those who are 30 and under have seen only a one year when Russia has not been at war - during the economic crisis that followed Asian financial crisis of 1997. But this does not get even remotely as much attention as wars involving the US, because there are no paid shills flooding every imaginable place with stale copypastas about foreign wars, skewing people's sense of proportion.
> there are no paid shills flooding every imaginable place with stale copypastas about foreign wars
This is not true. All sides have literal "paid shills" producing propaganda online, on our (and their) TVs and in the Cinemas. If you are unaware of this, or truly believe "only the other side does that" then the propaganda has worked extremely well.
The West also has paid shills promoting is propaganda - this is very true of course.
But it's usually either comparatively benign (promoting fluff films like Top Gun), or quite transparent (like RFE/RL which makes no effort to hide the fact that it is government supported). And it usually doesn't lie outright, but prefers to use much more subtle forms of manipulation (e.g. "nation-building" and all that).[0]
Russian/Chinese propaganda meanwhile is incredibly blatant, and has no compunction at all against straight up lying, or saying the sky is blue when it's actually orange. Or in Russia's case, that a war of naked aggression that was very much optional for them is really a defensive war that was forced on them, and so forth.
The point is here is not that one side is "good" and the other is "bad". But to suggest (as you seem to be doing) that there's some kind of basic equivalence at play, in terms of the scale and kinds of propaganda used by the respective parties is very naive.
[0] The insane lies and other propaganda used to promote the 2003 Iraq war were a major exception to this general tendency, of course. In that sense, they were much closer in spirit to Russian/Chinese-style propaganda.
There is an unheard population of Ukrainians who want the war to stop and for there to be peace with their Russian cousins.
It is the Western powers who are sacrificing Ukraine in order to put Western weapons systems on Russias borders. Not the Ukrainian people.
And, in the context of what was done to Iraq (5% of its population murdered for the purposes of the USA's racist, elitist ruling classes), it is no wonder that this silence is perpetuated.
There is an unheard population of Ukrainians who want the war to stop and for there to be peace with their Russian cousins.
Actually, they are very much heard from, and their views are carefully studied by public opinion researchers.
However (1) they are a minority and (2) you are definitely misrepresenting their views to suggest that favoring an early ceasefire means "wanting peace with their Russian cousins", per your disingenuous choice of phrasing there.
It is the Western powers who are sacrificing Ukraine in order to put Western weapons systems on Russias borders. Not the Ukrainian people.
As if the solid majority in Ukraine who wishes to continue the fight (along with all of those who foolishly sign up to go the front) were just puppets, with no idea as to why the fight was really being waged, and no ability to see through this gigantic sham that has been foisted upon them, which should be as plainly obvious to them as it is to you.
Western public opinion researchers == propagandists for the military industrial complex.
No one said they were "Western" in this case. Strange that you jump to that assumption.
Solid majority? Post your sources
The research is very easily findable. The numbers also resonate with my own impressions from countless discussions with actual, real Ukrainians, both in and outside the country.
Normally I'm happy to provide sources asked, but from the tone and content of your responses on this and related threads, I don't think you actually care.
From what you just said, above, whoever is doing the research -- if their data doesn't support your highly jaundiced and moralistic worldview, you've already decided that must be because they're propagandists for the military industrial complex, end of story.
So, rather than resorting to ad hominem on the basis of fallacies, post the details. Lets see your sources.
I speak with Ukrainian refugees every single day, as I live within hours of Ukraines borders, and have volunteered with refugees from the Wests' wars for decades, helping them rebuild their tattered lives - from Iraq to Afghanistan and Syria, to Ukraine and now Palestine.
So if that makes me jaundiced, so be it.
>Normally I'm happy to provide sources asked, but from the tone and content of your responses on this and related threads, I don't think you actually care.
I've dried the tears of countless mothers and their children, and helped many of them move to safer parts of the world. Perhaps, I care too much.
But I've seen the products of callous disregard, too many times.
How about you provide your sources in response to a recent situation in which you made a highly untenable, and also quite provocative assertion -- yet, when asked to provide sources in a perfectly polite and unassuming manner (very much unlike your own formulation in this case, which was full of innuendo and sarcasm from the get-go) -- you simply bailed:
You may not like it, but the USA has called for Irans' destruction a hundred times.
And then perhaps we'll talk.
Note please the special emphasis on "the USA", meaning an official, governmental statement or policy (not just the throwaway pronouncements of 1 or 2 of its windbag politicians). And the number "a hundred", as in, you know, 10x10, or heck, any number of roughly similar magnitude.
Being as these were, after all, the words you chose to use for some reason.
Perhaps, I care too much.
Thats great, and I'm sure you're a great person too, on the whole. I've actually upvoted a lot of your other postings (there was one in particular about "catharsis" that I stumbled on while searching for something else, which seemed right on the money and which I really liked).
It's just that, given various indications -- such as the blatant exaggeration followed by blatant evasiveness highlighted above, and the weirdly propagandistic phrasing you seem to like to use to a conspicuous degree -- I'm just not sure that, in regard to geopolitics at least, this whole factual accuracy thing is really your "bag".
