Hi, I’m Russian. The West doesn’t realize the good and the bad news about Russia
procedural.medium.comYou know how you can tell you have a good propaganda machine? It's when you launch a war, your poll ratings shoot up. When you kill loads of people in your war, it doesn't come out in the newspapers, it comes out in the Lancet, two years after all the depleted-uranium dust has settled.
That's the first gulf war.
In comparison, the Ukraine-Russia conflict is honestly the worst war from a propaganda perspective, for the aggressor, in living memory. If you're at the point where you have to eradicate independent media just to stem the bleeding from every somewhat-honest person's first impression of what you've done, you've completely lost control of the narrative.
Obviously, it is a war of aggression, but that's true of a lot of wars in my lifetime. Rarely has a war of aggression in modern times raised so much opprobrium, and the basic reason for this is the absolutely puny soft power of Russia.
Almost all of the 50-100,000 civilians killed as a consequence of the Gulf War were killed by Saddam Hussein putting down an insurgency. (Direct civilian losses by the hands of the invading force were less than 4,000.) That the U.S. gave the impression they would support an insurgency and then left those people to be slaughtered by Hussein became a not insignificant piece of moral propaganda used by Dick Cheney, Ahmed Chalabi (leader of the pseudo-government in exile), and others to justify the Iraq War.
IOW, the talking point that those deaths were the fault of the U.S. invasion was ultimately used to have another go, resulting in even more deaths. We should be really careful about making moral equivalencies. Yes, in a very real sense the Gulf War was a but-for cause, and being mindful of how such campaigns can upset regional stability to the detriment (in absolute terms) of civilian life is important, but that's definitely not the same thing as having killed those people directly.
EDIT: If you were referring to the carcinogenic effects of depleted uranium, the evidence has been extremely equivocal even to this day. Unsurprising given the insane confounders, such as all the other unchecked chemicals used in the environment in such areas, not to mention the after effects of actual physical violence of a particular war, as well as ongoing violence populations typically suffer under autocratic regimes (including actual chemical weapons repeatedly deployed by Hussein). Plus there's the general anti-nuclear hysteria one must account for, which creates a selection bias in whom and what is studied by those with an axe to grind. All of which is to suggest a very small epidemiological effect at best. In violence ravaged areas the least of anybody's worries, and certainly nothing that could even remotely rise to the same level of concern as unleashing a military on a population, using any kind of weaponry. Anybody seriously concerned about depleted uranium in Iraq should probably steer clear of Ukrainian agricultural products for quite awhile given the nasty chemicals being currently dispersed across Ukrainian fields from weaponry and fires. But we both know that's a mostly irrational (i.e. disproportionate) concern even if theoretically plausible.
> (Direct civilian losses by the hands of the invading force were less than 4,000.)
I can see that, in terms of direct civilian losses, the first gulf war was mild. However, I don't think it's in any way reasonable to only count direct deaths in a war that was devastating to civilian infrastructure.
While the effect of the war itself was muddied by the sanctions regime (which killed an enormous number of people), bombing civilian infrastructure obviously has a negative effect on civilian life expectancy. Academic treatments tend to push the numbers a lot higher (hundreds of thousands) due to the increases in child mortality, excess deaths, etc in post-war Iraq.
As for the DUP stuff, I don't have any particularly complex opinion. It seems somewhat obvious to me that heavy metals are typically poisonous, alpha-particle emitters are extremely poisonous, so my tendency would be to assume that spraying depleted uranium about is going to cause negative health outcomes, probably including cancer.
Personally, I think there is some merit to the idea of the first gulf war as a well-executed war, and if I was living in Iraq, I would probably rather live through that war than the 2003 invasion, or any number of other wars in the 20th century.
That said, if you compare two similar wars in terms of direct civilian casualty counts (Gulf war (3,664), Russo-Ukrainian war (3,393 so far)), the narrative could not be more different.
What's interesting about the first gulf war to me is not really the casualty counts (fairly typical, on all scales, to conflicts of a similar duration and intensity) but rather the success of the new model (embedded reporters, 24/7 news coverage) in controlling the media narrative.
I get such 1984 vibes from everything about this war and Russia. Really makes you stop and question everything you think you know.
The truth is the first casualty in war.
You really shouldn't be trusting anything anyone tells you about this war, whether from the west or the east. Nobody, not the Ukrainians defending their country, not the Russian generals, not Putin himself, nobody has the complete picture of what is happening in Ukraine right now.
While what you are saying may be true, you shouldn’t look to the west for answers. The idea that we pick our leaders based on political debates is ridiculous. Just look at how our debates are structured. If they are lucky, candidates have two minutes to describe their approach to fixing something like income inequality or climate change which have been around for decades. Certain candidates are purposely given more airtime than others, more positive press coverage than others, etc.
Western news media has the opposite problem of Russian media in that it is mostly propaganda too, but it hides behind the veil of a “free press”. The defense contractors, Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Wall Street control the news cycles and the politicians, but they do it from behind the curtain. If you ask me, this is much more sinister. A wolf in sheep’s clothing, if you will.
I would actually prefer a media where you KNOW it is propaganda from the get-go cause then it puts you in a mindset to think critically about everything being presented. Here in the U.S. people inherently trust the media and the government as being the arbitrators of truth and righteousness, despite the fact that they lie to us constantly.
Our “leaders” are also tied to intelligence agencies like the CIA, but again they often go to great lengths to hide these connections. Most politicians here could note engage in a serious debate with anyone who challenges their positions either. We are given a “choice” between the candidate on the left who works for Big Pharma and the military industrial complex and the candidate on the right who works for Big Pharma and the military industrial complex.
You don't even understand what you have.
The power of democracy isn't the debates and election campaigns. That's mostly theater. The power of democracy is the peaceful way to change the government after it fucks up.
When McCarthy did red scare he lost without a revolution. When Nixon did Watergate he lost without a revolution. When Bush lied about Iraq WMDs - he lost without a revolution.
They could lie for a while, but eventually they lose power. It's assumed they will. People know they will. So if there's an order to do something that will look bad after they lose power - people think many times before they do it. This changes EVERYTHING.
When Putin invades Ukraine - he stays in power, and the whole world wonders how to let him think he won something so he won't nuke the world, without sacrificing a whole country in the process.
Autocracy has no safeties built in, no feedback mechanism (other than revolution/assasination which is possible in democracy too and has big risks involved). So they usually fuck up big time and fall.
> I would actually prefer a media where you KNOW it is propaganda
You say that now, but you don't realize how insidious even obvious propaganda is. Over time it changes what ideas are mainstream, fringe, considerable, even thinkable. It makes you self-censor not because you fear punishment, but because you know some trains of thought are "pointless" because you cannot do anything with them. And then that self-censorship becomes unconscious. And you no longer have these thoughts. Wait 20 years and you're a different man.
It's sad to look at westerners so cynical they don't realize how lucky they are.
> The power of democracy is the peaceful way to change the government after it fucks up.
This is a very important point I didn't understand before thinking about some things David Deutsch said. Debates don't convince many people, only clearly terrible policies do. And being able to peacefully switch out the goverenment is a great advantage.
It's a very important point, because all political careers end in failure. Why? Because those bent on the having and holding of power never willingly take their hands of the levers of power. They must be removed, and the great advantage of democracy is that is has made that process peaceful.
> The power of democracy isn't the debates and election campaigns. That's mostly theater. The power of democracy is the peaceful way to change the government after it fucks up.
This is also an illusion democracy is also tyranny of majority in which minority or minority views trampled. Shining example is USA, India. US waged war killed scores of civilians in so many countries and still a beacon of democracy, India an incompetent govt which bring economic ruin in the country continue to get majority because it appeals to majority religious group.
In US to fight presidential elections need billions of dollars. However the rules be made, most politicians need to seek money from rich which needs to be paid back directly or indirectly. Nothing comes free in this world.
So democracy to survive needs to transform itself first.
Better tyranny of the majority than tyranny of the one.
> Better tyranny of the majority than tyranny of the one.
There is nothing like tyranny of one. Its always Tyranny of interest groups, which is true in any system including democratic system where rich and powerful controls most.
Today most of the US elections are controlled by billionaires and who is going to win depends on their blessings. Same is true for India.
US, India represent the majority of the human population under democratic system and how it works.
Look at any HDI or UN statistics that matter and see the conditions on largest human population on one side represented by democratic India and on another side by a closed system in China (people call it authoritarian, although its a mixture of many systems). Examine closely and you will notice both the systems work in some areas and fail in others, no one can claim superiority over other system. But a narrative of good vs evil, superior vs inferior is a root cause of conflicts. If people began to see things from humanity’s perspective with respect of each other world would be a different place.
An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. Solution to armed conflict is not more armed conflict by supporting one group against another with weapons of destruction.
> There is nothing like tyranny of one. Its always Tyranny of interest groups
The "interest groups" that rule Russia is less than 100 people. It's not the same as interest groups in democracies.
> Look at any HDI or UN statistics that matter and see the conditions on largest human population on one side represented by democratic India and on another side by a closed system in China.
India would have to kill millions of its own citizens to get equally bad as China. But you probably don't consider how it was created, just the end effect, right? What's a few millions dead here and there if they can build cheap factories :)
> But a narrative of good vs evil, superior vs inferior is a root cause of conflicts.
Killing innocent people is in fact evil. Systems where you can do that with no consequences are in fact inferior.
And the root of all conflict is politicians starting wars because they think they can get away with it. The narratives are always there, with any implication you want, you just have to choose one and decide to go with it.
The big advantage of democracy is that you don't (in general) get away with it. You can for a while, but not forever.
> no one can claim superiority over other system.
no, but looking at immigration levels between the systems, it's clear what people prefer.
I would disagree. Tyranny of the majority means even your friends and neighbors and family could be against you.
For what it's worth, Bush won reelection in 2004. That's not to say that I entirely disagree with you.
West is closer. You’re not 100% wrong. But “ Here in the U.S. people inherently trust the media and the government as being the arbitrators of truth and righteousness” has not been true for quite a long time. I was stunned that anyone believed Colin Powell’s obvious b.s., now with Colin Powell and Mike Pompeo the crap about West Point being related to “honor” is clearly visible as crap too. If you are a Trumpian you trust Q more than MSM, if you are a Bidenite you trust your CNN more than Fox.
Yeah, I was going to make a similar response. Like you pointed out, if anything 'trust in the media and government' has eroded so much its fallen into complete absurdity. Of course skepticism should always be exercised when consuming anything --media, politicians, etc-- but how the eff phenomena like 'Q', Sandy Hook deniers, 'stop the steal' (etc etc) could possibly gain traction as movements suggests parts of society are so preemptively distrustful they're actually losing grip on reality.
thats russias fault.
Actually, this is false. Somehow the rest of the world sees America as the ultimate cornucopia! But it is not - even less so in the political life! I always have to pick between two presidential candidates, most of the time hating both with an equal passion! The European model can have issues like the bargaining needed to have a coalition, but it still is much better than bipartisan America giving no chance to any other political platform! Same with many other things 1, 2, 3 - a fourth choice is one too many! This goes against the principles of competition - imagine a world where you only have to pick between Oracle and SQL Server - it would be nightmarish, right? For example, I would vote for a more conservative party, which does not see Climate Change as Al Gore's scheme, meanwhile, have a more practical way to solve climate issues than AOC! So, it's really hard to vote in America if you're not the typical Democrat or Republican who trusts the Party like its God!
After the "special operation" Putin's rating went up - it's very convenient to say the approval rating is manipulated, but I doubt it knowing some Russians personally. Meanwhile, Biden's rating fell. And maybe for a good reason, otherwise being a populist would have brought us WWIII.
Don't click this link. Your advertising money shouldn't go to Russia.