Where is major media in the US commonly arguing in favor of a US war with Russia? They're certainly talking about Russia re Ukraine frequently.
I've seen a lot of the headlines spilling out of NY Times, WaPo, Fox, MSNBC, et al. and they're not arguing in favor of the US going to war with Russia. That's a very rare argument.
Almost exclusively the arguments are about how to respond after Russia invades Ukraine, in terms of the severity of sanctions. As well as if the US should be (or can) doing anything right now to dissuade Russia from invading.
I'm also seeing no common arguments in the US media in favor of a NATO war with Russia more broadly.
Go look at the home pages for CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, Washington Post, NY Times, LA Times. Where are all the arguments in favor of war with Russia? All I'm seeing is a lot of discussion about the context of Russia being on Ukraine's border and the odds they'll invade or not, and what non-war response will be appropriate afterward (including eg moving more US forces into other eastern NATO nations as support to the security of those nations).
It's hard to sort it out. I've read stories in American media that describe a Russian troop build-up and make an invasion seem inevitable ("they wouldn't expend these resources to mobilize this many soldiers without plans to invade"). I've also read stories that claim the Russians only have ~10,000 troops at the border, not nearly enough for an invasion, and that the amount hasn't actually changed.
The Ukranians seem to be downplaying the risk of invasion. Whether or not the US media wants a war, it may be the case that they've overestimated the likelihood of an invasion.
> The Ukranians seem to be downplaying the risk of invasion. Whether or not the US media wants a war, it may be the case that they've overestimated the likelihood of an invasion.
The goal of V. Poopking is to make billions for him and his friends in RF and Germany. For that, he needs Nord Stream 2 to work, so he needs to exchange something for Nord Stream 2. RF has weak economy, so it has nothing to propose in exchange, except safety from RF army.
If RF does not invade Ukraine, Germany will allow Nord Stream 2 to work, which is beneficial for both Poopking and his German partners. Goal achieved.
Yep. Moreover, they don't want USA company (Shell) at their border (in Ukraine), because they compete hard with USA already. So, they asked government for help. The government used their knowledge about soviet spies, collected during hunting for agent 26, to convince Angela to ask her brother for help, promising hundreds of billions of profit in return and strong support for a campaign. So, Vova invaded Ukraine to kick out Shell from Eastern Ukraine, to avoid competition, and to portray Ukraine as an unreliable partner, which can cut Russian gas at any time.
Believe what you want but this¹ is a clear indicator that an invasion is inevitable. 10k troops is likely Russian propaganda. I've read the Russian point of view and it's basically "the US has provoked this by extending NATO into Eastern Europe, Ukraine is controlled by fascists". They have failed to install a pro Russian administration in Ukraine, so their only remaining option is "liberating eastern and southern Ukraine from fascists". I've posted a map with their plans but the comment was downvoted. I'm not posting it again but they basically want to occupy and control the whole Northern Black Sea coast.
1. Russia moves blood supplies near Ukraine, adding to U.S. concern, officials say
Sorry, it was actually 100K which still doesn't seem enough for an invasion. The question is whether the number of soldiers has increased as of late, which the Ukrainians deny.
My overall point is that I don't know whether to trust articles like the one you linked or things the Ukrainians and Russians are saying. It's not that I think the American media is lying exactly but it occurs to me that they may be deluding themselves.
Don't know, but I really wish they are wrong and the Russians are right in their claims that the West is "hysterical". So far all the evidence points towards preparations for an invasion and failure to recognise it as such is just wishful thinking. If they were only amassing troops, it could have been an exercise, but when mobile hospitals start to appear near a conflict area, it means preparations for war. Hopefully this will end like the Russo-Georgian war. Similar military effectives were involved on the Russian part then. To get a better view on this, I'd read what Pavel Felgenhauer has to say about this. He was right in his prediction that Russia was going to attack Georgia in August 2008.
You've completely glossed over the root of it here. The lie that Russia is going to invade Ukraine is the "Saddam has WMDs"
Every time the US media talks about an imminent "Russian Invasion", or suggests that they are not the ones instigating the war, they are indirectly instigating war with Russia by lying.
The current lie is that there is a threat of a new invasion. Not even Ukrainian leadership agrees with this, but it doesn't seem to affect planning in the United States.
Lesser of two evils applies when there is a dichotomy of two likely outcomes both of which you see as evil.
In this case, the United States can simply not invade. Then there will be no problem.
The problem is that Jen Psaki is going on television and telling the country a bold-faced lie. It is just a lie, that is all there is to it. Russia is not the aggressor. The United State is the aggressor.
Amazing. It's like you live in a parallel universe where the US, not Russia, is preparing to invade by amassing a hundred thousand troops, issuing insane ultimatums, dehumanizing the enemy daily on its propaganda outlets, etc.
And well... By giving far right proxy forces in the Ukraine arms and training, so the proxy forces can then be used for clandestine operations and hopefully (so nato/us/UK think) instigate a Russian military response to which they can scream casius Beli and create more unrest in the entire area
It's all about making the war seem unavoidable. Building a common frame of reference that will then be played by media and politics to position the US on the "right side".
Do the US media talk about how the US (via NATO) is, and has been for years, provoking Russia?
If you find the above outrageous, then the media has done a fine job, and the country is ready to go to war. No need to explicitly argue in favour of it.
I would like to see the Ukrainians be able to determine their own fate: without war. All the numbers say the Ukrainians, by vast majority want their country for themselves, unmolested.
What I hear from Western media is deep worry for the fates of these people who have become friends of the EU bloc. I work with Ukrainians daily. I am deeply worried they will be crushed beneath the tank treads of an authoritarian dictatorship. No one should have to suffer that fate. May they be free, happy and peaceful.
So it's all right to close media just because it's "Russian"? Ok...
You know, Ukraine has media control agency and laws which regulate quite strongly what can be and can not be said and shown by media. Opposition media was regularly pressured by this agency (while handling of "pro-Western" media was much more lenient), but in the end they were unable to close them using this legal channel, so instead Zelensky simply used unconsitutional executive order.
> So it's all right to close media just because it's "Russian"?
It's in law. See law about defense of Ukraine. All gov workers must take actions against aggressor.
> Ukraine has media control agency and laws which regulate quite strongly
Thank you for your kind words, but you are contradicting yourself: how such strong agency can be developed in a rotten democracy?
> Opposition media was regularly pressured by this agency
s/opposition/Russian/g
Yes.
> instead Zelensky simply used unconsitutional executive order.
It's by law. President is defense commander at time of war. Law about Defense says that time of war begins after a first battle with an aggressor and ends at the end of war, so time of war started in 2014 and continued today.
It's looking like you have misunderstanding about how liberal democracy (равноправное народовластие) works.
In dictatorship, people serve a Great Leader. In regular democracy, majority wins.
In liberal democracy, unlike regular democracy or dictatorship, value of human life is equal to infinity, thus value of a single human life is equal to value of whole nation, even when it's poor black gay against top elite: they are equal.
This creates a problem at time of war, because liberal democracy cannot force it citizens to go to war to defend the state or do any other actions required for survival. To solve this problem, liberal democracy must have two modes: peace time mode and war time mode. In peace time mode liberal democracy works as intended, in war time mode liberal democracy works as dictatorship.
Was multiple times already that a dictator or fascists country tried to capture «rotted» liberal democracy, thinking «we can capture them in 2 weeks, before they even create a defense committee», only to see as democracy switches to war time mode, creates effective chain of command, then beats sheet out of aggressor.
I recommend to watch http://justiceharvard.org/ (Russian translation is available), if you want to understand how liberal democracy is constructed.
So instead of pointing to at least single false fact in my comment you point me to a website which quite aggressively translates the official Western stance and does not even tries to look as independent (it's an EEAS outlet), which I should blindingly trust? For reference, I do know both Russian and Ukrainian (the latter to an extent of being able to understand news), so I built my opinion based on Ukrainian media and social networks.
EUvsDisinfo contains both Russian propaganda and EU vision. Just search for your «facts» there. (They have Russian translation).
When Russian outlets and TV channels will present both RF and Western points of view, I will watch them, but currently I prefer to read EUvsDisinfo.
> a website which quite aggressively translates the official Western stance
«Aggressively»? It's not a TV channel in each major country and a show at prime time at major channels in RF, with 9 zeroes in budget. It's just a site with few guys.
> For reference, I do know both Russian and Ukrainian (the latter to an extent of being able to understand news), so I built my opinion based on Ukrainian media and social networks.
I guess, you're already banned from pro-Ukrainian social circles, because I see no guys like you anymore in FB. Which is a bit sad, because I like to argue with them to better understand our enemy. Where I can meet people like you on FB or YouTube?
A couple nights ago I was watching some blowhard host on CNN describe going to war with Russia as “defending democracy” which is something we do “because we’re the good guys.”
The idea that Russia is about to invade Ukraine is pure Western propaganda. This is not Russia's plan, and is not in Russia's interest. That this unlikely event would be breathlessly trumpeted from every corner for weeks is itself a puzzle.
Some have speculated that the war-pig plan is for certain fringe Ukrainian neo-Nazis who have received training in southern USA to commence a "reign of terror" against ethnic Russians in Donbas. Supposedly Putin will be unable to resist coming to the rescue. However, recent events in Artsakh have emphasized Putin's composure in such situations. American chatterers have poor mental models of Russian leadership.
I've seen a lot of the headlines spilling out of NY Times, WaPo, Fox, MSNBC, et al. and they're not arguing in favor of the US going to war with Russia. That's a very rare argument.
Almost exclusively the arguments are about how to respond after Russia invades Ukraine, in terms of the severity of sanctions. As well as if the US should be (or can) doing anything right now to dissuade Russia from invading.
I'm also seeing no common arguments in the US media in favor of a NATO war with Russia more broadly.
Go look at the home pages for CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, Washington Post, NY Times, LA Times. Where are all the arguments in favor of war with Russia? All I'm seeing is a lot of discussion about the context of Russia being on Ukraine's border and the odds they'll invade or not, and what non-war response will be appropriate afterward (including eg moving more US forces into other eastern NATO nations as support to the security of those nations).