Edward Snowden Says 'Media Pushing for War'
commondreams.org
commondreams.org
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.
False characterization of OP's premise, which was: "Putin made demands of NATO publicly and NATO rejected them completely just as publicly"
2020: Russian Military Exercises Near Ukraine. 100 to 120 thousand troops. No WW3, no threat of nukes. https://empr.media/news/conflict-zone/russian-military-exerc...
Edit: I looked up some of the others
2016 https://www.vox.com/2016/9/1/12729426/russia-troops-ukraine-...
2017 https://www.militarytimes.com/news/2017/09/13/whats-putin-up...
2019 https://radiolemberg.com/en/ua-articles/ua-allarticles/almos...
So, this action from Russia is completely normal, and does not usually trigger nuclear war.
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.
https://jamestown.org/program/macron-meets-with-putin-as-rus...
...but it is not at all normal for the US to evacuate the embassy in Ukraine.
Then you know nothing about the history of the US media.
He says there's no reason for alarm or for making plans of fleeing the country.
[0] https://g1.globo.com/mundo/noticia/2022/02/13/embaixador-bra...
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/mar/06/brazil-econ...
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.
[1] - https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/09/23/...
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.
Well, they are not wrong here. They indeed did.
It’s really not the same at all. Even supposing the rest of what you said was true…all Russia needs to do is just: not invade a sovereign country.
They don’t have to prove a negative. They just have to not use their military to invade.
This isn’t an unfalsifiable causus belli like Iraqs WMDs.
At this point it probably doesn't even mater if Russia invades, according to these news channels Russia will be sanctioned.
How do you find diplomatic solutions like that?
Um, yeah, it has. (See Crimea, Donbas, etc.)
After pretty similar denials of intent to invade to those it has recently made about its intent to further invade.
That's part of the credibility problem.
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.
Is this on the record? Haven't heard them affirm it publicly.
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.
The not existing one you mean?
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.
It is pretty clear who wants war.
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.
At least one book have been written on this.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
...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.)
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.
It's a great distraction.
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.
At any rate, USA was a net energy exporter until a year ago.
Quick solution is to withdraw from NATO so Europe can grow up and fund it's own defense.
> For what reason? There's no upside for the US.
No net upside probably, but there might be some small positives for the US. Here's an argument for one:
"The Crisis in Ukraine Is Not About Ukraine. It's About Germany"
https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/the-crisis-in-ukraine-is-not-ab...
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.
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.
Also, Russia state media tends to lie… a lot.
Like a lot, a lot.
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.
The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities | SOAS University of London
Mearsheimer's "NATO example" concerning Russia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni9rncx8ceA&t=2807
Earlier he also lists failed attempts to bring liberal democracy to other countries that ended in disaster and then states:
> " .. the Americans have foolishly driven the Russians into the arms of the Chinese .."
They did have an intelligence base in Cuba until 2002, and I don't believe anyone particularly cared.
Do you find the act of holding a knife against the throats of 40m people to persuade compliance with this demand to be also ... "fairly reasonable"?
s/state/media
See "Yellow Journalism" and the Spanish-American War: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism#Origins:_Pul...
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.
What they say is largely just for public consumption not political talks.
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.
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
Before his role as president, he and his comedy troupe, Kvartal 95, joked about the Maidan massacre. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33lY5LUPNbE&t=599s
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.
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;
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";
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.
Seems perfectly normal after Americans elected a reality TV host who bragged about the size of his nuclear button to Kim Jong-un on social media.
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.
Which makes his current silence all the more telling.
Two can play the brinksmanship nonsense game, essentially.