Hi, I’m Russian. The West doesn’t realize the good and the bad news about Russia
procedural.medium.com
procedural.medium.com
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
no, but looking at immigration levels between the systems, it's clear what people prefer.
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.
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.