Source: The American Conservative.
Whenever I post or comment on Ukraine here in the Forum one or both of these whoppers shows up in response:
Two deceptive arguments in U.S. propaganda are so egregious that they stand out as gigantic whoppers. The first whopper is that Russia’s war against Ukraine was entirely unprovoked; nothing Ukraine, the United States, or NATO did, this story goes, threatened Russia or contributed in the slightest to the current bloody tragedy. The second whopper is that Ukraine is a liberal democratic country whose mere existence as a model in Russia’s neighborhood terrifies Vladimir Putin and his inner circle of authoritarian oligarchs.
Thank goodness the writer at TAC takes a moment to debunk them.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
“Two deceptive arguments in U.S. propaganda are so egregious that they stand out as gigantic whoppers”
Nonsense.
Russia has not been threatened by anybody or anything other than the lure of liberal democracy and prosperity for the people in its neighboring countries. Sure, the Baltic states, Georgian and Ukraine were trying to orient themselves towards Europe rather than towards Moscow as are their rights as a sovereign countries. It was Russia, not NATO that invaded and annexed neighboring countries starting with Georgia.
Ukraine may not be a model democracy but it is a lot closer to traditional liberal democratic values than the fascist dictatorship in Russia. Putin has been trying to reestablish the USSR whether that is out of imperialism, nostalgia or fear is irrelevant. He is doing it by force.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Didn’t read the article, did you?
LikeLike
I have little interest in reading Russian propaganda. I trusted you synopsis which made it clear that this is exactly what it is. Was I wrong to trust your synopisis?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are entitled to your errors.
Here your mistake was to repeat the lies without any awareness of the reasons for calling them lies. Do you expect Forum readers to believe anything you say, just because you say it?
LikeLike
This is getting to be a pattern with you, an absolute refusal to confront contrary information, Way too much like that six year old with her fingers in her ears.
LikeLike
…” contrary information,”
Contrary information? This is pro-Putin/Russian propaganda and is full of holes. It is opinion not related to factual information.
This isn’t about crowd size or declassifying documents by thinking about it. This is full on fertilizer and those who continue to post it in support of Russia’s aggression are only adding to the problems of division in this country.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “This is pro-Putin/Russian propaganda and is full of holes.”
The American Conservative? Apart from that, what holes are you talking about?
LikeLike
Yes, The American Conservative. Like many of the “conservatives” in this country ,it has lost its way and turned to Trumpism and pro-Putin/anti-Ukraine sentiment.
And while it may not be perfect, Ukraine is much more democratic than it was under the rule of Putin’s puppets and there was NO provocation by Ukraine, NATO, or the US. That is the false flag the Putin has been throwing out there and you have been saluting.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Uh, pot meet kettle. We’ve gone this route before. I know I try to read all your sources. (I don’t like videos because they drag on whereas prose is quickly absorbed).
I know many times the right wingers here can’t or won’t read WAPO, NYT, et.al, because they are “biased” and paywalled. A daily dose of “lying MSM” is the excuse.
Hard to see out of the bubble if you refuse to at least read contrary opinions.
There is the pattern, in my opinion.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree about videos, I don’t post them longer than a few minutes.
Can’t do anything about paywalled stories, but I do read links unless I’m at the ballpark and reading on my phone. I do stop after the third logical fallacy.
LikeLike
I shared a NYT article yesterday. I didn’t know I could do that, but I can for 10 articles a month. So I will try that.
I see a lot of debate on articles and I try to quote from the post to support or refute. Rarely, if ever, have I seen the conservatives do the same. Particularly if it is from MSM other than right wing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have found I can post Freelinks on WSJ articles too, but often what I post is based on my own thoughts and knowledge of the subject, and there is no cite for the whole.
For example, I can explain why climate models are pretty much useless more than a decade out, but if I tried to cite everything that brings me to that opinion, there would be 8 to 10 cites, to articles and papers many pages long, each to get a single factoid from the cite.
The result would be that to back up a 5 minute explanation, I would be giving you hours of reading.
LikeLike
You may have noticed that I rarely get into debates on climate issues. My opinion is that there are so many scientists from all over the globe that are concerned, that if it is one big conspiracy to make us uncomfortable, we are screwed anyway. There is little question that fisheries are depleted, bugs and tropical disease are moving into the latitudes, coral is bleaching and rainfall patterns are changing. So one way or another we will have masses of refugees trying to escape disaster. And all this happening too fast for gradual adaptation.
If it turns out you are wrong…we’ll, I’ll be gone and so will you. If the scientists are right, or mostly so, you can say “oh well” from the soil.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In your lifetime, the average global temperature has increased by less than 1 degree C. Most of that increase has been near the polls, in Winter and at night.
Do you really think that has driven bugs northward and changed rainfall patterns?
BTW, there has been no overall increase is drought in your lifetime, and the total mass of coral is greater now than when you were born.
When you were born, there were no more that 5000 polar bears alive, of those, only 25,000 remain.
You have been lied to.
LikeLike
Increase of drought? A bit silly. The amount of water has never changed. It’s distribution has.
So what is shifting tropical diseases into the latitudes?
Do you have a cite for the polar bears. Was it because of hunting? Poor counting in the 1940’s.
India, Pakistan and others in Asia have been experiencing major flooding and heatwaves that are deadly. Nothing new, I suppose?
LikeLiked by 1 person
What is shifting tropical diseases northward? Airplanes.
I’m about to leave for the ball field, I’ll try to get you a polar bear cite later, There are a lot of bad ones to sift through.
I suspect the count of 5000 in the 50’s might have been low, but they were aggressively hunted back then, and native populations poisoned them believing them to be competitors for the seals they both hunted.
The current count of 22,000 to 25,000 is probably reliable
While I’m gone, here’s a thought experiment for you. How does an average increase in temperature of less than 1 C, mostly at the poles, cause a heat wave of +10C?
LikeLike
Airplanes? We have been flying internationally since the 30’s and heavily since at least the 60’s.
LikeLike
Rich Americans and Europeans have been flying a while, but even relatively poor Africans fly for the Hage and elsewhere.
Didn’t make it to the ballpark. My daughter and the grandkids were in an accident on the way there. No one seriously hurt but totaled the SUV and the kids are getting checked out at CHKD.
LikeLike
Sorry to hear about the accident. Glad nothing serious other than the car damage.
LikeLike
BTW, do you see the unintended humor and irony in you typo about the “polls” v the “poles”.
The reason I brought this up is because human organization is political. If major changes are necessary, it is hard to wait and see. Plus, anything political, liberal or conservative, autocratic or democratic, is designed to please some of the citizenry here or anywhere.
e.g., Bolsonaro wants to wipe out the rainforest for money. Biden want to wean us off fossil fuels. Putin wants glory for Russia. All of these require some political support, but autocrats have it easier. They just do it.
LikeLike
The IPCC Summary for Policymakers, which is the only part you are likely to see, is written by bureaucrats, not scientists and approved by majority vote, with tiny countries with no academic representation having the same vote as the US.
It is a political document, and many scientists have sued to have their names removed form the reports over the year.
Here’s a bit in the process
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/07/ar6-wg1-final-revised-report-and-expert-review-comments-have-just-been-released/
LikeLike
Thanks for the link and I tried to plow through the enormous set of chapters and sub links.
This is why I opted for f-stops over calculus.
I try to follow the money in controversies. And I am sure there are lots of monies being chased and protected in climate issues. Both sides probably.
However:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
As noted in the article, the reference to Big Tobacco is notable for tactics employed by Big Oil.
And Big Pharma, Big Agra…and “Big” that has enough resources to set policy in the political realm. Cigarettes are not that bad. Opioids are not addicting. CO2 is good for plants. And yet…
LikeLiked by 1 person
You have to be careful about that “knew” word. Exxon knew about those theories, but they have since been largely disproven.
About following the money, that’s another thing to be careful about. There is a huge difference between money going where the market takes it and money being diverted from the market by government policy.
Exxon, and other fossil fuel companies, don’t have to get government to force people to buy their products. But not a dime would go to windmills other than by mandate or subsidy. So, Exxon doesn’t need to corrupt government to sell us what we already want and need. But Green energy can be sold only by getting government to distort the market, thus Green energy companies must corrupt the government to exist.
LikeLike
“Exxon knew about those theories, but they have since been largely disproven.”
Per the article Exxon knew in 1977 that. . .
“In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels,” Black told Exxon’s management committee. A year later he warned Exxon that doubling CO2 gases in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by two or three degrees—a number that is consistent with the scientific consensus today.”
I do not see anything “disproven” there. On the contrary, the evidence of those facts has only grown stronger.
LikeLike
First, C or F. It makes a difference.
Back then the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity ,the eventual increase in temperature over thousands of years resulting from a doubling in CO2, was thought to be around 3 degrees C, Observation has shown it to be more like 1.5 to 1.8 degrees C.
Models vs observations
LikeLike
“First, C or F. It makes a difference.”
I see that you did not say which theory that Exxon knew about in 1977 has been “disproven.” A neat dodge is one that is not noticeable. This one is not a neat dodge. Your statement that I challenged seems to be 100% pure bullshit since you have not even tried to defend it.
LikeLike
You don’t read verry carefully.
I pointed out that the claim doubling CO2 would raise average global temperatures 2 to 3 degrees(it was Centigrade) has been shown to be double, or more, the actual ECS.
LikeLike
YOU are the one who does not read very carefully.
The THEORY that Exxon was aware of and tried to obfuscate al la tobacco was that “the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels.” Quibbling about a particular model at a particular time does not disprove the theory. In fact, over time the theory of AGW has gained in acceptance.
LikeLike
AGW has gained acceptance because contrary evidence is suppressed and the AGW theory is both exaggerated and drummed into everything from children’s books to movies and TV.
Other than here, where have you seen that graph of models vs reality?
It should be up there whenever AGW policcy is discussed.
LikeLike
“Way too much like that six year old with her fingers in her ears.”
Says the fellow who refused to watch the January 6th hearings or to read the Washington Post or the New York Times.
There IS a pattern here. Losing losers keep posting nonsense from Qanon-caliber sites and expect others to take it seriously. Breitbart the other day. Various conspiracy theory bloggers and now “The American Conservative.” I do not consider the bullshit you people wallow in to be “contrary information.” I consider it to be bullshit and, in this case, Mr. Roberts shared the essence of it making it clear exactly what it was.
LikeLike
RE: “I consider it to be bullshit.”
Nobody cares what you think if you don’t explain your opinions.
LikeLike
I did find one sentence in this article I agree with: “Russia is the aggressor in the current war, and there is no doubt that Russia is a nasty, authoritarian state.”
But I do have a few questions.
If Russia is so terrified of having a NATO country on its border that it needs to annex Ukraine (which isn’t a NATO country)… what happens if Ukraine becomes part of Russia and suddenly, Poland and Hungary and Romania (which are NATO countries) are on its border?
And, if preventing Ukraine from joining NATO was the goal, it not only failed miserably at that but it spurred Finland and Sweden to request NATO membership too. Before the invasion, Ukrainian membership in NATO wasn’t likely to happen. Now, it’s almost assured.
It is not NATO, the United States, or any other country on the planet that is attacking Russia. If Putin is so paranoid he needs to attack other countries in order to feel safe, maybe Russia needs to overthrow Putin and pick a leader with some guts.
Ukraine is “just partly free” because it has been being controlled by Putin’s puppets. But the puppets were thrown out and now that “partly free” status is becoming more free… and that’s what has Putin desecrating his diapers.
When you are at war, you do not allow your enemy’s political party to campaign inside your country. The American Nazi Party wasn’t on the ballot in 1940.
If Ukraine’s Center for Countering Disinformation’s blacklist included FOX News, I’d say they’re doing a good job. Studies have been done to prove that people who watch FOX News regularly know less about current events than people who watch no news at all. https://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5
Tucker Carlson is a Russian asset. He appears on RT almost as often as he appears on FOX. When your enemy’s tanks are driving down your streets, blowing up your neighborhoods, you can’t afford to be “liberal” with their propaganda sources.
LikeLiked by 3 people
As I have said a long time, there are no good guys, just competing bad guys, and no US interest in being involved.
You have to wonder what Ukraine has on Biden to have him so thoroughly under their thumb.
LikeLike
“You have to wonder what Ukraine has on Biden to have him so thoroughly under their thumb.”
More unsubstantiated horse feathers. Biden and this CONGRESS are supporting a democratically elected government that has been attacked, unprovoked, by a dictatorial neighbor with aspirations of world dominance.
A peaceful Europe is very much in our national interests. Isolationism, like trickle down, has been attempted before and proven to be a losing response to the world and FOR this country.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Even if Biden was caught in flagrante delicto with Zelensky’s wife, there are so many people involved in so many countries that the extortion would have been out in 20 countries and 50 media.
Our interest is the same as Europe’s. Putin is a fascist megalomaniac trying to regain the former power and fear provoking Russia of yesteryear. If he is not stopped in Ukraine, is Poland next? Baltic states? Finland? Plenty of Russian speaking folks there too. Modus operandi…start an insurrection or separatist movement, then “rescue” the Russians.
The Libertarian stance of “mind your own business” sounds good until the other’s business is knocking on your door with guns.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “If Russia is so terrified of having a NATO country on its border that it needs to annex Ukraine (which isn’t a NATO country)… what happens if Ukraine becomes part of Russia and suddenly, Poland and Hungary and Romania (which are NATO countries) are on its border?”
I have wondered about that, too. It is unrealistic for Russia to expect to be surrounded only by friendly states.
But I think it takes two to tango. In this case, had the West upheld the Minsk accords in good faith, tensions might have eased over time.
LikeLike
It was Russia who broke first. Hold Putin accountable before you start throwing stones at Europe, NATO and the US.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “It was Russia who broke first.”
How so? As I understand it, Ukraine violated the accords by shelling civilians in the Donbas.
LikeLike
The “civilians” in question were Russian backed separatists. An inconvenient truth that has been twisted by Putin and his talking heads, including you, from the beginning.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “The ‘civilians’ in question were Russian backed separatists.”
There were women and children, non-combatants. I take it you are in favor of killing women and children.
LikeLike
I am against separatists using women and children as hostages and shields in a war zone. I am against bombing civilians, schools, and hospitals with drones and cruise missiles. You apparently are not. “Legitimate infrastructure targets” you say.
LikeLike
RE: “I am against separatists using women and children as hostages and shields in a war zone. ”
The only documented instances of combatants using women and children as hostages and shields in a war zone involved Ukrainian combatants.
LikeLike
“The only documented instances of combatants using women and children as hostages and shields in a war zone involved Ukrainian combatants.”
Bullshit. Pure and simple.
LikeLike
Give us a source, then.
LikeLike
Take your pick . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#:~:text=During%20the%202022%20Russian%20invasion,attacks%20in%20densely%20populated%20areas.
LikeLike
Accusations of coordinated cyber attacks on Russian assets ring a bit hollow to say the least. Russia has been doing just that to the West, including parking themselves in our state department for a year or more during the last administration.
Russian propaganda is pervasive and effective.
When was the last attack on Russian soil by NATO? NATO is a defense treaty and the problem with that for Putin is that it would make annexing Ukraine tougher. So he thought up a few BS reasons to attack and quickly take over Ukraine. Didn’t work out so well.
Ukraine has been under an invasion by Russia for 8 years. Civil and human rights don’t do so well in war. Look at the atrocities by the Russians and it is no wonder Ukraine isn’t treating collaborators under the Marquis of Queensbury rules. And when this mess is over, the wanton destruction by the Russians will be remembered for a long time.
Putin has killed tens of thousands of civilians in Chechnya, Georgia, Syria and now Ukraine. And for what? And how long does Europe and the rest of the world need to appease a murderous megalomaniac. A quick victory by Putin in Ukraine would have been a grave threat to Europe.
Manafort was a Russian asset who tried to keep a Russian friendly dictator in Ukraine. That failed, Crimea was invaded and Russia instigated and supported a civil war in Donbas were about all the West needed to see the proverbial handwriting on the Kremlin wall.
Putin will extort what he wants because he has nukes. At some point we either stop him or start learning Russian.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “When was the last attack on Russian soil by NATO?”
Probably today, as the shelling of Donesk city continues. The U.S. provides the artillery, the intelligence and the targetting, all but pulling the trigger that results in war crimes. This is a real take-the-beam-out-of-your-eye situation.
LikeLike
Uh, Donetsk is not Russian soil just because Putin says so. He doesn’t even have control over all of the 4 oblasts. It was merely a ploy to threaten the West by saying the war is now in Russia.
That is Ukrainian territory and Ukraine is fighting to regain sovereignty.
If Canada invaded North Dakota and we sent troops to take it back, are we invading Canada or just taking what was rightfully ours.
Besides, you missed my point. He invaded Ukraine 8 years ago, NATO has never invaded or attacked Russia before or since.
Word was he was negotiating with Kim for weapons. If he gets them, does that mean NK is attacking Ukraine? Belarus is providing support. Is it also invading Ukraine? Wagner Group has plenty of Mideastern fighters. Are the invading Ukraine? Also, the Wagner Group has been complicit in many war crimes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Uh, Donetsk is not Russian soil just because Putin says so.”
Sure it is. If you don’t agree, how do you propose to take it back?
RE: “Besides, you missed my point. He invaded Ukraine 8 years ago”
No, he didn’t. That’s just fantasy talk.
LikeLike
So Putin says it’s mine, and it is.
Now, he invaded and took Crimea and sent soldiers to Donbas to kill Ukrainian soldiers trying to put down a Putin instigated and supplied insurrection. Never happened because it is a fantasy.
OK, I think we have settled this. You are right, there is a fantasy.
Only not mine.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “So Putin says it’s mine, and it is.”
Like I said, if you don’t agree how do you propose to change it?
As for Putin’s “invasion” of Ukraine eight years ago, you are the only person I have ever heard of who makes that claim.
LikeLike
How? Help Ukraine kick the Russians back to their own country.
What do you call it when one nation sends its military to seize and occupy a sovereign nation’s land?
The Green Men:
“The term first arose during the occupation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, a period from late February to March 2014, when such forces occupied and blockaded the Simferopol International Airport, most military bases in Crimea,and the parliament in Simferopol. The term also sometimes used to refer to Russian troops during the War in Donbas, as the Kremlin denied their official involvement or presence of their troops in the region, and they wore unmarked uniforms or disguised themselves as pro-Russian separatists.”
Wikipedia
LikeLiked by 1 person
“You have to wonder what Ukraine has on Biden to have him so thoroughly under their thumb.”
Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn what Ukraine has on Biden. (If they have Biden dirt, why didn’t they give it to Trump when he committed extortion to get it? They could have bargained for what Congress had given them and more.)
What I do give a damn about is Russian imperialism. You say Russia is no threat to us, we have no business spending your tax dollars to support Ukraine. I say, if Russia can claim Ukraine because it once belonged to them, they can claim Alaska by that same logic. Putin is a bully and if a bully senses weakness, they WILL take advantage of it. Alaska has oil. If Putin decides he can push us around, he’ll try to take it. If Hitler taught us anything, it should be that appeasing bullies never works.
You are right. Neither side is perfect. But both sides are not the same.
Ukraine is not the same as Russia. Zelensky is not the same as Putin.
Ukraine and Zelensky did not invade Russia. Russia and Putin invaded Ukraine.
Ukraine and Zelensky are no threat to us. Russia and Putin are.
LikeLiked by 2 people