this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2023
9 points (100.0% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
5614 readers
11 users here now
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You're right, it makes much more sense that Russia would destroy their own pipeline which took 10 years to build so that Europe would buy US gas instead. And it makes perfect sense that Russia would destroy a dam they control and flood the defenses they had spent a whole year building, especially considering the Ukrainian counter offensive didn't pan out and most of their soldiers died before ever seeing the fortifications.
There's no proof of that either, but as a good citizen, I believe everything my government tells me. They have my own personal best interests at heart, after all. Especially when they turn away refugees and let them drown in the Mediterranean, I don't know how but I'm sure it protects me.
Maybe they did the pipeline, but none of that other stuff.
Either way you haven't actually showed me where you got any of this info.
I used my brain, which unfortunately seems to be becoming a rarer resource.
Where's your evidence for saying Russia blew up the dam they controlled?
In order of my google search's results.
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4043221-ukraine-kakhovka-dam-collapse-theories/
https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-says-russia-admits-blowing-up-nova-kakhovka-dam-call-intercepted/
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/06/16/world/europe/ukraine-kakhovka-dam-collapse.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65818705
Most of these articles admit that it is kind of impossible to know for sure in the middle of a warzone. It's as likely that it collapsed due to lack of proper maintenance in the middle of a war.
What's your source?
lmao you actually think the BBC is credible? When they've been caught lying and have to issue retractions several times a year? The same BBC that went all in for the invasion of Iraq? Here's a source you'll lap up lol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
Just because it's British and you like their documentaries doesn't mean they're actually a good news source.
It's funny though that you linked to that specific Hill article, because here are two others they wrote: https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4042184-ukraine-claims-evidence-russia-destroyed-dam/ (source: Telegram post from SBU lol) ; https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/4037183-the-kakhovka-dams-destruction-shows-a-russian-military-on-its-back-foot/.
Which is exactly the same "source" all your other articles use. You're cherry-picking and sealioning, you realize you're not fooling anyone here though, right? Like nobody is falling for your "uhhh I'm just asking questions and not giving my own opinion, just read my media!!"
We're just having fun with you lol, it's funny watching you having to actually reckon with real people who are actually asking for receipts and some minimum amount of critical thinking instead of deferring to a higher authority. Do you also ask the BBC what you eat for breakfast or can you think of that one yourself?
"Uhhh if you can't point to established media then it doesn't count, if a journalist says it it's okay but if you say it it's not 🤓"
I used my brain, which unfortunately seems to be becoming a rarer resource. Yours is the SBU lmao so you better come back with something stronger
Not particularly, they are heavily influenced by the party in power that gets to selectively enforce biased news laws. That was in the order that Google gave it to me with no reordering. BBC is B-Tier for North American news because there is less impetus for political bias. I usually go the Associated Press and The Globe And Mail.
My comment was more to how easy it is to find many news stories covering this from a multitude of perspectives.
And for the record, yes, I do believe that journalistic standards upheld by credible institutions are safeguards against specious speculation and lies. You can phrase that however you'd want, but the conceit of that statement is true.
I didn't hand curate them, I just went to google and copy/pasted in a demonstration of the lowest amount of effort I could do to find articles that dispute the narrative here.
Most of these countries have free press, btw. And some articles blame Russia, others give credence to the possibility that Ukraine could have done this, but with the realistic perspective that it's basically impossible to know.
In fact, reading those stories makes me incredibly skeptical of anyone who doesn't show uncertainty on this topic. Look at that, I just changed my own view by researching a bit more.
Press free to be bought and controlled by billionaires.
Murdoch doesn't own EVERY newspaper.
But yeah Murdoch media is fucked.
You say that like Russia isn't Capitalist as all get out.
The only good counterpoint to Capitalism in the modern global landscape is Singapore, and possibly China if you're feeling extra spicy and support their version of global hegemony.
The modern Russian state is a Fascist Autocracy propped up by Oligarchs. Y'know, what Trump likes.
Edit: Actually I'm going to add Slovenia to that as well, as I had a great time learning about that Jewel of a Country before the Delta Variant absolutely wrecked it.
When I was there in 2018, it was a fantastically eye-opening example of a successful socialist state.
But that's where my knowledge end on counterpoints to Capitalism, in its varied forms. I'm sure more exist. I'm not an academic on this subject.
You are gliding over every single time that Xi Jinping said, out loud, that this is the long term goal? Why wouldn't you believe him?
Yeah, they couch it carefully, but it's quite clear, from the China #1 propaganda, that China doesn't want to uplift anyone else, they want to use their soft power to make neighboring countries dependent on them. They're following the playbook laid out by Western companies in the 20th century, but organizing it with State controlled corporations.
And as for Singapore, there's a lot of propaganda from some right-wing Supply-Side economists that mischaracterize that country as being an ideal Capitalist state, while gliding over how the State controls most of the means of production. It isn't an ideal system, it has many inequities. But it's an example that serves as a surprising counterpoint to the argument that only free markets can thrive & survive in global capitalism, and components of it could be useful for looking for solutions to the issues with capitalism. Right wing economists do this, so they don't have to confront how incorrect their argument that Capitalism cannot be reformed with the State taking a direct role in the economy without disaster.
It's one of those things where I look at it, and say 'wow that sucks... But you can't argue with the results damn, can we workshop a better version of that?'