blokeuptheroad,
You're contradicting yourself there, you state that in 2005 Pozner admitted that he had been doing was propaganda. The Yale video was produced a decade later than that so his 'true allegiances and motivations were hardly hidden were they and if you watch the Yale video you will see that he isn't trying to hide his past.
Too much shooting of the messenger going on here. I wonder if someone other than Chewkw had posted tat video then the responses would be different.
Kissinger
Ukraine has been part of Russia for centuries, and their histories were intertwined before then
Our history is intertwined with France and Rome.
Wise Ukrainian leaders would then opt for a policy of reconciliation between the various parts of their country. Internationally, they should pursue a posture comparable to that of Finland.
Finland? Now rushing to join NATO. Well done Vladimir, you've done that.
It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. But it should be possible to put Crimea’s relationship to Ukraine on a less fraught basis. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea. Ukraine should reinforce Crimea’s autonomy in elections held in the presence of international observers.
Nice idea but then Russia invaded East Ukraine.
PJM1974,
As Gareth Bale replied when asked a question in Spanish (after living in that country for 5 years)
"I don't understand a word of what you're saying."
Before you criticise someone for not understanding the difference between objectivity and subjectivity, perhaps you could watch the video in question before commenting further upon it.
It's just a thought.....
With the greatest of respect to you I was asking a forumite with a long and potted history of posting some decidedly wacky takes if they’d done any due diligence before they posted a video without context.
I also added in a previous post that I’m giving chewkw the benefit of the doubt, in the hope and expectation that he’ll summarise the points of a two hour long video next time.
blokeuptheroad,
You’re contradicting yourself there, you state that in 2005 Pozner admitted that he had been doing was propaganda.
I didn't state that, he did! It was a quote, attributed to Pozner from his Wikipedia entry. So I am not contradicting myself.
The Yale video was produced a decade later than that so his ‘true allegiances and motivations were hardly hidden were they and if you watch the Yale video you will see that he isn’t trying to hide his past.
I am trying to educate myself as best I can about the war in Ukraine. That includes trying to understand the Russian perspective. I have linked to material on this thread which does just that, as well as from Western analysts. The video Chewkh linked to is nearly two hours long and was presented by him with no other incentive to give up that much time, other than "this is interesting". I need to know a little bit more than that to decide if it might be worth such an investment of my time to watch.
I am suspicious because a cursory examination of every other link Chewkh has posted has shown it to be a very one sided, dare I say pro Putin viewpoint. He never explicitly states this - we just get "this is interesting".
A very quick search on Pozner shows that to say the least, he has a very checkered background. Now it may be that he has some interesting things to say and the video in question may offer some insight . I may try to find time to watch it, but I'd be a lot more inclined to do so if he told me why it was interesting and gave an honest bio on the presenter up front.
Does everyone now need a synopsis and bio for every link before they post it?
I suspect the entire thread needs a review now...
If it’s a two hour video, and there is a point or points somewhere in it that the poster wants discussing, yes.
If it’s a two hour video, and there is a point or points somewhere in it that the poster wants discussing, yes.
Quite.
Does everyone now need a synopsis and bio for every link before they post it?
To be fair, many posters do show the courtesy of at least providing a brief one. Honest question, would you watch a two hour YouTube monologue by someone you'd never heard of, just because someone on the 'internet said this is interesting' with no other intro?
Yeah, I'd click it, if it held my attention I'd continue watching, if it didn't, I'd turn it off.
I get the point you are making, but this isn't an academic forum, so bullshit abounds. Proceed with caution, do your own research.
That's fair enough PJM, I know the video was provided without context but others (including myself) have subsequently attempted to provide a bit of context.
I thought that making an equivalence with James Dellingpole was a bit unfair seeing as he has neither admitted to being a former propagandist or is ever likely to be invited to speak at Yale.
Sorry about the Gareth Bale comparison, that was probably unfair too but I couldn't resist!
blokeuptheroad, I've appreciated your contributions to this thread thus far and am aware that you might have some experience and insights that many of us on here haven't but give Chewkw a break for once, had he provided some context then he likely would have been met with equal suspicion.
People with dodgy pasts can sometimes be very interesting (talking about Pozner here, not Chewkw!) It is right to question the sources of information but after doing that we need to be able to look at the information for what it might contain.
On the subject of people with dodgy pasts, have you ever checked out the 'Beau of the fifth column' YouTube channel? He's an uber liberal former military contractor turned joirnalist from Florida whose done a bit of jail time for smuggling people over the Mexico border. I haven't contributed anything on here about the military side of things but I have learned a lot from listening to him.
do your own research
Ah, the mantra of conspiracy theorists everywhere, when asked to put up evidence.
Big Beau of the fifth column fan. On first glance you could mistake him for a deep south, Trump supporting Redneck. You would be very wrong. He's a clever and very thought proving guy.
boomerlives
Free Member
do your own researchAh, the mantra of conspiracy theorists everywhere, when asked to put up evidence.
I'm quite happy to post evidence, see the 5th post on this page . Do I expect it on a non-academic forum that is riddled with opinion, no, not really.
That’s fair enough PJM, but since the video was provided withoit context onthers (including myself) have attempted to provide a bit of context.
Did you watch it in its entirety? As before I’ve a demanding day job, so I don’t have two hours to spend. I’m envious of anyone with that much time to spare!
I thought that making an equivalence with James Dellingpole was a bit unfair seeing as he has neither admitted to being a former propagandist or is ever likely to be invited to speak at Yale.
That wasn’t what I was saying, nor was I attempting to equate Pozner with Delingpole. My point was about the general validity of non-msm sources, you’ll note that Chewkw indicated his preference for “alternative” views. I was trying to explain why alternative points aren’t always valid. A good example of another terrible source is This guy here.
Sorry about the Gareth Bale comparison, that was probably unfair too but I couldn’t resist!
No apology necessary, it made me smile in fact.
A good example of another terrible source is This guy here.
Could you supply us with a synopsis and bio before i click that link and waste 5 minutes of my precious time please? I've got a demanding job you know. 😆
Psynosis? Didn’t they publish Lemmings?
😆 well spotted. Now back to the point are we getting a reason why 'this guy here' a terrible source and info on the guys background? I need more info before I click that link.
PJM1974,
I did watch the video in its entirety and I'm usually one for skimming. As I mentioned earlier, the question and answer session after the talk really impressed me and this thread has reminded me to take a look at other Yale talks on other subjects.
I found the whole set up a lot more interesting than the general Ted Talks type format, or the more sophistic kind of presentations offered up from Oxford Uni etc.
Erm, the explanation as to why Graham Phillips isn’t a trustworthy source is in the link?
Dunno, haven't clicked the link, no idea who Graham Phillips is. I'm too busy, I need an explanation of 'this guy here' before go any further.
Just holding you to the same standard you are holding Chewkw to. You've not really given me enough background information.
1) If someone posts a video and simply says “watch this” then it’s poor forum manners and at worst a waste of time. I want to know why I should watch something.
... you’ll note that Chewkw indicated his preference for “alternative” views. I was trying to explain why alternative points aren’t always valid.
That's a question I have myself often. Is alternative perspective valid (not just from me but from others as well btw)? Valid for who and why? Not a simple answer in my opinion especially with the current Ukraine/Russia war.
Just holding you to the same standard you are holding Chewkw to.
Grasping at straws a little here aren’t we?
The link took about 30 seconds to read and was provided with context.
It wasnt a 2hr video with nothing more than "interesting" The only context to its content would have been prejudiced by past posting history.
blokeuptheroad,
Not surprised you're a fan of big Beau, I've followed him from his first "burn my Nike's" beginnings, of particular note was his video in response to the responses to that first video which was nothing short of a masterpiece and the most thought provoking thing I've seen in years.
He might look like an extra from the film 'Deliverance' but as you say, he's very smart. He'd own this place and give the fellows at Yale a good run for their money too!
In relation to the Pozner talk and how he observed that nearly all independent media in the States has been bought out by corporations it's interesting to see how he has managed to establish himself as a viable new source of independent media via monetizing his journalism on YouTube.
I'm sure that rings alarm bells for some and others will say YouTube is one of the largest corporations in the world but I'd suggest to those that think like that way that they take a peek at his channel before jumping to conclusions.
Looking at the number of views he gets for each video I'm sure he's getting a pretty healthy income from it, which gives him editorial control and the time to do plenty of rigorous research and refine his (wonderful) delivery.
I have certainly learned more about America and how it works From watching him than watching CNN or MSNBC and the like.
Haven't watched the (2 hour) video, but do agree that the west did create the current construct within Russia, the wall came down and the assets were stripped by those well placed and in favour, Putin was at the heart of that from early on, and now nearly 3 decades on he's used that to cement his position and surrounded himself with his own supporting cast.
The failures we're seeing by Russia in this current conflict just shows us that he has absolute power, and that the asset stripping and propaganda was way worse than anyone actually thought.
Wow, this is scary stuff. I've seen a few clips of this particular 'talk show' and some of the bat shit crazy stuff these talking heads come out with, but this is off the scale. This is what ordinary Russians are watching on their TVs. How many of them actually believe this garbage do you think? They have really lost the plot.
https://twitter.com/francska1/status/1516341841288957953?s=20&t=p8o-7yER2KR47BRFwkWDMA
I’ve seen a few of those and they do indeed appear to be nuts. I’ve refrained from posting them, as I’ve no idea if the subtitles are accurate.
DW article here on economic consequences of the invasion and subsequent actions (and the compounding effects of COVID in China)
https://www.dw.com/en/imf-slashes-global-growth-outlook-amid-ukraine-war/a-61513313
piemonster
Free Member
I’ve seen a few of those and they do indeed appear to be nuts. I’ve refrained from posting them, as I’ve no idea if the subtitles are accurate.
Pretty sure they will be, I've read quite a few articles directly translated through google and some of the stuff their media is saying is just absolutely batshit mental.
In part due to us severing ourselves from the European Union and in greater part owing to our thick as pork poo Foreign Secretary, Russia has chosen to single out the UK for special treatment.
Since the conflict began I've thought that should things escalate beyond Ukraine then one of our Queen Elisabeth class carriers would be top of the Russians target list should they be out at sea in international waters.
They could frame it not as an attack on NATO territory but rather as an attack on NATO assets. Or deny responsibility, citing the event as an accident caused by the crew of the carrier. Bullshit I know but....imagine the scenario of a Russian submarine approaching the ship, I'm sure the UK wouldn't strike first, remember there have been recent incidents of Russian submarines 'bumping' UK military vessels.
Of all the NATO countries, who do we think the Russians would be most likely to pick on?
One of the Baltic’s
Since the conflict began I’ve thought that should things escalate beyond Ukraine then one of our Queen Elisabeth class carriers would be top of the Russians target list should they be out at sea in international waters.
My thoughts on that were if it came down to it, put a pair of bulk carriers into the black sea channel and scuttle them, pretty much blocking it.
Black sea fleet cant go anywhere if that channel is blocked.
HMS PoW is taking part in a massive NATO exercise in the Arctic, so will be slightly well protected at present, and on current form i'm not sure the Russian fleet is going to be as much of a threat as we thought they were a year ago!
HMS QEII is at her home port, so an attack on her would be slightly noticeable from a distance!
"One of the Baltic’s"
That's the obvious answer bit seeing as in that instance it would involve an incursion into NATO territory the consequences would equally be pretty obvious. Such an incursion would also be impossible for the Russians to deny, whereas an incident out at see at least leans towards either plausible deniability or would signal a staggered escalation rather than full on conflict.
I'm sure Putin wants us to be focusing on the Baltics and whilst it's admirable that we show concern for the fate of those nations we shouldn't forget that the UK is in a very vulnerable position.
Your answer doesn't address the crux of my question. Post Brexit and given the incompetence of our administration do you think the UK has placed itself in a more vulnerable position or not?
Ukraine has been part of Russia for centuries, and their histories were intertwined before then
Our history is intertwined with France and Rom
I'm telling you all (again) that if Partygate starts to look like a threat to our own Dear Leader, I'm expecting an invasion of France to rescue all those expats from the drug dealing Nazis that run "France" which has historically been ours and doesn't really exist other than as a modern NATO concept.
Is there an HMS DoY? If so I believe it could deal with any altercations with Russian subs without breaking into a sweat.
Is there an HMS DoY? If so I believe it could deal with any altercations with Russian subs without breaking into a sweat.
😂 Well played!
Post Brexit and given the incompetence of our administration do you think the UK has placed itself in a more vulnerable position or not?
Not particularly no.
"Black sea fleet cant go anywhere if that channel is blocked"
There are other fleets, particularly some underwater ones but I like your creative thinking. In the early days of the conflict I imagined a large ship colliding with the bridge to Crimea! What's the captain of the Ever Green up to these days?
"Not particularly no."
That's put my mind to rest. In Liz we Truss.
Yeh, sorry. Dog needed a shite.
Priorities and all that.
We do have some particularly poor showings from the political leadership, but despite all that Brexit has done the U.K. is still a natural (military) ally to most of the rest of Europe and the US.
Trump was possibly more of a risk, might be again if everyone is unlucky.
In part due to us severing ourselves from the European Union and in greater part owing to our thick as pork poo Foreign Secretary, Russia has chosen to single out the UK for special treatment.
I think it's more to do with the fact the Johnson went to Kyiv and we're shipping huge amounts of weaponry into Ukraine. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are SF forces 'advising' there as well.
There's lots of advising going on in places like Poland, i doubt any are in Ukraine due to the risk of a NATO ally having forces in Ukraine, it's the same issue that Poland had with 'loaning' those aircraft and weapons, it was just that one step beyond supporting, and too close to drawing NATO into this nightmare.
The UK are probably less open to influence from Russia i'd think, yes i know Russian money, London, etc, etc, but we have no real need for Russian oil, gas, etc, so less issues of embargoes from Russia, or reprisals, and lots of political points to win, not just for the tories, but across the world by supporting Ukraine and being the Russians focus of the annoying British.
Russia can’t handle the war it’s started with Ukraine, you really think it’s gonna pick another fight 🤷♂️
