Dejan Corovic
As above, so bellow
Chris Cappy had again done very good attempt to remove fog of war.
Last edited:
Chris Cappy had again done very good attempt to remove fog of war.
I appreciate the military analysis. Not so much the geopolitical one.
He's quite right about Big Tech and media censorship, and also about the pro-Ukrainian bias, when at least some elements of the press should remain impartial in the conflict and give a broader picture of what is going on. The BBC remained strictly impartial during the Falklands War, for heaven's sake, when Britain was one of the belligerents. Now that there is a war between two foreign powers, the BBC is nakedly partial to one side. Aside from the matter of bias, mainstream media coverage of the war, as it is about most topics now, is presented as a series of 'human interest' stories where they focus on the effects of the war on individuals. Or they go onto the streets of a Ukrainian city and ask the people what they think about the war in vox pop segments. There is not a lot of detailed coverage about what is actually going on militarily.Yeah, he's media guy he's afraid of loosing YT subscribers. As well, he's ex. marine, so he knows military stuff from inside.
But he ( meekly ) rises two very good points: are we going to defend free speech by censorship? Its actually discussing how quickly media types are prepared to muzzle other media.
And the second: How can one make informed decisions if media is full of heavily biased and filtered hype? I personally want to know what is real, not what is politically correct for me to think.
He's quite right about Big Tech and media censorship, and also about the pro-Ukrainian bias, when at least some elements of the press should remain impartial in the conflict and give a broader picture of what is going on. The BBC remained strictly impartial during the Falklands War, for heaven's sake, when Britain was one of the belligerents. Now that there is a war between two foreign powers, the BBC is nakedly partial to one side. Aside from the matter of bias, mainstream media coverage of the war, as it is about most topics now, is presented as a series of 'human interest' stories where they focus on the effects of the war on individuals. Or they go onto the streets of a Ukrainian city and ask the people what they think about the war in vox pop segments. There is not a lot of detailed coverage about what is actually going on militarily.
I think that Russia is wrong to prosecute this war, I think that the Russian state is a miserable despotism ruled by the sinister tyrant Putin, and I hope that Ukraine is able to prevail, but I do not like the strength of passion that is being whipped up around the western world over it. That strength of feeling and the amount of materiel and other support that we are giving to Ukraine shows the conflict in a different light: that this is a proxy war that Ukraine is fighting against Russia on our behalf. Any sober assessment of Ukraine's chances, the advance of Russia's military campaign, any questioning of the lengths to which we are going for the sake of this war, or a discussion of the western role in creating the conditions in which conflict might arise can lead to you being accused of being a mouthpiece for the Kremlin.
On the same subject of war but of historical reference now...
I think women are given rifles if they volunteer. Men are conscripted.Don't they give woman rifles? If not why not ?
I've concluded this is not a war, but not because the Russians refuse to call it that - Fact is it's beginning to appear more like a good old fashioned 'genocide' against the Ukrainian people. And talk about 'nazification' as Pukin {sic} calls it, he like Stalin in years past, are following the Nazi way - Totally destroy your enemy.Agree totally that, if someone isn't willing to fight for whatever reason, then they are probably not going to do any good and just be another mouth to feed. How about, instead of gender, just decide about who stays and who goes based on things like physical health, dependents, willingness to fight, military experience, and so on? Things which are way more relevant on the battlefield anyway.
There's a report on some interesting poll results from Canada here:
The Covid-cautious are hungriest for war
Respondents were asked how many vaccine doses they have had, and also whether they supported the creation of a NATO no-fly zone over Ukraine. There is an interesting correlation between the number of vaccine doses and enthusiasm for escalation of the conflict in Ukraine.
It has seemed that those who are most enthusiastic for greater western involvement in the Ukraine-Russia war are those who are most enthusiastic for maintaining strict Covid regulations.
This is interesting, because we were told that the rationale for Covid regulations was that there were for the sake of public health, that is, we had to suspend our liberties in order to mitigate public health risks. We are told by largely the same group that we must now support Ukraine with greater western backing, to the extent of getting directly involved in the fighting on the side of Ukraine.
There are problems with this rationale in light of recent pandemic regulations. We were asked to sacrifice our own liberty for the sake of averting risk during the pandemic. But we are also now asked to risk our nations' very existences for the preservation of Ukraine's liberty. Further, having nuclear weapons fall on western countries would have grave consequences for public health, far more so than Covid. Therefore, public health is merely a tool used by western establishments for other political aims, and clearly not a goal in itself. Its importance can be played up and played down, depending on whatever their immediate political objectives are. They can pretend to be risk averse when it affords them the opportunity to exert control, and they can also be reckless when that suits their foreign policy goals.
The trouble with this explanation is that the desire for a no-fly zone is not an educated position, it is a profoundly ignorant one.An awesome survey!
I think that its to do with education.
Educated people believe in science, so they support COVID vaccination. As well educated people are interested in outside world, so they care what happens in other countries. Contrary to that dumbos are ignorant so they can't figure out what science is about, so they are against vaccines. As well, dumbos barely could take care of themselves, so they are not interested what's happening in the outside world.
This difference in attitudes can be easily verified if one goes to CNN vs Fox News. CNN has international section, while Fox New has absolutely no news from outside of US ( or maybe once in a blue moon ). So educated Americans follow sites like CNN, Washington Post, New York Times etc., and less educated ones follow sites like Fox News. I noticed this long time ago. Fox News is 1/2 about verbal duels between politicians, and other 1/2 bimbos showing skin.