Why the hate on Russia?

[Frelga]

Do you consider Kremlin information reliable? Why, or why not?

[Beorhtnoth]

Do you consider Kremlin information reliable? Why, or why not?

I consider Kremlin information no more nor less reliable than any other national government source. Why? Because I do no allow myself to base my judgements on prejudice. I prefer evidence and reason. Neither indicate to me any reason to hold the Kremlin to a different standard.

[Frelga]

Isn't the assumption of reliability a form of prejudice?

[Beorhtnoth]

Quite possibly, which may be why I endeavour to remain neutral in my consideration, not allowing myself to succumb to prejudice.

At least, that is the aim!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

But whether it is your intention or not, to me at least your posting in this thread do not appear neutral and instead appear to lean towards trusting the Kremlin, at least far more than the information available would warrant. Which leads to the conclusion that you are prejudiced against the validity of those sources of information.

(My apologies if my somewhat-fever-wracked mind is not make sense.)

[Beorhtnoth]

But whether it is your intention or not, to me at least your posting in this thread do not appear neutral and instead appear to lean towards trusting the Kremlin, at least far more than the information available would warrant. Which leads to the conclusion that you are prejudiced against the validity of those sources of information.

(My apologies if my somewhat-fever-wracked mind is not make sense.)

Yet I have not referenced any Kremlin sourced fact.
I would suggest we have become so conditioned to prejudice against the Kremlin that merely calling for consistent standards of scepticism for all claims regarding Russia is considered to be pro-Kremlin.

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

[Frelga]

To be fair, you haven't mentioned any sources, period.

[Beorhtnoth]

To be fair, you haven't mentioned any sources, period.

What, specifically, would you require sourcing?

To be honest, I'm not sure what source is needed to support the statement all nations should be held to the same standard and any inherent personal bias recognised and addressed. There really should be no place for prejudice, even against Russia.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Holding Russia and Putin to the same standard as all other nations and leaders, in my opinion he and they have a lot to answer for. More than most.

[Beorhtnoth]

And I respect your opinion, but do the facts bear out the implication Putin and Russia are more responsible than any other nation for the world's ills?

[Frelga]

Yes.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't know whether I would say that Russia is "more responsible for the world's ills" than any other nation, but based on the information available to me it is clear that Russia is currently a highly authoritarian society that does not tolerate any form of opposition or dissent and engages in actions that attack the sovereignty of other nations and engages in and supports significant human rights abuses.

[Beorhtnoth]

I don't know whether I would say that Russia is "more responsible for the world's ills" than any other nation, but based on the information available to me it is clear that Russia is currently a highly authoritarian society that does not tolerate any form of opposition or dissent and engages in actions that attack the sovereignty of other nations and engages in and supports significant human rights abuses.

What do you determine "highly authoritarian"? Would number of people incarcerated be an indicator? Perhaps per capita incarceration? How about, as Chomsky says, a voting system in which, however you vote, the Business Party gets in?

Or what about attacking the sovereignty of other nations? Any other countries that might have done that more than Russia, over the last thirty years?

Fortunately, as George Floyd demonstrated, Russia stands alone in engaging in human rights abuses...

And Julian Assange? Deserves all coming to him for... exposing state crimes. Pretty fortunate he chose a non-authoritarian country to be dragged out of his sanctuary from. Solitary confinement in Belmarsh? Luxury!

Irony aside, I believe every act Russia makes is twisted to be as negative as possible, and any accusation against Russia presented as truth.

And so many intelligent people accept it.

It's a conundrum.

[Frelga]

Why is it Russia, specifically, that you are defending?

[Beorhtnoth]

Because it is Russia, specifically, that is being attacked.

[Frelga]

Where? Should that not be the proper place to defend it?

[Beorhtnoth]

Most everywhere. It infests political discourse.

You appear to be proposing that discussing Russia is inappropriate for this forum. I find that strange.

Do you not find it interesting that Russia is held in such opprobrium whilst Saudi Arabia isn't? That Russia defending Donbass is of greater import than the Saudi slaughter in Yemen?

I don't like prejudice.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't know whether I would say that Russia is "more responsible for the world's ills" than any other nation, but based on the information available to me it is clear that Russia is currently a highly authoritarian society that does not tolerate any form of opposition or dissent and engages in actions that attack the sovereignty of other nations and engages in and supports significant human rights abuses.

What do you determine "highly authoritarian"? Would number of people incarcerated be an indicator? Perhaps per capita incarceration? How about, as Chomsky says, a voting system in which, however you vote, the Business Party gets in?

Or what about attacking the sovereignty of other nations? Any other countries that might have done that more than Russia, over the last thirty years?

Fortunately, as George Floyd demonstrated, Russia stands alone in engaging in human rights abuses...

The definition of "authoritarian" is, as I am sure you well know, "favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom."

Your argument seems to come down to the (implicitly stated) claim that the U.S. has problems and does bad things, so no one should criticize Russia. That is, quite frankly, not a persuasive argument, at least to me. I have no disagreement with the proposition that the U.S. has significant problems and has caused significant harm to the world, and I never have said elsewise. I am doing my best to address some of those problems, beginning with coming to terms with my own built-in prejudices and role as a beneficiary of a society strongly based in white supremacy. But that is really irrelevant to this discussion. Whether or not the U.S. deserves criticism is irrelevant to the question of whether Russia deserves criticism. You seem to question the sources of information that support the proposition that Russia has engaged in bad acts; that is well and good but you haven't provided any information that I find credible that indicate that those sources of information are inaccurate. So I will continue to judge as best I can.

How shall a man judge what to do in such times?’
‘As he ever has judged,’ said Aragorn. ‘Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man’s part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.’

And Julian Assange? Deserves all coming to him for... exposing state crimes. Pretty fortunate he chose a non-authoritarian country to be dragged out of his sanctuary from. Solitary confinement in Belmarsh? Luxury!

I'm not going to engage about Julian Assange. If you are truly interested in what I think of him and how much harm I believe he has caused (particularly to the institution of a free press), and how much I think he should face a fair trial for what appears at least on the surface to be very credible accusations of sexual assault, there is an old thread here dedicated to the topic that you should be able to locate with a search without much trouble.

[Beorhtnoth]

The definition of "authoritarian" is, as I am sure you well know, "favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom."

And how is strict obedience enforced? The authoritarian regime favours the stick over the carrot. What is more of a stick than depriving an individual of their liberty? Which country incarcerates more of its population than the rest of the world, in absolute terms and per capita? It isn't Russia, Voronwë

Your argument seems to come down to the (implicitly stated) claim that the U.S. has problems and does bad things, so no one should criticize Russia. That is, quite frankly, not a persuasive argument, at least to me.

No, my argument is that Russia is held to a different standard.

I have no disagreement with the proposition that the U.S. has significant problems and has caused significant harm to the world, and I never have said elsewise. I am doing my best to address some of those problems, beginning with coming to terms with my own built-in prejudices and role as a beneficiary of a society strongly based in white supremacy. But that is really irrelevant to this discussion. Whether or not the U.S. deserves criticism is irrelevant to the question of whether Russia deserves criticism.

I agree. I have never stated otherwise. But I hope you agree that criticism should be scrutinised.

You seem to question the sources of information that support the proposition that Russia has engaged in bad acts; that is well and good but you haven't provided any information that I find credible that indicate that those sources of information are inaccurate. So I will continue to judge as best I can.

That is fair. However, I was under the impression it is the prosecution that is tasked to prove its case, not the defence. I do not think the case for the prosecution, as presented so far, is compelling.

How shall a man judge what to do in such times?’
‘As he ever has judged,’ said Aragorn. ‘Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man’s part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.’

And Julian Assange? Deserves all coming to him for... exposing state crimes. Pretty fortunate he chose a non-authoritarian country to be dragged out of his sanctuary from. Solitary confinement in Belmarsh? Luxury!

I'm not going to engage about Julian Assange. If you are truly interested in what I think of him and how much harm I believe he has caused (particularly to the institution of a free press), and how much I think he should face a fair trial for what appears at least on the surface to be very credible accusations of sexual assault, there is an old thread here dedicated to the topic that you should be able to locate with a search without much trouble.

I don't care about Assange the man, but he isn't in Belmarsh for sexual assault.

[N.E. Brigand]

Here's a case where I think anti-Russian (and anti-Chinese) sentiments are being exploited:

Vaccine makers say IP waiver could hand technology to China and Russia (Financial Times)

As industry lobbying has escalated in Washington, companies have warned in private meetings with US trade and White House officials that giving up the intellectual property rights could allow China and Russia to exploit platforms such as mRNA, which could be used for other vaccines or even therapeutics for conditions such as cancer and heart problems in the future.

Oh no! If we give this information away, China or Russia might cure cancer!

(Now obviously if a Russian or Chinese institution uses technology provided to them for free by Western nations to eliminate some other disease, and then charges those nations for that life-saving information, that too would be wrong.)