It seems to me that the world and human motivations are much more complicated than we might suppose. Hence, I made the decision to speak today after looking at this thread yesterday. So I will share some of my thoughts, although at the beginning I must admit that I do not think politics is my forte. Perhaps even the opposite. This is one of the areas that I least explore, nevertheless empathy, philosophy, logic and argument theory are topics in which I feel much better, so what I will write will be related to it.
Yesterday I devoted to analyzing the conflict from different perspectives. I would like to share a few observations.
I have noticed that the vast majority of Western media are completely unanimous. I mean Polish and French news channels, BBC, CNN etc. I was looking for programs or articles presenting the situation from various points of view, but I did not find any. There was actually only one narration: “Putin is a psychopath who wants to destroy the world”. Everything that was shown in the mainstream media was remarkably homogeneous. If there were any differences of views, they concerned only various kinds of subtleties, but the axiom was one: “Russia is evil”.
So I decided to look at the Russian press and I must admit that the articles I found there I perceived as showing a slightly wider context. There is a lot of talk in Russia about how Putin's actions are perceived by the West. In the West, Russia's motives are usually ignored. Dialogue does not exist.
Several of the articles I read were cited in the post:
Civil War in Ukraine: Western Empire vs Russia
At the same time, translations of articles written from the point of view of the mainstream media also appear in the Russian press. One example is the article that can be found at this link:
Москва десятки лет предостерегала Запад от расширения НАТО — MSNBC о причинах ввода российских войск на Украину — ИноТВ
Here is the original one:
Opinion | Russia is attacking Ukraine. Here's why Putin pulled the trigger.
In one of the articles on sott.net you can also find:
As I already said, Putin is pragmatic and ruthless. Putin was criticised also for the fact that he didn't give the order to the Russian Air Force in Syria to down the missiles of the western coalition and to destroy the carriers of these missiles. You simply do not know Putin - if he did not give the order, then it means that he considers it to still be inexpedient.
If this step will be expedient, if Putin will consider it to be useful for Russia, then he will give this order without hesitation, with his quiet and inexpressive voice. If Putin will consider the destruction of all NATO countries, with the US at the head, to be expedient and useful for Russia, then he will give such an order - the NATO countries will disappear.
If Putin will consider liquidating the "fifth column" in Russia, as well as all liberal and communist movements, to be useful and reasonable, then it will be done - quickly, accurately, and ruthlessly.
So who you are, "comrade Putin"? And who sent you to Russia, literally at the "last moment"? When it already seemed that Russia died and disappears from the world map! So who you are, the saviour of Russia? Will we have answers one day?
Who knows? Perhaps in 20 years it will be declassified.
Here is the source:
Russia under Putin's guidance : What is it that doesn't satisfy you, comrade communists? -- Sott.net
This is obviously only someone's opinion, but I think none of us can be absolutely sure about what is actually going on in the minds of the politicians involved in this conflict.
Another interesting article can be found here:
"Нельзя унижать Россию и не заплатить при этом большую цену". «Le Figaro» прозревает.
And there, among others:
Возникает вопрос, как бросить объективный взгляд на современную Россию без того, чтобы услужливо не воспроизвести взгляд американцев, которые до сих пор не могут избавиться от стремления постоянно расширять зону своего влияния и которые, будем до конца откровенны, мечтают зажать и окружить России, не отдавая себе отчет в том, нельзя унижать великую страну и не заплатить при этом большую цену?
Иногда хочется себя просить, принимают ли американцы хоть немного в расчет психологию других народов? Или они, по совершенно непонятной причине, продолжают верить, что вся планета только и мечтает, как бы воспроизвести их модель обществ, так же, как в это верили в начале 2000 годов те, кого мы сейчас называем неоконсерваторами.
А как бы США реагировали, если бы Канада (напоминаю, что автор статьи канадец - Баск) вдруг решила отдалиться от них и присоединиться к альянсу под руководством Москвы? Мы помним реакцию американцев в ходе Карибского кризиса 1962 года. Каждая великая страна претендует на свою естественную зону влияния, у каждой империи своя концепция ближнего зарубежья.
Некоторые страны, чтобы они там не думали, и даже если им это не по нраву, обречены на определенную форму геополитического и культурного балансирования. Им приходится вести себя так, как позволяет их влиятельный сосед, не унижаясь, но и без враждебности. Это и есть условие их независимости…
А европейцы, они-то дают себе отчет, где они географически находятся?
That is, in free translation:
The question arises how to cast an objective look at modern Russia without helpfully not reproducing the look of the Americans, who still cannot get rid of the desire to constantly expand their zone of influence and who, let's be completely frank, dream of pinching and encircling Russia without giving up. Do you realize that you cannot humiliate a great country and not pay a big price?
Sometimes you want to ask yourself, do Americans take into account the psychology of other peoples at least a little? Or they, for no apparent reason, continue to believe that the entire planet only dreams of reproducing their model of societies, just as those we now call neoconservatives believed in the early 2000s.
And how would the United States react if Canada (I remind you that the author of the article is a Canadian - Basque) suddenly decided to move away from them and join the alliance led by Moscow? We remember the reaction of the Americans during the Caribbean crisis of 1962. Each great country claims its own natural zone of influence, each empire has its own concept of the near abroad.
Some countries, whatever they think, and even if they don't like it, are doomed to some form of geopolitical and cultural balancing act. They have to behave as their influential neighbor allows, without humiliation, but also without hostility. This is the condition of their independence...
And the Europeans, do they realize where they are geographically located?
Turning to the psychological issues raised in the above article, it is indeed worth realizing that there is a kind of "psychology of the nation". A nation is obviously not a set of identical elements, but there are certain tendencies or desires.
Today the USA openly criticizes Russia, but when looking at historical facts, it is very easy to accuse the USA of even more inhumane activities. However, the USA receives understanding from its allies, because it always explains its actions (It is also a fact, however, that the USA often fabricates explanations (as in Iraq) and pushes its allies in various ways, mostly economic, thus it supposedly explains, but the explanations can be questioned). Meanwhile, Russia also explains its actions, and in this situation they may be even more justified (although I would still be far from certainty), but there is an effect that hinders any dialogue.
Apart from the fact that I am convinced that some form of propaganda exists on both sides, the famous confirmation bias is also at stake.
In the English Wikipedia we read:
Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior
beliefs or values. People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes. The effect is strongest for desired outcomes, for
emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs. Confirmation bias cannot be eliminated entirely, but it can be managed, for example, by education and training in
critical thinking skills.
Confirmation bias is a broad construct covering a number of explanations. Biased search for information, biased interpretation of this information, and biased memory recall, have been invoked to explain four specific effects:
attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence)
belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false)
the
irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series)
illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).
A series of
psychological experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In general, current explanations for the observed biases reveal the limited human capacity to process the complete set of information available, leading to a failure to investigate in a neutral, scientific way.
Flawed
decisions due to confirmation bias have been found in political, organizational, financial and scientific contexts. These biases contribute to
overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. For example, confirmation bias produces systematic errors in scientific research based on
inductive reasoning (the gradual accumulation of supportive evidence). Similarly, a police detective may identify a suspect early in an investigation, but then may only seek confirming rather than disconfirming evidence. A medical practitioner may prematurely focus on a particular disorder early in a diagnostic session, and then seek only confirming evidence. In
social media, confirmation bias is amplified by the use of
filter bubbles, or "algorithmic editing", which display to individuals only information they are likely to agree with, while excluding opposing views.
Another important point that I would like to mention, however, is also human suffering. I suppose there are real reasons why Russia has taken these and no other actions, but I am not convinced that this situation could not have been resolved in a slightly different way. Nevertheless, I do not know enough facts to make a substantive statement on this subject, although I believe that the facts that I would have to know to make such a statement with full conviction are known only by the politicians directly involved in the conflict.
On the other hand the civilian population is generally not to blame for what is happening, and these people are suffering. These people are injured, they die, they lose their possessions (of course this has happened very often in armed conflicts in the past as well).
I teach at a Polish school. Today I talked to two Ukrainian students whose families remain in Ukraine. Both students are deeply despairing about the situation. I am aware of the fact that both of these girls know only part of information, they are used to some propaganda, but it does not mean that we should not feel sorry for them. Even if the long-term effects of current events prove to be positive, it is not necessarily felt to the same degree by everyone. People have different interests. People have different dreams.
So what is it really like? What is true and what is a lie, or rather what is right and what is wrong or who is right?
I think it's extremely important to understand that usually no situation is black or white. There are many people involved in this situation, many different minds, whose interests are not necessarily consistent with each other.
It seems to me that Russia had good reasons to attack Ukraine or serious reasons to do so just in case, but in my opinion it will take much longer for me to be able to say for sure.
Meanwhile, sometimes I observe people who, on the basis of a few messages or argument to authority, are inclined to adopt a certain point of view. Then they make the confirmation bias over and over again.
I think we should be as careful in our judgments as we can.
theintercept.com
thecradle.co
www.asiaone.com
