I'm not speaking for Joe here but I think he means the guy is just swinging from his 'America' hip and therefore his biases come through loud and clear clouding everything he thinks and says. I have to admit Woodsman I started to listen to the link on your suggestion but turned off after 20 mins with a bad taste in my mouth. He clearly only understands the benchmark of a tactically well fought war as a smash and destroy all before you, where only the rightful master USA shows the world how to do it 'proper' - by pulverizing countries infrastructure and killing millions so as to bring democracy. The low collateral damage, high risk based model being followed by Russia he just doesn't get and his contempt for Russian forces based on a tactic he just cannot grasp plus his obvious falling for Ukraine/western propaganda about the quality of troops/hardware on the ground defies logic. I thought it was basically BS from first to last, especially his claims about his ability to interpret genuine from fake vids which he clearly can't by how he chooses to selective interpret so many indicators. Intrigued to know what you hear that I don't?
Well.., I'll try to examine more closely my thinking. If this comes across as rationalization, then it may be that in part, but I'm not feeling particularly defensive, so I think this is pretty close to honest:
I've never fought in a war, never been shot at or suffered combat stresses of any kind. -Nor have I had to trek around in battle fields dealing with all the many challenges of serving under military command structures. -I find people who have, perforce see the world through a lens of experience which is quite alien to my own, and I value their perspectives, especially when it comes to war.
This particular fellow is also unique in that, unlike the regular soldier who might not be very good at communicating his thoughts, is a very effective speaker and has a quick mind. That's less common. Often, with the soldiers I've met, it takes work to find out how their minds function and what thoughts are in them, especially if they have suffered trauma.
Of added interest, (and the reason I originally began following this guy's work on YouTube some years back), is that in his second career as a comic book writer, he has also spent much of the past decade traveling through the gauntlet of psychopathic 'cancel culture' in his media profession in a very modern and extreme manner, including lawsuits, organized character assassination and all manner of tribulations, similar in flavor to those which have been experienced here in the past. He made near daily reports about these experiences and has over time gained an expert-level of insight into the matter of ponerology, though using a different language and knowledge base. -He's also not a follower of Jordan Peterson, and so has developed what might be called a
third approach to language and comprehension of the subject.
Now, the C's have noted the importance of not relying on single sources of information, and I agree. Different perspectives on the same material provides contrasting insights which illuminate the whole.
This particular fellow's perspectives on war provide insight I have not seen here; that of an on-the-ground soldier who served in a foreign country which is undergoing the Western Treatment, so to speak. Whether his fact-accuracy rating is high or low is almost immaterial beside that primary value. Many simple ideas like, "Proper air support isn't a fighter jet buzzing the ground. It's a speck in the sky," were things I'd never heard before, and can now add to the pot.
One of the strengths/failings of the SOTT research team is that it tends to paint an academic unipolar view of reality. This is normal, largely unavoidable and even healthy in many ways, but on the con side, it can also tend towards narrative bias and blind spots. -The perspective on China a year or two ago, offered an interesting example of this learning exercise; where there was a strong push by members to articulate a counter to the dangerous Western media narrative, but in doing so tended to itself swing away from what I consider baseline reality. I think we managed that learning curve fairly well and over time have arrived at a general assessment falling nearer to Objective Reality. This is the nature of healthy discussion.
In the present case, SOTT has a years long investment in the "Putin as heroic figure" concept, and not without good reason. It should be noted that some beliefs go so far as to suggest that Putin is indeed a reincarnation of past great leaders, including, if I haven't misread things, connections even to Christ. (Ideas, which indeed, I find compelling and give weight to).
However, being flawed humans, as we are all, it would be the height of hubris to believe that we are immune to the cognitively corrupting forces of bias, and egoic attachment having invested in ideas of such immense power.
So it is, I think, very important to not just
allow consideration of viewpoints which do not fit into a narrative we might expect and prefer to see, but indeed to
seek them out, if only to look at information which is new and might test the theories.
I can't, however, say I was posting in great deliberation or intent with these thoughts at the top of my mind; I just liked that he had perspectives which are uncommonly available around here and expressed them well, and figured this would be an appropriate place to look at them.
He may be wrong in his takes, but so what? The picture isn't set yet, we're not arguing flat v round earth or moon landings. Discounting information on a rapidly developing subject based on bias or strong emotions isn't wise. If this fellow is wrong, then that's good to know. But frankly, I'm still collecting and sifting my data. I can't say with certainty much of anything at the moment. Did Putin inherit a low-morale army machine with rotted 1980's materiel or is the Russian military really a highly competent and well-equipped force? Did he make a mistake, or is he playing 5D chess? Or is everything going as expected without any hitches, and we just don't know? Is the guy I posted simply not versed in propaganda or are some of his takes valid?
In the end, his summation wasn't one of being either pro Ukraine or pro Russia, but rather, (paraphrased),
"I don't know WHAT is going on; this is the weirdest dang war I've ever seen. Things are crazy, everybody is lying about everything, and the Ukraine leader voiced Paddington Bear. Thanks for watching."
So.., that's my thinking on my thinking.
www.foxnews.com
