1) Roscomnadzor bans Twitter in Russia.

2) Russian embassy posts on Twitter claiming Mariupol hospital bombing was faked.

It's like:

Should we ban Twitter in Russia? Yes.

Should we keep posting Russian propaganda on Twitter? Also yes.

Well, that propaganda is for foreign audiences.

This is 100% consistent. You can believe the game is rigged, but still be forced to play.

But my point was along the lines: Kremlin's bans Twitter since they can't control it in Russia (e.g. hard to remove content or prosecute the users.)

And they still keep using it despite all their recent "fuck you West" rhetoric.

> Should we ban Twitter in Russia? Yes.

> Should we keep posting Russian propaganda on Twitter? Also yes.

That's entirely consistent. It just means (from their perspective) Twitter is for externally-facing propaganda.

IIRC, nationalist Chinese diplomats, the Global Times editor, etc. are all active on Twitter for the same reason.

I think the reason historically here is that there is a prohibition on the CIA disseminating propaganda in the US, IIRC.

Just like Lavrov yesterday claimed Russia hasn't actually invaded Ukraine.

Putin's attempt to annex Ukraine has been very damaging to Russia's economy and (I assume) its conventional military strength. Putin's actions also placed the rest of Europe on high alert.

So even if Putin manages to secure control of eastern Ukraine, I assume it would take many years before Russia is strong enough to attempt another expansion. And I expect nearby countries would use that time very productively.

1) stop (which in this situation would mean admitting that it was a bad idea/defeat, and almost certainly lead to Putin’s death and the collapse of the gov’t)

Or

2) double down and switch to a military economy, using outside sanctions as proof that they were right and everyone else WAS out to get the country.

Guess which one they seem to be doing?

And if they successfully switch to us vs them’ing the entire world, they can’t let peace happen or folks will start thinking. They need a constant enemy.

First claims that there are no weapons labs, then claims that the things attacked aren't weapons labs.

It's possible for details to be lost in translation, and for people to make mistakes

I’m half convinced they see the entire country as “Azov Battalion” and whatever they shell will be given the same excuse.

When Crimea was annexed, there were many articles on Azov Battalion and the implications that it was the best thing (capable fighters who will defend the country) and the worst thing (they're Fascists) and how that would play out if Russia invaded.

Since the invasion, I haven't seen any articles on the topic and the US media have gone suddenly silent on their involvement. I find it kind of odd considering there is such a preoccupation with Nazi's in this country, they would just ignore this part of the narrative.

Another point about you mentioning The Guardian- I've always found before, specially so during this conflict, British media presents comparatively balanced narrative than American ones. Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" is being staged right in front of our eyes.

There are biolabs in almost every country. Almost every university will have one for example.

https://www.state.gov/the-kremlins-allegations-of-chemical-a... is the full US government statement. Which part do you think is inaccurate?

Like what exactly is the claim here about that those labs were doing?

Or do you just think any biolab should automatically be assumed to be working on bioweapons? (And that we should ban all biolabs worldwide I guess?)

They've claimed, like you, that the labs were just general biolabs you'd find at any university, and anything related to WMD is just Russian "disinformation."

But they've also claimed that these labs were old Soviet-era weapons research labs the DOD was helping to close down.

So which is it?

If they're closing down old weapons labs, why'd it take 17 years? If they're not weapons labs, why are they so afraid (as Nuland from State Dep't claimed) of the Russians seizing or destroying them?

If they're just research labs for the good of humanity, the gov't needs to explain to us taxpayers why they continue building up infrastructure and subsidizing research and jobs in foreign countries with money borrowed from China and / or printed up, which is now exacerbating inflation. How many underemployed PHDs in the US could be doing some research here at home with the hundreds of millions of dollars we've just handed out to Ukraine?

This is a good example of why government spending should be constrained. Fiat currency allows crazy spending and financing endless war. In the medium and long term this harms everyone. In the short term, bio-researchers get grants and toys to play with, and war profiteers get to make more munitions.

It takes 17 years to shut down Frankenstein labs because it costs government nothing to print funds.

Why would the ukrainians destroy the soviet labs just to build new ones?

It does seem prudent to destroy dangerous substances that might get involved in combat situations. There is also the possibility of false flag operations.

Depending on which way the Chinese go with this we could end up with covid was created by the USA in a Ukrainian lab and then sent to China via migratory birds.... which would tie things up in a neat little bow. (Edit: should mention I'm not saying that's what happened - but I'm interested to see if it'll be claimed to have happened)

Similarly, theres no practical difference between a military and civilian coffee shop, therefore all coffee shops are proper military targets

Good or bad decision?

Still for now getting a VPN isn't that hard.

Simple as that.

1 is for in, 2 is for out

"Russian restaurant owners in the U.S. say they face harassment over Ukraine war"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-russia-restaurants-puti...

"Russian businesses in U.S. face threats, vandalism over invasion"

https://www.axios.com/russian-businesses-us-vandalism-threat...

Social media plays a role here.