What about all the misleading news (i.e., positive spin) in the Western world's "free press" that lead to many believing that Ukraine had a chance for a counter offensive (against even basic military thinking and logic). Didn't that lead to unnecessary suffering and deaths during war time (vs say an alternative, beefing up defense lines)?

That's just a random recent example. Another older one is the the media going nuts over "WMDs", leading to an unnecessary US invasion and millions of deaths. My point being is that even free press can spread bad ideas and narratives - in fact, it frequently does. And those ideas should be able to be challenged, at any time, by any source.

I do not understand how supporting Ukraine can lead to more suffering, there is a long history of implerialism causing suffering so there is a rather large opposition against it in the west. What Russia does to Ukraine is pretty gruesome, it is not even considered a country in russian intellectual discourse that is a bad sign.

When we talk about the press and politics these kind of cynical tones are not helpfull. The WMD issue was heavily discussed and debated. The same as Gaza is now, it is interesting what issues manage to be changed by public opinion and what that really is, this is not only an issue with the press. People and groups tend to think that their own opinions should matter, that is only true if you managed to get enough people to care about your opinions and even then you might need a referendum.

I’m not talking about supporting Ukraine vs not, but about wishful thinking propagated by media that led thousands of unfortunate Ukrainian souls into heavily mined traps. And that’s my point, media spread a narrative that was at odds with expert advice and basic military strategy (there’s mathematical equations about force required, etc for these types of operations that was ignored). That idea should have been able to been challenged without accusations of being in bed with Putin. We all saw the aftermath. Bad ideas, even from the good guys, can be deadly.

Are you saying Ukrainian military base their strategy on media propaganda rather than basic military strategy? Why would they do that?

That's a good question that has a lot of people scratching their heads. My best guess is top Ukrainian leadership are staffed by a lot of former mass media people, including the president himself (well, until May 20th when his term ends).

So you have enough insider information about the decision making process to know they plan the strategy based on media propaganda rater than military intelligence. But you dont have information about why.

> I do not understand how supporting Ukraine can lead to more suffering

You're not responding to the right question at all. You're being asked about the Westerns media not covering the difficulties, losses, and bleak future of the war - justified it seems by the need to support Ukraine.

what a starange statement about the counterattack, as if there was a definite knowledge about the future and the Western propaganda suppressed it.

They attempted at taking back their own lands and they failed. The same people claiming to know the future also used to claim that Russia would not attack and later that Ukraine will fall in matter of days.

Maybe just stop listening to fortune tellers.

Exactly, I prefer to listen to experts and the experts were saying it was a bad idea (esp without air power). It was news media and politicians (ie, not military experts) that cheered it on.

It's amazing how you believe that militaries and politicians operate without experts and there're experts on the social media/ tradmedia who came together analysed the situation, came to a definitive prediction about the outcome of a military operation but the western media surpassed those experts and as a result politicians and military engaged in a futile counterattack.

Fascinating mental model on how the world works.

That’s exactly what happened, yeah. And warfare/foreign policy is not the only issue they gaslight us on.

You're being very disrespectful in this conversation. I was GP has provided links and references when they made their comment, but they are certainly correct. The way the conflict is covered in US media makes it seem like Ukraine is wily superhero making good progress against the bumbling Russians. This does not reflect the current reality or future prospects in the conflict.

Apologies if I sounded disrespectful, I’m just fascinated that people can conceptualize the world in this way.

Pretty sure the actual world leading experts on Ukraine’s situation are the ones making battlefield decisions in Ukraine. Like the other commenter said, what a fascinating model of the world you’ve built here.

Holding a non-narrative driven view might be fascinating for some, I suppose.

You are literally constructing a narrative that western news media makes the decisions on the Ukrainian battlefield.

Yes, it is a major contributing factor. PR wins help with public support for funding. This situation/topic is not the only situation they intentionally manipulate public option on.

Lots of narrative here buddy

Lot of books, buddy. You might want to start with this one: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12617.Manufacturing_Cons...

I'm pretty sure that "western news anchors produce an expected-to-fail counteroffensive in Ukraine" would even make Chomsky roll his eyes.

Your explanation is not even internally coherent. A successful counteroffensive is a PR win. An unsuccessful one is a PR loss, obviously.

His thoughts on this conflict are a simple Google search away.

Please link to any source in which he makes the argument you're making. I looked and couldn't find any.

Your argument is dismissible on its own merits and Chomsky believing it as well won't change that, but I am curious if he does.

>I’m also quite concerned about the Western world adopting the Chinese style of governance but censorship at wartime is very different from censorship at peace time

If you allow this then the government will just forever find excuses to be at war.

We live in a broken world, there are no perfect solutions. But I would argue that staying alive comes as a primary priority.

Ah yes the "we must kill them, to stay alive" narrative. It has never been abused in the whole history of mankind.

What are you even talking about? Of course those attacked must kill the attackers to stay alive.

Is italy at war? I must have missed the memo.

It’s not at war, that’s why I don’t support such a thing.

It isn't and shouldn't be different in war time either. If you allow this exception, you will just always be at war.

Censorship for security reasons isn't a new concept.

Not at all, you can't be at war all the time as people and ammo is limited resource. Just stick tight to definitions and observe for technicality BS. I.e. don't take "War on drugs" as a war, don't assume you are at war when the countries no longer fight but technically never signed a peace agreement etc.

I think I made it pretty clear that the exception for censorship is only when people are actively killing each other and this is because killing happens fast and its irreversible, therefore tolerances to tackle spread of false information is too small to be allowed.

Not the war on drugs, but certainly the "war on terror". This is not clinging to definitions, it is political reality that such measures would also be undertaken in peace time, any justification would suffice. Who do you believe would draw the line here anyway?

Also, especially in times of war, there is a heightened interest of people getting news and independent reporting. Any other news isn't worth the read.

Yeah, just don’t fall for that kind of BS.