Kari Lake and Election Denial

I occassionally watch Fox News for an opposing opinion, which is where I heard about Kari Lake. I am pretty sure I don't agree with her on most issues, but her being questioned about "election denial" was very interesting. One thing I learned is that one needs to use the same vocabulary when discussing an issue. If "election denial" is a term meaning that there is some sort of conspiracy to steal an election, then it makes things look like anyone who points out the fact that US elections are anything other than free and fair and held on a secret ballot sound cray-cray.

On the other hand, one of the essential principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is:

Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. . . . The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."

Article 21, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

The United States and other western nations spent a good part of the 20th Century pushing these principles on other countries, yet the US has moved further and further from this principle since the end of the Cold War.

The funny thing is that the election denial comes from the results of the electoral college and the fact that US elections are not "democratic".  Bernie Sanders would probably be president if that were the case.

And people would probably love him. Just remember that Vermont is pretty much a "red state", and I mean that in the ass backward US sense where "red" is conservative. Otherwise, it might make sense that they have a socialist representing them. Yet another thing which gets lost in the US media. 

Which is another thing Kari Lake attacks.

The reality is that the US needs serious election reform, yet it won't get it if it obfuscates the issues. The Electoral College is problematic, yet no one is willing to address it. Point out that Trump won the election despite losing the popular vote and his supporters aren't upset. I won't get into the machinations of the 2020 elections, but they are another glaring example of the need for election reform in the US. Had Barack Obama won an election with only 23% of the vote, I am sure that the people defending the "Constitution" would realise what an Amendment actually means and that the founders were well willing to use that process when the Constitution proved to need tweaking.

After all, the 12th Amendment was enacted in 1803 to reform the electoral college after a heavily contested election (Election of 1800).

Maybe what is needed is to have some serious, adult discussions about the issues facing the United States instead of tossing ad hominems.

See also: https://www.bitchute.com/video/P5ayS6uzV5c6/

Pew Charitable Trust on Cryptocurrencies

46% of Americans who have invested in cryptocurrency say it’s done worse than expected

Among the 16% of U.S. adults who say they have ever invested in, traded or used a cryptocurrency such as bitcoin or ether, 46% report their investments have done worse than they expected. By comparison, 15% of these Americans say their investments have done better than they expected; 31% say they’ve worked out about the same as they expected. The overall share of U.S. crypto users is unchanged since September 2021. 

• About half of Americans have heard about NFTs, but few have ever bought one

 

Three Arrows on "America's Coming Weimar Moment"

One of the reasons I Demexited in 2016 was that the Democratic Party really has no ideology: despite what Fox News and other rightwing media outlets would like to pretend. On the other hand, the Republicans have firmly planted themselved in the right. Had there been a real opposition, the US wouldn't be in the situation it is.

I strongly believe that there will be a radical reshaping of US Political system since it really isn't a Democratic Republic, or even the promised republic, by any stretch of the imagination. The founders knew there would have to be systemic changes, but the system has stagnated such that it is a one party system.

Three Arrows has a really super analysis of how the system will collapse: and it isn't from the duopoly kayfabe. 

Which is what Trump was really talking about, Not "Kovfefe".

Cut the distractions and work for change.

Is Crypto Really Going To Crash? (Yes) | Robert Reich

I'm not sure what to think about Robert Reich these days. OK, I have always liked him.

On the other hand, he is pretty much saying the same thing I have. Not sure if I would call this a Ponzi Scheme. I would go more with "pump and dump".

But Bob is usually pretty good in his analyses.

Please give this a squiz since it is worth it.

He surprises me that he aligns himself with the Democrats: especially post-Bernie.

The Crypto Crisis

Cryptocurrencies and Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) remind me of the stereotypical scam of buying the Brooklyn Bridge. NFTs could actuallty put that scam into practise since they are a digital asset that represents real-world objects like art, music, in-game items and videos.

I've got an NFT of the Brooklyn Bridge: you want to buy it?

Something about fools and money anyone?

Anyway, there has been a Cryptocurrency crash which has become public with Bitcoin, the largest cryptocurrency by market value, having a recent fall of more than 72 percent since its November high.

There is a great article on this by Trevor Jackson in Dissent, The Crypto Crisis. This pretty much sums up the problems with Crypto Currencies:

[At one time,] there were about 19,000 cryptocurrencies in existence. By the time you read these words, many of them will have failed. If you have heard of only one cryptocurrency, it is almost certainly Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a decentralized peer-to-peer network with no single clearinghouse and no equivalent to a central bank or money-issuing authority. Bitcoin the platform issues currency units called “bitcoins,” whose value is determined by supply and demand on several different exchanges. There is no single price of bitcoin. Demand is driven by its use in transactions. Supply is determined through “mining”: using computer processing power to solve increasingly complicated math problems. The inventors of Bitcoin have consistently maintained that there will be a finite supply of bitcoins, alleviating the danger of inflation and creating instead an intentionally deflationary system. All transactions are anonymous, and bitcoins are held in a digital “wallet.” A bitcoin spent in a transaction is really a unique code and a series of past transactions of that code in a kind of digital ledger, known as the blockchain. Imagine if every dollar you spend came with a list of every past transaction that dollar had been used in, thereby proving that you obtained it legally. It’s a way to verify transactions while preserving anonymity. Once a transaction happens, notice of it is sent to the entire Bitcoin network, and all the “miners” in the system race to verify the ledger of past transactions. If you win the verification race, you are awarded with new bitcoins.

He then gets into how problematic the crypto currency system happens to be, which is very.

As I said, if you don't like Fiat Currencies, you should avoid crypto like the plague. Fiat currencies at least have something backing them up. Crypto isn't even a commodity based currency, which also have their problems.

Crypto is the commidity.

And it's one that only exists in cyberspace.

It's unconstitutional if the rationale is based solely upon religious or ethical considerations

Big points to Judge Mitch Perry of the Jefferson County Circuit Court in Kentucky for doing what should be done in regard to this debate:

His July 22 ruling extended that order, saying there is “a substantial likelihood” that the new abortion ban violates “the rights to privacy and self-determination” protected by the state constitution, the Associated Press reported. 

But he also assumed that the laws are based on sectarian doctrine. 

“The General Assembly is not permitted to single out and endorse the doctrine of a favored faith for preferred treatment,” Perry wrote. “By taking this approach, the bans fail to account for the diverse religious views of many Kentuckians whose faith leads them to take very different views of when life begins.”

Perry said there is “nothing in our laws or history that allows for such theocratic based policymaking.”

 Exactly. The First Amendment, Freedom of Religion, and Separation of Church and State are based on the fact that a lot of early Americans came here for religious freedom. In other words, not to have the government, or anybody else, tell them how to practise their relgious beliefs.

This also gets down to what pro-choice means:

Don't have an abortion if you are against them, but don't tell someone else what to do with their body.

The founders were for a secular society because they didn't want a bunch of Catholics telling them What the Fuck to do in regard to religion. 

The Catholics on the Supreme Court should admit to that fact.

See also:

• Judge blocks abortion bans saying they are based on religious doctrine
  

You say you want a revolution????

I often note that the Declaration of Independence is a historic document, not a legal one, under the US Constitutional Framework. Per the US Constitution itself:

Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So, mentions of inalienable rights, all men being created equal, and so forth really don't carry much legal weight.

That's because the Declaration of Independence was written as a justification for why the US should be independent from Britain. And in light of current events, it's full of bullshit.

Take, for example, these two complaints:

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

One of the main complaints of the people drafting this document was that the unelected, government in Britain was abrogating laws made by the colonial legislatures.

Or more concisely, unelected officials were taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws,

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

In short, the unelected officials wearing robes were destroying popularly enacted laws.

The gets to the topic of judicial deference, which also means that judges are umpires, not legislators.

There are reasons of public safety and good public policy WHY some laws should be on the books.

Also, there is the rule of law, which seems to have disappeared under the "conservative" atmosphere in the US.

On the other hand, the US was founded on the concept that unelected officials shouldn't be messing with laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

On the other hand, the tories pointed out that they would rather be ruled by one tyrant a thousand miles away than a thousand tyrants a mile away.

Oh, and since I mention the Second Amendment, these were complaints made by the colonists:

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

Nothing about private arms.

What don't you understand about "Shall not be infringed?"

 What don't you get about taking shit out of context?????????

Seriously! If you are only going to look at a part of the Second Amendment, then why not just use the bit about domestic violence to make it a federal issue?

The Second Amendment was obsolete before the ink was dry on the Constitution,which if you clowns would know if you would actually do some serious research and look into the issue instead of taking shit out of context. Gun fetishists like to quote George Mason, Virginia delegate to the Constitutional Convention, who said:

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.

Now, if you read the entire statement from the transcript you see:

"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of people.... Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject to militia duty."  3 Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution at 425-426. (J. Elliot ed., 1836).

Actually, people were getting out of serving in the militia during the War for Independence and it was a burden for the average person to have to serve. Look up the Morristown Rebellion by the Pennsylvania Line.

Anyway, Mason had a drastically different view of what exactly the Second Amendment was supposed to do and it wasn't to make sure that any dickhead who wanted to could walk down the street carrying a concealed weapon (BTW, carrying concealed weapons was considered something done by criminals, not respectable people in them days). Here is his proposal for the "right" from the above convention:

That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the Military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power.

So, do me a favour, and unless you are actively suggesting a drastic reorganisation of the US military to be what Switzerland once had, please don't say you support the Second Amendment. Or as Joseph Story pointed out:

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights. ( Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833. Section 1890)

The Second Amendment fell victim to desuetude long ago.

OK, Feminists, now's your time!!!

 The word of the day is once again desuetude:

In law, desuetude is a doctrine that causes statutes, similar legislation, or legal principles to lapse and become unenforceable by a long habit of non-enforcement or lapse of time. It is what happens to laws that are not repealed when they become obsolete.

And it’s time the Supreme Court owned up that the Second Amendment has fallen victim to desuetude. It would be a truly conservative act to make that admission.  Here is Judge Robert Bork (The Tempting of America (1990)) on this issue:

“There is a problem with laws (which are not enforced). They are kept in the code books as precatory statements, affirmations of moral principle. It is quite arguable that this is an improper use of law, most particularly of criminal law, that statutes should not be on the books if no one intends to enforce them. It has been suggested that if anyone tried to enforce a law that had moldered in disuse for many years, the statute should be declared void by reason of desuetude or that the defendant should go free because the law had not provided fair warning.”

The Second Amendment relates to a framework of national defence which died out probably before the ink was dry on the Constitution, which is something I've gone into ad nauseum.

 But if the game of the day is to take obsolete sections of the US Constitution, I say let's take the domestic violence clause out and let it run havoc! Full text of Article IV, Section 4:

“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.”

Scalia demonstrated ignorance of the law when he said:

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

Actually, you dumbfuck, that is precisely what you should have done if you didn't want to make the US system of justice into a blatant joke (it already was a joke).

On the other hand, there are loads of domestic violence victims who could benefit by the reinterpretation of the Domestic violence clause.

And it's not even an amendment!

Let havoc reign in the halls of "justice"!

Putin is a definite narcissist.

Narcissists have a hard time admitting defeat or that they were wrong. Argue with my ex-wife is you don't believe me. Anyway, the drama seems to have toned down. So back to the Russian overt narc.

People are beginning to believe the Ukrainians when they releast the casualties and losses for the Russian army.

Ukrainian kids grow up hearing how their parents, grandparents, and Greatgrandparents fought the Germans and the Russians. It's the home of the partisan Otriads from Defiance. Of course, they are kicking Russian ass.

As for Nato expansion, all the former Eastern Block countries get it. The current spate of war crimes in Ukraine show why the West should have been doing all it could to supply the Ukrainians in the war to save their homeland.

Chernobyl is a good defence

 OK, getting back on my feet after leaving my narc wife, which is something that Doggone has been waiting for me to do for the last 12 years!

Anyway, I mentioned Chernobyl in a previous post. It seems that:

Several hundred Russian soldiers were forced to hastily withdraw from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine after suffering “acute radiation sickness” from contaminated soil, according to Ukrainian officials.

The Russians really effed this one! https://www.thedailybeast.com/russian-troops-suffer-acute-radiation-sickness-after-digging-chernobyl-trenches

SSDD 2

The Russians are pretty much back at "Go" despite all their losses. They have rolled back their surrender demands, but the Ukrainians aren't calling it quits until the bully has been smacked down.

SSDD

More videos of demoralised Russian soldiers (Hi, Mitch, watch this space), yet no Russian surrender.

Putin is doing a better job of trashing Russia than what he has been alleged to have done in the US.

BTW, my cousin is a medic in the Kharkiv region and doing OK.

Family issues have me occupied.

The disaster which is Russia's war in Ukraine continues

And they are getting the shit pounded out of them. I could get into the reasons, but it was a failure before it began,.

Any hope of keeping the Donbass and Crimea for Russia are gone. Of course, that situation should never have happened, but the Obama administration let them happen. No real attempts to embargo Russia were made.

Some companies still aren't complying. Russia needs to be squeezed economically, even if it means discomfort for Europeans. What they would go through by having to turn down the hear and cut back on driving isn't as bad as what Ukrainians are going through.

Russia "reframes" its war goals in Ukraine

Which is a way to get around that the "special military operation" has been a massive failure for Russia.

A joke from Moscow: "According to Putin the special military operation is really a conflict btw Russia and NATO about World dominance. Whats the situation now?" "Russia has lost 15000 troops, 6 generals, 500 tanks, 3 ships, 100 planes and 1000 trucks. NATO hasn't arrived yet."

Moscow could have mounted a much more limited offensive if capturing the whole of Donbass had been the objective from the start. That would have eliminated the effort and losses involved in invading Ukraine from the north, east and south. 

"Obviously they have completely failed in everything they've set out to do and so now they are redefining what the purpose is so they can declare victory," said Ben Hodges, a former commander of U.S. army forces in Europe who now works for the Center for European Policy Analysis. "Clearly they do not have the ability to continue sustained large-scale offensive operations... Their logistics problems have been apparent to everybody, they've got serious manpower issues and the resistance has been way beyond anything they could have possibly imagined."

Another problem for Russia was that the "liberation" was unwanted as evidenced by peaceful resistance. I wanted to do a piece on the Bayraktar TB2 drone, but that has been covered very well. On the other hand, here we have protesters in Svobody Square in Kherson singing the Byraktar Song:

Here we have a crowd of residents of Russian-occupied Slavutych in northern Ukraine forcing Russian troops to run with just their chants of “fuck off”, “go home, murderers”, and “glory to ukraine” despite being shot at.

So, what we are seeing is poorly equipped troops in an ill-conceived action meeting resistance both non-violent and military with predictrable results.

And the Ukrainian Minstry of Defence provides the information if you want to steal a Russian tank:

https://sprotyv.mod.gov.ua/portfolio/t-72/

Russians judge Kyiv "too difficult". Kherson back in Ukrainian Control.

 

From Le Monde online

Nothing like being away from your computer to see this when the browser opens up. I would have liked to see Russia unconditionally surrendered. Judging Kyiv "too difficult" is a bit of a let down, but still funny.  The Azov Batallion will show them Donbass is "trop dur".

 

Oh, and another city is back in Ukrainian control. 

 I was predicting mutinies in the Russian army. They've begun in earnest.

As I keep saying, waiting for the Russians to surrender is like:

 

  

Русский военный корабль, иди нахуй

 

 And people believe these clowns could have swung the 2016 election!

Russians give up, you're getting beaten badly.

I keep waking up expecting to hear that Russia has finally surrendered, but Putain has doubled down on his losing bet. They are actually hurting their military while helping Ukraine build theirs.

As I keep saying, waiting for the Russian surrender is like:

Russia's War on Ukraine enters its Second Month and they really should give up

The problem is that the Russians would have to make serious concessions if they surrender. They aren't in a position to ask for much as their military is being destroyed. I've heard it said that Putain would rather start World War III than admit his army was beaten by the Hostomel Territorial Defence Corps.

Seriously. In a virtual address to NATO, President Zelensky said that he has one demand. “After such a war against Russia… Please, never, never again tell us that our army does not meet NATO standards.” Zelensky added “But NATO has yet to show what the Alliance can do to save people. To show that this is truly the most powerful defense association in the world. And the world is waiting. And Ukraine is very much waiting, for real action."

Western sources need to start taking Ukraine seriously because people who have trained with the Ukrainian Army prior to the war have only praise.  Money and supplies are nice, but they need to be on the ground: not on paper.

I am also amazed that Western news sources are not reporting that the Russian forces have been pretty much contained around Kyiv. A month into Russia’s war against Ukraine - Kyiv, Kharkiv, Odesa and other major cities are under the Ukrainian flag. That means the war will move to the Eastern part which is where the worst fighting has been for most of this war.

It's good that the pressure is off Kyiv, but things are really bad in the Eastern War zone. The people in the occupied territories are being mistreated by Russian forces. There are documented cases of War crimes. Also, the Russians are admitting they are not doing well in communications intercepted by Ukrainian military intelligence.

It's amusing when people say that Ukraine should be thankful for the aid from Western Countries. While nice on paper and good for PR, it hasn't really reached Ukraine.

The situation is pretty much the same as it was during the time of the OUN-UPA: Ukrainians are fighting on their own with little outside support. I know Russian propaganda wants to paint the Azov Battalion as Nazis, but they are Ukrainian patriots like the UPA was. The units are much more of a cross section of Ukrainian society than Russian propaganda would have you believe. Cool, this was in my search:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-azov-battalion-putins-excuse-for-war-against-nazis-in-ukraine/ar-AAVnfI8 

https://tinyurl.com/3bzck5m3

I guess when your country, Russia, illegally invades another country and commits war crimes you have to try to make yourself look good. Especially when your getting the shit kicked out of your large army. 

Russia cannot get out of the mess it created for itself without being seriously hurt.

There is a petition to NATO countries which is asking them to acknowledge: 

• Russia is an outlaw terrorist state threatening world peace -
• RU is waging genocidal war on Ukraine to extinguish UA as an independent nation 
• RU's main objective is to see the end of the rules-based intl order
  

Six common mistakes foreign journalists covering Russian invasion of Ukraine make

 My note: I mention that I get my info direct from the sources. Well, they aren't really happy with how this war is being covered. And I agree with what they say here, so. This is the complete piece from the New Voice of Ukraine, posted with permission:

 https://english.nv.ua/nation/six-common-mistakes-foreign-journalists-covering-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-make-50227712.html

NV is publishing an open letter to the foreign media covering Russian invasion of Ukraine from Ukrainian media organizations, reporters, photographers, media managers and communication professionals

Dear colleagues,

On February 24 2022, Russia began an unprovoked full scale invasion of Ukraine, a massive escalation of their eight-year war in Donbas in east Ukraine. Russia’s war is conducted along four axes, attacking all major Ukrainian cities with missiles, air strikes and in most instances, ground forces. Untold numbers of civilians and servicemen have been killed. In just over three weeks, more than three million Ukrainians have become refugees in Europe. Four members of the media community have been killed by Russian forces: Oleksandra Kuvshynova, Brent Renaud, Evgen Sakun and Pierre Zakrzewski.

Russian forces kidnap Ukrainian journalists in order to silence them, thus a Ukrainian journalist Viktoriya Roschina and Oleh Baturin spent 6 and 8 days in captivity after disappearing. Ukrainian photojournalist Maks Levin disappeared on March 13th while reporting from the frontline near Kyiv. A publisher from Melitopol Mikhail Kumok and three journalists - Yevgeniya Boryan, Yuliya Olkhovska and Lyubov Chaika - has been also detained for 1 day and have been pressured to collaborate with Russian occupational regime in their city. 

Simultaneously Russia has been attacking our core values of truthful, fact-driven and honest reporting through continuous disinformation campaigns. Many people are not aware of the scale and depth of these campaigns, and their full impact is yet to be felt. 

Read also:

Ukraine’s culture, foreign ministers urge journalists to mind their language on Donbas conflict

The effectiveness of these disinformation narratives did not happen overnight. They took time to seep into public discourse, capitalizing on misrepresentations or misunderstandings over language, history and politics, and exacerbating existing divisions in society until they began to stifle civil discussion.

This is why, as individual journalists and organizations from the Ukrainian media community who have battled with Russian information warfare since 2014,  we would like to highlight the following points regarding the language used to describe this war. Some of them might not be obvious but are vitally important to us and a truthful representation of this war. We ask media organizations to share this with their newsrooms and audiences:

1. One common error is to use terms like “crisis”, “conflict” or “military operation”, or call it “Ukrainian” i.e. “Ukraine Crisis” or “Ukraine conflict”. This is a full scale invasion of, and war against, Ukraine. We ask you to correctly indicate Russia’s role in the war with the wording “Russia’s war in Ukraine” and/or “Russian invasion of Ukraine”, especially in captions, headlines, leads and hashtags.

Read also:

How to improve media coverage of Russian invasion — suggestions from Ukrainian analysts

2. At the same time, we ask not to overuse the phrase “Putin's war”. Even though there is a temptation to believe that this war started only because of the Russian president, several polls from diverse polling organizations (Savanta ComRes, VCIOM, the research project "Do Russians Want War?") have reported that the silent majority of Russians – roughly 60 percent – support the war. During the first week of the war, public support for Putin in Russia grew from 60 to 71 percent. Russian soldiers on the ground are firing missiles and bombs, and deliberately killing civilians. Many of them do not have access to the facts and to independent media, but this does not take responsibility away from them.

3. Many refer to the 2014 pseudo-referendums in the Ukrainian territories of Crimea and Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts as explanations for Russian military aggression. This is misleading. The territories of Crimea, and parts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts, were annexed and occupied by Russian forces in 2014. Crimea was annexed by Russia in an unequivocal violation of international law. The war in Donbas was exclusively orchestrated and supported by the Russian State. The pseudo-referendums and proxy republics are not recognised by the international community. Experts (Orysia Lutsevych, Andrew Wilson, and Nikolay Mitrokhin to name a few) emphasize that neither the creation of the puppet "republics" in Donetsk and Luhansk nor the conventional war would have happened without Russian involvement.  The current escalation demonstrates Russia’s desire to control the whole of Ukraine, and these “republics” are used as a platform for full-scale invasion and a tool for propaganda and disinformation. 

Read also:

Ukraine’s leading party chief blames foreign media for spreading fake news about Russian invasion

4. Additionally the quasi “republics” in Donbas are not another armed side of the conflict. They operate as part of the Russian army and mercenaries fighting in Ukraine. Using terms like “separatist-held areas” is therefore incorrect. Please consider using "Russian proxies".

5. Another common error we observe is to report Ukrainian and Russian positions as “two equal perspectives''. Russian positions are based on lies, propaganda and denial of the existence of Ukraine as a nation and state. Russian propaganda is not just “strategic communication” or another point of view, it is using disinformation to justify killing thousands of civilians and continuing a completely unprovoked war. 

The narrative that characterizes the war as a proxy one between Russia and the West denies Ukrainian agency - something that the Ukrainian people’s resistance to invasion clearly demonstrates. NATO is an alliance based on the right of sovereign nations to collective defense, enshrined in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. By focusing on ‘expansion’, the media are perpetuating the Kremlin’s justification for war and ignoring the democratic voice of the Ukrainian people who wish to live in peace, free from Russian aggression.

6. Finally, we implore you to include, engage and hear Ukrainian experts. The majority of international experts specialize in Russia or Eastern Europe. We ask to include Ukrainian experts, or those who have lived and worked in Ukraine in the journalism you publish about the war. 

Information warfare and disinformation academics and experts warn that Russian tactics, perpetuated by its supporters here in the West and abroad, have one objective: to divide, deceive, sow doubt and create enough distrust of information that people do not know what to believe, and question even the most well-evidenced facts. They will play on the truths we tell ourselves and promises which go unkept. They will attack sentiments shared by, and within, ethnic, gender, linguistic and socio-economic groups. Disinformation aims to oversimplify existing issues and turn victims into perpetrators. We see this already with Russians supporting this war believing they are fighting NATO and "neo-Nazis" in Ukraine. We have seen it in the past with disinformation targeting the Syrian refugee crisis in Europe and the truth behind the downing of flight MH-17 in 2014. 

A full and truthful account of this war is pivotal to defeating Russia’s information war, consisting of propaganda and manipulation targeted at Ukraine and at liberal democratic countries and institutions. Therefore, we believe that the public needs to be aware of how Russia will manipulate the effects of this war. They will attempt to weaponize behaviors which contradict our collective values, such as double standards towards refugees and racial discrimination against minority groups. They will attempt to hyper-charge the rise of nationalist movements, in order to deflect the blame from Russia to Ukraine, NATO and Europe.

We believe that it is important to raise these issues now, to allow for a civilized and open discourse on how to collectively tackle these and future issues which undoubtedly will arise from this war.

Signed,

Media organizations:

Commission on Journalism Ethics

Ukrainian Media Business Association

National Union of Journalists of Ukraine, - Sergiy Tomilenko, President

Institute of Mass Information - Oksana Romaniuk, director 

Internews Ukraine - Kostiantyn Kvurt, the head

Regional Press development Institute

Center for Democracy and Rule of Law 

Independent Media Council, Ukraine 

Ukrainian Media and Communication Institute - Diana Dutsyk, CEO

Detector media NGO - Natalyia Lygachova, head, chief editor

Souspilnist Foundation, - Taras Petriv, president  

Media Development Foundation - Eugene Zaslavsky, Executive Director 

Ukrainian Association of media psychologists and media educators - Lyubov Naydonova, President

Suspilne (UA: PBC) - Angelina Kariakina, head of news

Hromadske - Yuliia Fediv, CEO 

LB.UA - Sonya Koshkina, Editor-in-Chief

Ukrayinska Pravda - Sevgil Musaieva, chief editor 

Zaborona Media - Katerina Sergatskova, editor-in-chief, Roman Stepanovych, CEO

Realnaya Gazeta - Andrii Dikhtiarenko, chief editor 

Glavcom (Information Agency) - Mykola Pidvezianiy, chief editor 

Individual journalists, media professionals, experts

Emine Ziyatdinova, Independent Media consultant and documentary photographer. London, UK. 

Nina Kuryata, Independent Media consultant. Kyiv, Ukraine. 

Svitlana Ostapa, Supervisory Board of PJSC, the National Public Broadcasting Company of Ukraine, The Chair 

Maryna Synhaivska, "Ukrinform" National News Agency of Ukraine, Deputy Director General  

Liza Kuzmenko, Head of NGO “Women in the Media”, the CJE member 

Julia Smirnova, analyst and journalist, London

Olena Dub, journalist, media-consultant

Olga Yurkova, media trainer, media consultant

Marichka Varenikova, freelance journalist and producer 

Oksana Parafeniuk, freelance photojournalist and producer 

Tetiana Stroi, CEO of Donetsk Press Club, media trainer, media expert

Svitlana Yeremenko, CEO of Pylyp Orlyk Institute for Democracy, journalist, media expert

Roman Kifliuk, independent media expert

Anastasia Magazova, journalist and author, Berlin/Kyiv

Anastasia Vlasova, visual storyteller

Oksana Grytsenko, independent journalist

Tetiana Pechonchyk, head of the Human Rights Center ZMINA, the CJE member 

Andrii Ianitskyi, Center for Journalism at Kyiv School of Economics, the head

Veronika Melkozerova, the New Voice of Ukraine executive editor

Follow us on Twitter and Facebook

Damn. The Russians Still haven't surrendered! Part II!

According to the Wall Street Journal (https://tinyurl.com/2p8w9kcw) :

NATO says that up to 40,000 Russian troops have been killed, wounded, taken prisoner or are missing in Ukraine, said a senior military official from the alliance.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization calculates the figure based on information provided by Ukrainian authorities and information obtained from Russia – both officially and unintentionally, the official said.

NATO estimates that between 7,000 and 15,000 Russian soldiers have been killed since the invasion began on Feb. 24. Using statistical averages from past conflicts that for every casualty roughly three soldiers are wounded, NATO analysts reach their total figure.

Russia began its invasion with roughly 190,000 troops. It has since brought in additional troops from Chechnya, Syria and other locations.

As I said, I am way ahead of the news cycle and have heard confirmed reports that the Russian army has been beaten around Kyiv. Makariv, Bucha, Irpin, Dmyrivka communities have been retaken by the Ukrainian military, but those communities remain under constant enemy fire. I have heard that the Russians in the East of Kyiv have also been beaten. That means the war shifts to the Eastern part of Ukraine where the Azov Battalion is defending Mariupol. Source: https://rubryka.com/en/2022/03/23/zsu-vzyaly-v-kiltse-irpin-buchu-ta-gostomel/

So, why was Russia given the advantage and Ukraine going to get defeated according to Western Intelligence sources?  Ukraine's social media is filled with disappointment at the quality of Western military analysis, in particular, over-estimating the ability of the Russian army. Most people explain this as Western experts reading Russian sources and believed them. On the other hand, Ukrainians had direct practical knowledge, but they were pretty much ignored by the Western Agencies. Now, The Ukrainian military and defence studies community also produced a lot of literature in the last 8 years will probably be read, but it's too late now.

I have to admit that I though the Russian military would have done slightly better, but I knew the Ukrainians would put up incredibly strong resistance. I also didn't expect the amount of unification that the Russian invasion and subsequent war would cause.