Yes, this is exactly where Russian propaganda has found its most fertile ground, in people with pre-existing tendencies to be extremely sceptical of anything Western governments say and anything the West does. Russian propagandists also exploit the tendency a lot of people in the West have of almost assuming that in any conflict, both sides are equally at fault, and that the solution is somewhere in the middle.
Now, as far as Western governments go, yes, there are obvious reasons for distrust. Anything from the NSA's mass surveillance of citizens all over the world to the causes for the Iraq war are reasons to be sceptical of anything that Western governments say. However, we aren't just listening to Western governments. We're also listening to Western media, which while certainly influenced by capitalistic considerations, is still pluralistic and free. On the Russian end of things, the media is essentially entirely under the control of the state, one that is in effect a single party state. You will not hear deep criticism of the Russian government or its positions in Russian media, whereas this is still the norm throughout the Western world. Even publicly funded media in the West are routinely critical of the very government that provides their funding.
In short, it's always good to be sceptical of the prevailing narrative in any situation, but scepticism does not mean outright rejection of the prevailing narrative. Consider who is reporting what and what their interests in doing so might be.
Thanks for the extremely balanced & rational response, as you said it is certainly worth holding scepticism and critical thinking over everything we are subjected too, the Russian media certainly looks to be filled with propaganda as does Ukrainian and to be fair even our media does too. The government over our history, whilst serving our interests, definitely serve their own first, with corporate and capitalistic foreign policies and have been well documented in being involved in many scandals.
There are various topics and research on government involvement on media, quite a few books out and 'follow the money' examples but without getting offtopic here is a generic basic example on theory, on wiki, (which cannot be 100% construed as fact imo) without anything opinionated
Agenda-setting theory. Of course that is just "what" it is, there is no information about how it is currently implemented by corporations/elitists/financiers etc.
The Guardian is the most free-press in our media you are likely to find as they are ran
Scott Trust Limited 'The sole shareholder in Guardian Media Group, the Trust was created in 1936 to safeguard the journalistic freedom and liberal values of the Guardian'
This should be read in its entirety.
Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media
The US military is developing software that will let it secretly manipulate social media sites by using fake online personas to influence internet conversations and spread pro-American propaganda.
They also ran a story
NSA files: why the Guardian in London destroyed hard drives of leaked file
Exclusive: NSA pays £100m in secret funding for GCHQ
• Secret payments revealed in leaks by Edward Snowden
• GCHQ expected to 'pull its weight' for Americans
• Weaker regulation of British spies 'a selling point' for NSA
'A threat of legal action by the government that could have stopped reporting on the files leaked by Edward Snowden led to a symbolic act at the Guardian's offices in London'
- There are many related stories, doesn't matter if you are pro-snowdan or not, The government will use force on unregulated material.
There are other opinion pieces on the above by Guardian editors which shown a much more threatening stance by GCHQ on that day and the state of the free media, certainly worth reading/researching.
But even as above shown they are not above
regulatory pressure
'my Guardian blog was to be immediately discontinued. Not because my article was incorrect, factually flawed, or outrageously defamatory. Not because I'd somehow breached journalistic ethics, or violated my contract. No. The Gaza gas piece, he said, was "not an environment story," and therefore was an "inappropriate post" for the Guardian's environment website.
There are ties with deep media monopoly and the lobbing influence on American/British public policy and the influence of that media with top elite corporations and our governments.
Although the argument is certainly true, that at least on most lower level policies and politic narrative our media is extremely free to question and hold our government to justice, unlike in a majority controlled media in Russia/N.Korea/China etc.
I feel we could do more to understand and ask the questions to ourselves on why this war began, not just because Ukraine rejected the pro - EU pact but the civil unrest caused at the time in Kiev, the role Svoboda had on public unrest (due to the corrupt Ukrainian government) being a neo-Nazi, anti-Semitism and political extremism party with affiliation to exceptionally violent methods and gang 'terror' and with that, the role McCain and Gov had with them (plenty of news trails + capital motive) photos in last page with their Neo-Nazi leader Oleh Tyahnybok + McCain and his pure hard-on for getting weapons into Ukraine that escalate, which is not just because he is a nice guy.
Svoboda Neo Nazi article by the huffington post (many more out there)
"Neo-Nazi," the official position of the United States government along with the stance taken by many in the American media both now seem quite dubious, if not downright ridiculous, especially considering that one would be hard-pressed to machinate the lineup that now dominates Ukraine's ministry posts."The Obama administration has vehemently denied charges that Ukraine's nascent regime is stock full of neo-fascists"
The Ukrainian Deputy in 2013 pre-Kiev riots and unrest, with Prior knowledge to the a Civil War https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9hOl8TuBUM - If this can be verified it is scary shit. (not by a couple of random drive-by posters) - Geoffrey Pyatt was also mentioned in this.
Victoria Nuland (Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the United States Department of State ) and Geoffrey Pyatt (the United States Ambassador to Ukraine) with leaked phone call Phone tap recording:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSxaa-67yGM#t=81 on who they would like to
install as the interim PM in Kiev. - This lead to a
Public article by the BBC covering this transcript where she famously said "FUCK THE EU" which a few mainstream media reported on, sometimes disengenously.. quoted from the article:
BBC's Jonathan Marcus: Overall this is a damaging episode between Washington and Moscow. Nobody really emerges with any credit. The US is clearly much more involved in trying to broker a deal in Ukraine than it publicly lets on
“During an April 28 meeting with Ambassador, Our Ukraine (OU) insider Petro Poroshenko emphatically denied he was using his influence with the Prosecutor General to put pressure on Tymoshenko lieutenant Oleksandr.”
” During an April 28 meeting with Ambassador, Our Ukraine (OU) insider Petro Poroshenko denied that he was behind Prosecutor General Oleksandr Medvedko’s recent decision to issue an arrest warrant for Tymoshenko lieutenant Oleksandr Turchynov. … [to] question him about the alleged destruction of SBU [Ukraine intel] files on organized crime figure Seymon Mogilievich.” [Russian Mafia Boss of Bosses] WikiLeaks Public Library of U.S. Diplomacy
edit: Petro Poroshenko
WikiLeaks - Information from source removed due to potentially invalid information
McCain, Arseniy Yatsenyuk (The now Ukraine Prime Minister), left, and Oleh Tyahnybok (The leader of the aforementioned seemingly extremist party.) and Senator McCain on Saturday, Dec. 14, 2013
McCain and Oleh Tyahnybok at the Pro-European rally.
The above if you take the time to read, might answer some of your questions on my inquisitive stance on the war. Please do not flame, make derogatory remarks, take the information with a pinch of salt, everything isn't so simple a marauding dictator on the loose when we seemingly have done plenty to "poke the bear". There are a wealth of information out there and I personally have no interest in engaging with anyone that wants to pick tiny flaws to devalue an entire idea, or use condescending tones and aggression instead of using critical thinking, no matter how ridiculous anything sounds. Even if it is its viewed as rhetoric in some peoples view, most of it is fact with hard evidence, fact that is not in the hands of mainstream public, and not mass-circulated.
I am pro-American and pro-British, we are basically extensions of one-another but I do like to question our governments and at least "try" and see the other view of the war, rather than be absorbed by 1 side. I personally do not see any reason why the narrative that putin wants to steam roll over Ukraine (to his distaste or not) and Europe as a legit theory. The moment he shows aggression beyond the mostly majority Russian ethnic/Language counties of Ukraine, I see in part, a war that is fueled by oil, weapons and pushed by corporate greed. Obama can have my backing to push that red button if Putin so much as takes his top off again and flex's and I would certainly be patriotic enough to stand up and be counted in any form of oppression by Putin.
I stand up for my country, not my Government. They serve Us.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.”
― Thomas Pynchon.
