BBC resurrects shortwave broadcasts as Russia blocks news of Ukraine invasion(theverge.com)
theverge.com
BBC resurrects shortwave broadcasts as Russia blocks news of Ukraine invasion
https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/4/22961286/bbc-news-blocked-in-russia-ukraine-invasion-shortwave-radio
123 comments
SWLing Post has a lot of info. Very friendly group there.
https://swling.com/blog/2022/03/everyone-should-have-a-short...
https://swling.com/blog/resources/shortwave-radio-reviews/
https://swling.com/blog/2022/03/everyone-should-have-a-short...
https://swling.com/blog/resources/shortwave-radio-reviews/
Yes - good resource.
A modern portable SW radio is very capable and power efficient on batteries. Do please explore the links provided above. Happy to help if you have any questions.
A modern portable SW radio is very capable and power efficient on batteries. Do please explore the links provided above. Happy to help if you have any questions.
I'm interested and considering getting an amateur radio license.
It's not clear yet, but I wanted to get a single portable device that allows for reception of all the most important frequencies, which I think includes shortwave, HF, VHF, NOAA weather and the amateur radio bands.
Is there a device that does all of this?
It's not clear yet, but I wanted to get a single portable device that allows for reception of all the most important frequencies, which I think includes shortwave, HF, VHF, NOAA weather and the amateur radio bands.
Is there a device that does all of this?
There are a few "hardware" Wideband radio receivers out there, depending on budget. Have a look at the site links below - the site does not claim to be a definitive list, and is focused around the pictures of the equipment.
The "big three". Some of the more modern bits of kit cover "DC to Daylight" frequencies.
Yaesu https://www.rigpix.com/yaesu/yaesuselect.htm
Icon https://www.rigpix.com/icom/icomselect.htm
Kenwood https://www.rigpix.com/kenwood/kenwoodselect.htm
For Wideband receiver's
https://www.rigpix.com/aor/aorselect.htm
https://www.rigpix.com/tecsun/tecsun.htm
https://www.rigpix.com/whistler/whistler.htm
Hope this helps.
The "big three". Some of the more modern bits of kit cover "DC to Daylight" frequencies.
Yaesu https://www.rigpix.com/yaesu/yaesuselect.htm
Icon https://www.rigpix.com/icom/icomselect.htm
Kenwood https://www.rigpix.com/kenwood/kenwoodselect.htm
For Wideband receiver's
https://www.rigpix.com/aor/aorselect.htm
https://www.rigpix.com/tecsun/tecsun.htm
https://www.rigpix.com/whistler/whistler.htm
Hope this helps.
The modern tools to have would be phones equipped with mesh networking and some solar powered chargers. There are a few nice things on the market for this that will charge your phone with just sunlight.
Some phones also used to have radios built in; I recall Nokia had a few models with radios built in. Some might still have that. Otherwise, building radios from parts is not that hard and used to be a rite of passage for kids interested in tinkering with electronics. I remember playing with a kit when I was about 9 or 10.
It would be interesting to learn what people on the ground in the Ukraine are doing that works.
Some phones also used to have radios built in; I recall Nokia had a few models with radios built in. Some might still have that. Otherwise, building radios from parts is not that hard and used to be a rite of passage for kids interested in tinkering with electronics. I remember playing with a kit when I was about 9 or 10.
It would be interesting to learn what people on the ground in the Ukraine are doing that works.
I have two of the DEGEN DE-13 solar/hand crank multiband radios, and I gave several away to relatives and friends.
They sit on my window sill in the sun all year, for the situation that hopefully never comes.
They sit on my window sill in the sun all year, for the situation that hopefully never comes.
Shortwave radios are cool but a lot of countries (eg Netherlands) have decommissioned their "world service" transmitters. And due to the massive antennas and high power needed these are not reinstated easily.
I would get a receiver that can receive the amateur bands too. These tend to be very active during emergencies. You'd need continuous coverage and SSB (LSB/USB) receive. Can be had for 100 bucks or so.
I would get a receiver that can receive the amateur bands too. These tend to be very active during emergencies. You'd need continuous coverage and SSB (LSB/USB) receive. Can be had for 100 bucks or so.
>2. Communicate with other regional survivors.
For the US, CB radio might be the best bet here, based on likelihood that some number of other locals might have one and be trying to use it. And "where to scavenge for one" is pretty straightforward.
For the US, CB radio might be the best bet here, based on likelihood that some number of other locals might have one and be trying to use it. And "where to scavenge for one" is pretty straightforward.
Local government is just going to wonder how they can get back on twitter if something serious happens.
I own a TECSUN PL-880 for listening to broadcasts. Plus handheld Binatone Action 1000s for short range communications. Plus some ham gear for VHF/UHF.
Getting licensed is pretty easy and you learn a lot about radio.
Getting licensed is pretty easy and you learn a lot about radio.
When I was a teenager I used a $10 shortwave radio for SWling. I think it could take 5V for external power from eg. a hand crank if you really wanted that (although nowadays I'm sure people have solar panels laying around, they're so useful for things like boats etc.) I don't think you need anything fancy.
I have a Midland ER310
Shortwave/NOAA radio, flashlight, hand crank, solar panel, USB charger
https://midlandusa.com/products/er310-eready-emergency-crank...
You can't communicate with other though
Shortwave/NOAA radio, flashlight, hand crank, solar panel, USB charger
https://midlandusa.com/products/er310-eready-emergency-crank...
You can't communicate with other though
probably an SDR? :)
SDR maybe useful if you already got a bunker to host and power the equipment needed. But if you already got a bunker, why not install a more powerful station?
Realistically, you probably want to have something mobile and not power-consuming, plus a solar panel (or any kind of generator). So maybe a set of LoRa device and/or goTenna, HAM radio + backup batteries, and AM/FM radios.
Or maybe just HAM radio + backup batteries.
I think I might just reignited my desire for a HAM radio license...just kidding, I'm living in a small city of 3KM radius, I'm will not survive the fireball if a nuke decided to hit us. So good luck for you, I guess.
Realistically, you probably want to have something mobile and not power-consuming, plus a solar panel (or any kind of generator). So maybe a set of LoRa device and/or goTenna, HAM radio + backup batteries, and AM/FM radios.
Or maybe just HAM radio + backup batteries.
I think I might just reignited my desire for a HAM radio license...just kidding, I'm living in a small city of 3KM radius, I'm will not survive the fireball if a nuke decided to hit us. So good luck for you, I guess.
Do you have any suggestions for I'm guessing like a USB receiver?
I just ordered a baofeng half out of late night panic, half out of interest in radio/learning about Ham licensing. I know it has a USB so can program it so would be legal without a license to broadcast. But I think can still listen without modifications.
I just ordered a baofeng half out of late night panic, half out of interest in radio/learning about Ham licensing. I know it has a USB so can program it so would be legal without a license to broadcast. But I think can still listen without modifications.
AFAIK, in the US it is technically illegal to transmit with a Baofeng radio in any way without a license. Even if you program it to only use the FRS/GMRS frequencies, it is not properly FCC certified as a device that is legal for use on those bands by an unlicensed operator. (For one thing, it may exceed the legal output power limit.)
With an amateur license you can use pretty much whatever equipment you want, including homemade. But then the obligation to obey the legal limits is borne by you, not the manufacturer. And Baofeng radios have a reputation for emitting lots of nasty harmonics and noise outside the desired transmission bands.
Of course, none of this should deter you from using whatever is available in an emergency. The FCC regulations include a clause allowing you to bend the rules if it is immediately necessary to do so to prevent imminent danger to life or property.
With an amateur license you can use pretty much whatever equipment you want, including homemade. But then the obligation to obey the legal limits is borne by you, not the manufacturer. And Baofeng radios have a reputation for emitting lots of nasty harmonics and noise outside the desired transmission bands.
Of course, none of this should deter you from using whatever is available in an emergency. The FCC regulations include a clause allowing you to bend the rules if it is immediately necessary to do so to prevent imminent danger to life or property.
thanks for the info.
Yeah it's not like I have anyone to talk to lol I don't plan on chatting up a storm. I figured it is better than the crappy plastic hand crank radio thing I have and to me this is pretty long tail risk likely never be in that much of a bad situation.
Plus ham is interesting to me so who knows maybe in the future worth investing the time.
Yeah it's not like I have anyone to talk to lol I don't plan on chatting up a storm. I figured it is better than the crappy plastic hand crank radio thing I have and to me this is pretty long tail risk likely never be in that much of a bad situation.
Plus ham is interesting to me so who knows maybe in the future worth investing the time.
[deleted]
Doesn't look like very sophisticated blocking, on MTS at least they seem to intercept DNS traffic and respond to www.bbc.com wtih their own
If you ignore the certificate warning you get a redirect to http://blocked.mts.ru/?host=www.bbc.com
Which states (in Russian):
Access to the information resource is limited on the basis of the Federal Law of July 27, 2006 N 149-FZ "On Information, Information Technologies and Information Protection
If you override the DNS entry, it loads fine, at least for me on my MTS circuit.
If you ignore the certificate warning you get a redirect to http://blocked.mts.ru/?host=www.bbc.com
Which states (in Russian):
Access to the information resource is limited on the basis of the Federal Law of July 27, 2006 N 149-FZ "On Information, Information Technologies and Information Protection
If you override the DNS entry, it loads fine, at least for me on my MTS circuit.
So DNS over HTTPS should work?
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-dns-over-https#...
chrome://flags/#dns-over-https
edge://flags#dns-over-https
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-dns-over-https#...
chrome://flags/#dns-over-https
edge://flags#dns-over-https
They could still block based on SNI.
Tor ought to still work, or some other “full fat” VPN.
Tor ought to still work, or some other “full fat” VPN.
> Tor ought to still work
The Tor Browser also has a dedicated BBC site, on this URL: https://www.bbcnewsd73hkzno2ini43t4gblxvycyac5aw4gnv7t2rccij...
Браузер Tor также имеет специальный сайт Би-би-си по этому URL-адресу: https://www.bbcnewsd73hkzno2ini43t4gblxvycyac5aw4gnv7t2rccij...
Браузер Tor також має спеціальний сайт BBC за цією URL-адресою: https://www.bbcnewsd73hkzno2ini43t4gblxvycyac5aw4gnv7t2rccij...
All of the above via bbc press centre: https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/articles/2022/advice-on-ac...
The Tor Browser also has a dedicated BBC site, on this URL: https://www.bbcnewsd73hkzno2ini43t4gblxvycyac5aw4gnv7t2rccij...
Браузер Tor также имеет специальный сайт Би-би-си по этому URL-адресу: https://www.bbcnewsd73hkzno2ini43t4gblxvycyac5aw4gnv7t2rccij...
Браузер Tor також має спеціальний сайт BBC за цією URL-адресою: https://www.bbcnewsd73hkzno2ini43t4gblxvycyac5aw4gnv7t2rccij...
All of the above via bbc press centre: https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/articles/2022/advice-on-ac...
> They could still block based on SNI.
I've heard from one target of blocking that this is how blocking is being done.
I've heard from one target of blocking that this is how blocking is being done.
If you'd like to listen to the broadcast over shortwave but don't have a radio at home, there are many SDR receivers online throughout the world. I've had good luck with this map https://rx-tx.info/map-sdr-points
The WebSDR station of Uni Twente always amazes me for it's good reception. Must have to do with their antenna placement. Details on the page: http://websdr.ewi.utwente.nl:8901/
The BBC do the same thing for North Korea. They have been doing this sort of thing for quite some time. The article makes it sound like it’s the first time they needed to do it since WW2 times.
https://www.38north.org/2017/09/mwilliams092617/
https://www.38north.org/2017/09/mwilliams092617/
Here's a recent Youtube capture of BBC World Service war broadcast on 5875 kHz shortwave: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsrOzB2Cfgs
(I also submitted it to HN yesterday, but this current thread has more comments already, so I won't reference the previous discussion here.)
(I also submitted it to HN yesterday, but this current thread has more comments already, so I won't reference the previous discussion here.)
Bring back Seva Novgorodsev! I was listening to the guy in the 80s via a SW radio... Fun times...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seva_Novgorodsev
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seva_Novgorodsev
he is alive and kicking, didn't know he got an MBE (isn't that a kind of knighthood?) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seva_Novgorodsev
The other thing is that the Russians will bring out the radio jammers, wow, these are absolutely crazy times...
If we are now back in the eighties, then generation Xers will get their second youth...
The other thing is that the Russians will bring out the radio jammers, wow, these are absolutely crazy times...
If we are now back in the eighties, then generation Xers will get their second youth...
I'm not particularly thrilled with reliving my youths geopolitical anxiety. Hearing airplanes overhead is making me twitch again...
I am pretty excited to have a reason to gravitate back towards radios, though. It's a fun, worthwhile, and interesting hobby.
I am pretty excited to have a reason to gravitate back towards radios, though. It's a fun, worthwhile, and interesting hobby.
“DX”ing is a niche radio hobby, I’ve definitely fallen into it from time to time. The aim is to hear geographically distant stations - so it’s all about radio propagation throughout the day and that differs seasonally too.
These days you can cheat, there are directories of SDR radios available for free online - in a couple of clicks you can explore the RF spectrum as heard from most populated locations in the world.
If you want to play “old school” there’s a few radios are prized, i have a Sony ICF2001D which is a circa 90s radio and expensive today because of its reputation. The US manufacturer C.Crane is a common name on the list of top performing sets and they’re much cheaper.
There’s an annual catalogue of broadcast stations published, the WRTH - World Radio & TV Handbook.
Propagation behaviours of different frequencies throughout the day is definitely one of the most interesting parts for me.
One thing I’ve learned from scanning the bands over the years is that there’s a LOT of chinese sponsored English language content.
These days you can cheat, there are directories of SDR radios available for free online - in a couple of clicks you can explore the RF spectrum as heard from most populated locations in the world.
If you want to play “old school” there’s a few radios are prized, i have a Sony ICF2001D which is a circa 90s radio and expensive today because of its reputation. The US manufacturer C.Crane is a common name on the list of top performing sets and they’re much cheaper.
There’s an annual catalogue of broadcast stations published, the WRTH - World Radio & TV Handbook.
Propagation behaviours of different frequencies throughout the day is definitely one of the most interesting parts for me.
One thing I’ve learned from scanning the bands over the years is that there’s a LOT of chinese sponsored English language content.
Can you expand on the chinese sponsored english language content? How do you know and what kinds of topics?
China Radio International broadcasts professionally-produced news all over shortwave in a bunch of different languages targeting different countries.
It's just the news filtered through a state news agency. You know because they say "china radio international" all the time. It's surely propaganda same as BBC is but they aren't keeping the origins a secret or anything.
It's just the news filtered through a state news agency. You know because they say "china radio international" all the time. It's surely propaganda same as BBC is but they aren't keeping the origins a secret or anything.
The BBC has been broadcasting on shortwave for decades - BBC World Service. The, somewhat hyperbolic, article implies this is somehow new and "WWII era".
Many counties around the world still use shortwave for various reasons - unofficial propaganda being one of them. The BBC World Service itself is and has been funded by the British government to promote its interests abroad.[1] The content is usually cultural in context.
Sadly, many countries are also reducing or completely closing SW broadcasts entirely. What I find interesting, from a geopolitical point of view, is that the Chinese are everywhere on shortwave. Very strong signals from China Radio International [2] on many frequencies in every broadcast band that I listen to. CRI broadcast very professional sounding, western style, news and opinion programs to a global audience directly.
Jamming of signals to try and prevent broadcasts being heard is probably also as old as AM radio itself once the powers that be recognised its value. The US also has the Voice of America [3] but, not being its target audience, the transmissions received by me tend to be weaker - I just may not be on the right band at the right time though.
There is a reason number stations exist! [4] Its my opinion why even liberal, democratic countries seem paranoid about giving free access to the natural physical phenomenon of ionospheric radio propagation.
The ability for citizens to have relatively unfettered broadcast access to a global audience outside of any control gives rise to IMHO undemocratic punishments of large fines or even prison.
Most of the UK radio regulation is driven by commercial interests and the government control of radio spectrum for monitory gain. For context look back to the time of the North Sea radio pirates - anyone would think the pirate radio stations were terrorist organisations! [5]
As a licensed ham radio operator I have the narrow privilege to talk to fellow operators, but if I step outside of those my license is in danger of being revoked. Ukraine banned its radio ham population from transmitting as soon as the invasion happened. I think this is standard practice by most governments.
I fully agree with spectrum regulation though in the sense of band planning to keep mutual interference down, and fully understand the havoc a poorly spec'd transmitter can cause - but this is easy to solve technically.
I do think there is a need for citizen broadcast bands to be established where there is a form of radio podcasts available to those who wish to meet the technical requirements - not hard as these are met by current, off the shelve transmitters - and put content literally "on the air".
Anyway, who put governments in control of this natural resource? Sorry, I drifted off topic but I am fascinated by the politics of radio.
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2021/world-service-funding
[2] http://chinaplus.cri.cn
[3] https://www.voanews.com
[4] https://www.numbers-stations.com
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_radio_in_the_United_Kin...
Many counties around the world still use shortwave for various reasons - unofficial propaganda being one of them. The BBC World Service itself is and has been funded by the British government to promote its interests abroad.[1] The content is usually cultural in context.
Sadly, many countries are also reducing or completely closing SW broadcasts entirely. What I find interesting, from a geopolitical point of view, is that the Chinese are everywhere on shortwave. Very strong signals from China Radio International [2] on many frequencies in every broadcast band that I listen to. CRI broadcast very professional sounding, western style, news and opinion programs to a global audience directly.
Jamming of signals to try and prevent broadcasts being heard is probably also as old as AM radio itself once the powers that be recognised its value. The US also has the Voice of America [3] but, not being its target audience, the transmissions received by me tend to be weaker - I just may not be on the right band at the right time though.
There is a reason number stations exist! [4] Its my opinion why even liberal, democratic countries seem paranoid about giving free access to the natural physical phenomenon of ionospheric radio propagation.
The ability for citizens to have relatively unfettered broadcast access to a global audience outside of any control gives rise to IMHO undemocratic punishments of large fines or even prison.
Most of the UK radio regulation is driven by commercial interests and the government control of radio spectrum for monitory gain. For context look back to the time of the North Sea radio pirates - anyone would think the pirate radio stations were terrorist organisations! [5]
As a licensed ham radio operator I have the narrow privilege to talk to fellow operators, but if I step outside of those my license is in danger of being revoked. Ukraine banned its radio ham population from transmitting as soon as the invasion happened. I think this is standard practice by most governments.
I fully agree with spectrum regulation though in the sense of band planning to keep mutual interference down, and fully understand the havoc a poorly spec'd transmitter can cause - but this is easy to solve technically.
I do think there is a need for citizen broadcast bands to be established where there is a form of radio podcasts available to those who wish to meet the technical requirements - not hard as these are met by current, off the shelve transmitters - and put content literally "on the air".
Anyway, who put governments in control of this natural resource? Sorry, I drifted off topic but I am fascinated by the politics of radio.
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2021/world-service-funding
[2] http://chinaplus.cri.cn
[3] https://www.voanews.com
[4] https://www.numbers-stations.com
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_radio_in_the_United_Kin...
One of the cuts to BBC funding that Cameron introduced was for the World Service. They removed main funding from the Foreign Office, it is now funded from the BBCs general budget. I hadn't realised that they had been topping it up with additional funding from the FO.
Either did I until writing my post! Perhaps they are having second thoughts.
BBC stopped shortwave broadcasts to Europe in 2008 alas, glad to see it brought back.
Very glad. Was tired only hearing Radio Romania International and China Radio International.. :)
Very glad. Was tired only hearing Radio Romania International and China Radio International.. :)
Ha! Indeed, I'm listening to CRI as I type this!
When you say stopped broadcasts to Europe do you mean programming content rather than frequencies used? I hope there is more will to expand these BBC services permanently.
Long time before I got into computers as a career I was a sound recording engineer. I had a brief time at Nottingham University's languages department recording off-air shortwave broadcasts from racks of Eddystone receivers onto 1/4" Levers Rich tape machines. Comparing the diversity of broadcasts then to now is quite startling.
When you say stopped broadcasts to Europe do you mean programming content rather than frequencies used? I hope there is more will to expand these BBC services permanently.
Long time before I got into computers as a career I was a sound recording engineer. I had a brief time at Nottingham University's languages department recording off-air shortwave broadcasts from racks of Eddystone receivers onto 1/4" Levers Rich tape machines. Comparing the diversity of broadcasts then to now is quite startling.
Programming and freqs afaik, but I could be wrong.
When I was scanning the bands in UK/Europe couple of years back never once did I hear BBC..
Interesting. There are regular transmissions on the 49m band (although they seem to carry programming for Africa) but maybe the skip distance/beam direction is wrong for the EU. I think I misread the article a bit then.
I did listen to the 15Mhz transmission today and it was quite strong.
I did listen to the 15Mhz transmission today and it was quite strong.
Shortwave is neat and everything, but isn't this also the bailiwick of Tor and pluggable transports and the whole internet anti-censorship ecosystem?
BBC added an onion server too:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50150981 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21343241
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50150981 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21343241
Receiving shortwave radio doesn't require a functioning internet. Actually it doesn't require any infrastructure at all. Just a radio and a battery.
What, no wind up short wave radios available?
Yes there are, but the crank usually charges a battery, rather than powering a dynamo.
Return of dialup internet with modems over AM. Up next: another .com burst?
Without looking up the World Service bands, I wonder why Shortwave and not Mediumwave, for better propagation?
If a government don't want people to hear something, it's fall has started.
What measures does the Russian government take to prevent access to foreign media?
Russian authorities block access to internet sites they don't like. I imagine that on a technical level it's not hard to bypass those blocks, but the vast majority of the population is neither motivated nor technically savvy enough to do that.
I don't know about foreign media specifically, but in the last couple of days they shut down some of the few remaining independent media outlets (TV Rain and Echo of Moscow) and have reportedly completely blocked access to Twitter and Facebook:
https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/75547/
I don't know about foreign media specifically, but in the last couple of days they shut down some of the few remaining independent media outlets (TV Rain and Echo of Moscow) and have reportedly completely blocked access to Twitter and Facebook:
https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/75547/
The federal agency Roskomnadzor also blocked access to the Russian language portal of Estonian Public Broadcasting because of war reporting: https://news.err.ee/1608512684/russia-blocks-err-s-russian-p...
The DPI is avoidable, the hard times would come when they'd start to block entire networks, but it seems they've learned the lesson from the hunt on Telegram.
Note that Europe also bans media they don’t like, namely RT News and Sputnik, along with severe guidance on content with regular threats of fines or deplatforming, coming from governments such as CSA in France. Censorship has absolutely a role in democracy.
I think the difference is that western media generally can and do publish at least some critical pieces. The same can't be said in Russia right now. It's a whole different level.
And, just to be clear, "can't be said of Russia right now" really means "publishing information that disagrees with the official line is punishable by up to 15 years in prison".
https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2022/03/04/i-vse-ravno-15-l...
Translation:
https://novayagazeta-ru.translate.goog/articles/2022/03/04/i...
https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2022/03/04/i-vse-ravno-15-l...
Translation:
https://novayagazeta-ru.translate.goog/articles/2022/03/04/i...
The same happens in the "free" and "democratic" EU too (which I belong to):
https://www.la.lv/par-dezinformaciju-un-krievijas-agresijas-...
Translation:
https://www-la-lv.translate.goog/par-dezinformaciju-un-kriev...
https://www.la.lv/par-dezinformaciju-un-krievijas-agresijas-...
Translation:
https://www-la-lv.translate.goog/par-dezinformaciju-un-kriev...
That took me by surprise.
That is not the same.
It's pretty similar. Latvia is not in a state war and is banning certain political opinions. No matter how vile, that is a line that should never be crossed outside of literal wartime.
It's not just the media. Most western countries have entire opposition political parties. And regular citizens bad mouth their leaders all the time with no fear of repercussions. I directly hassle the leaders of my country on their official twitter accounts.
There could be a small chance that not being moral absolutists on this issue could be a slippery slope, but it's still not the same.
There could be a small chance that not being moral absolutists on this issue could be a slippery slope, but it's still not the same.
Exactly. Just before the war kicked off, the BBC was doing nothing but hammering the UK prime minister on various matters. How many Putin critical articles did RT or Sputnik news post?
They don't criticise Putin. They write about the criticism he receives. Kind of like a news outlet would.
https://consortiumnews.com/2022/03/05/the-predictable-demise...
https://consortiumnews.com/2022/03/05/the-predictable-demise...
Any writing "about the criticism he receives" is to deflect it. The state run channels are never critical of Putin because he controls the channels.
The USSR used to have high-powered jammers used to jam the short-wave radio frequencies of the VOA, BBC, etc. Those noisemakers could be received worldwide. They shut down decades ago.
Here's a picture of one, abandoned.[1]
[1] https://forums.radioreference.com/threads/old-russian-jammer...
Here's a picture of one, abandoned.[1]
[1] https://forums.radioreference.com/threads/old-russian-jammer...
[deleted]
Is Radio Free Europe still a thing? We're going back to the 1970s :)
it is. So is Voice of America, radio Havana and other cold war classics. Shortwave is not quite dead :)
TLDR:
15735 kHz 14:00-16:00 GMT (16:00-18:00 Kyiv time, 17:00-19:00 Moscow time)
5875 kHz 20:00-22:00 GMT (22:00-00:00 Kyiv time, 23:00-01:00 Moscow time)
15735 kHz 14:00-16:00 GMT (16:00-18:00 Kyiv time, 17:00-19:00 Moscow time)
5875 kHz 20:00-22:00 GMT (22:00-00:00 Kyiv time, 23:00-01:00 Moscow time)
Ofcom has sent out notices, and the UK has blocked news of Russia from its citizens, by banning RT and such.
https://news.yahoo.com/rt-russian-backed-tv-news-105214336.h...
Russia seems to be doing what the UK is doing to it, blocking the BBC in retaliation.
In the 1970s and 1980s, the English locked Irish people in concentration camps without trial. In Derry people marched through the street and the British Army opened fire on the crowd killing 14 civilians. The queen then decorated the regiment who did this with medals. The Irish began to elect (abstensionist) Sinn Féin MPs to the UK parliament, but the BBC was banned from broadcasting their voices. So this kind of censorship is not new to the BBC.
https://news.yahoo.com/rt-russian-backed-tv-news-105214336.h...
Russia seems to be doing what the UK is doing to it, blocking the BBC in retaliation.
In the 1970s and 1980s, the English locked Irish people in concentration camps without trial. In Derry people marched through the street and the British Army opened fire on the crowd killing 14 civilians. The queen then decorated the regiment who did this with medals. The Irish began to elect (abstensionist) Sinn Féin MPs to the UK parliament, but the BBC was banned from broadcasting their voices. So this kind of censorship is not new to the BBC.
Due to the high possibility of censorship on so many sites, coupled with a constantly shifting mainstream narrative, it’s hard to believe any headline coming from a mainstream (approved) source.
Ukraine, for instance, seems to be a divided country, much like the US, where there is an approved narrative and near blanket censorship.
Some Ukrainians want to return to Russian rule, and some want the West to intervene. In Russia, there are citizens who love and ones who hate their government. Some embrace the West, some distrust and hate the West (especially America—based on the mainstream narrative, which is heavily censored).
Ukraine, for instance, seems to be a divided country, much like the US, where there is an approved narrative and near blanket censorship.
Some Ukrainians want to return to Russian rule, and some want the West to intervene. In Russia, there are citizens who love and ones who hate their government. Some embrace the West, some distrust and hate the West (especially America—based on the mainstream narrative, which is heavily censored).
A very small minority wanted to return to Russian rule on the eve of the invasion according to polling of Ukrainian people.
And even if they did want to return to Russian rule (which they didn't), the just thing would've been to hold a referendum. They are a democracy after all.
And even if they did want to return to Russian rule (which they didn't), the just thing would've been to hold a referendum. They are a democracy after all.
I don't think referenda make much of a difference. 96% of Crimea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum) voted to join Russia and 96% of Luhansk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Donbas_status_referendums) voted to leave Ukraine after the 2014 overthrow. Nothing much came out of it except 14,000 being killed in Donbas as result https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrain....
These number are provided by Russian government. How can you be sure that they are true?
Also, those so called "referenda" did not conform to Ukrainian laws.
Also, those so called "referenda" did not conform to Ukrainian laws.
> Also, those so called "referenda" did not conform to Ukrainian laws.
Yet Ukraine had no intention at all to organize a "real" referenda under their laws. Instead, they preferred to keep on bombing those rebel regions in Eastern Ukraine. Now, they ask Russia to stop doing the very same thing.
Yet Ukraine had no intention at all to organize a "real" referenda under their laws. Instead, they preferred to keep on bombing those rebel regions in Eastern Ukraine. Now, they ask Russia to stop doing the very same thing.
> Yet Ukraine had no intention at all to organize a "real" referenda under their laws
Why should they cede their land to someone? And why should referendum be held only in one region, and not in the whole country? No country will agree to this. Will Putin organize a referendum if I suggest that my city separate from Russia and join European Union? Did Putin or Eltsin organize such referendum in Chechnya?
It doesn't matter whether Ukraine should or should not have hold such referendum. It is Russian soldiers who crossed the border and pulled the trigger first in 2014, not Ukranian. The war (as almost every war) is there because Putin and many Russians want more land, more glorious victories and more political influence, not because someone didn't organize a referendum.
Why should they cede their land to someone? And why should referendum be held only in one region, and not in the whole country? No country will agree to this. Will Putin organize a referendum if I suggest that my city separate from Russia and join European Union? Did Putin or Eltsin organize such referendum in Chechnya?
It doesn't matter whether Ukraine should or should not have hold such referendum. It is Russian soldiers who crossed the border and pulled the trigger first in 2014, not Ukranian. The war (as almost every war) is there because Putin and many Russians want more land, more glorious victories and more political influence, not because someone didn't organize a referendum.
How can you be sure they are not true?
During these last 30 years there's been 3 different referenda about Crimea, all with roughly the same outcomes.
> Also, those so called "referenda" did not conform to Ukrainian laws.
US independence did also not conform to British laws, the existence of Kurdistan is not conform with Iraqi or Syrian national laws, Catalonian independence would not be conform with Spanish law, yet there is a human right to self determination.
What's also not conform, with a whole slew of national laws, is violently overthrowing a democratically elected government, as it happened in Kyiv 2014.
During these last 30 years there's been 3 different referenda about Crimea, all with roughly the same outcomes.
> Also, those so called "referenda" did not conform to Ukrainian laws.
US independence did also not conform to British laws, the existence of Kurdistan is not conform with Iraqi or Syrian national laws, Catalonian independence would not be conform with Spanish law, yet there is a human right to self determination.
What's also not conform, with a whole slew of national laws, is violently overthrowing a democratically elected government, as it happened in Kyiv 2014.
Russian government has a long history of meddling with elections, non-admission of candidates, falsifying results, for example [1] or [2]. Therefore they cannot be trusted, especially in this case.
You cannot compare US war for independence with Crimea occupation because in US it was an internal movement to become idependent from a metropoly, but in Ukraine the events that occured were caused by Russian military intervention with purpose of annexation of Ukrainian territories. Before Russian intervention in 2014, there were no significant efforts to become independent, there were no war and nobody was dying.
The same with Catalonia.
> What's also not conform, with a whole slew of national laws, is violently overthrowing a democratically elected government
First, their president wasn't overthrown, because he has left the country himself. Second, that doesn't give Russia a right to annex territories.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_2018_Primorsky_Krai_...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Moscow_City_Duma_election
You cannot compare US war for independence with Crimea occupation because in US it was an internal movement to become idependent from a metropoly, but in Ukraine the events that occured were caused by Russian military intervention with purpose of annexation of Ukrainian territories. Before Russian intervention in 2014, there were no significant efforts to become independent, there were no war and nobody was dying.
The same with Catalonia.
> What's also not conform, with a whole slew of national laws, is violently overthrowing a democratically elected government
First, their president wasn't overthrown, because he has left the country himself. Second, that doesn't give Russia a right to annex territories.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_2018_Primorsky_Krai_...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Moscow_City_Duma_election
It's not exactly true that Russia was the cause of it. At least not fully. I'd share the blame between US, EU and Russia, equally.
Worth watching this for a background of how the whole thing started. The guy was pretty on point with it, and it checks out from other sources too.
UnCommon Core: The Causes and Consequences of the Ukraine Crisis John J. Mearsheimer - The University of Chicago - 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
Worth watching this for a background of how the whole thing started. The guy was pretty on point with it, and it checks out from other sources too.
UnCommon Core: The Causes and Consequences of the Ukraine Crisis John J. Mearsheimer - The University of Chicago - 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
>The same with Catalonia.
Wait, what? Catalonia had nothing to do with Russia.
Wait, what? Catalonia had nothing to do with Russia.
> their president wasn't overthrown, because he has left the country himself
So it would only count as a regime change if he stayed to get killed by an angry mob?
> that doesn't give Russia a right to annex territories
But states and their parliaments very much have a right not to acknowledge a new central government that came to power trough violence.
The Crimean state parliament did not recognize the new Ukrainian government, thus held a referendum what to do about the situation [0]
Said state parliament was voted in power by the people of Crimea before anything in Kyiv even escalated.
You acting like that doesn't matter, so you can regurgitate "Russian annexation!" does not only deny the Crimean state parliament agency, it very casually denies the Crimean people, as represented by the state parliament, their own representation.
So unless you have evidence how Russia replaced the whole state parliament, how Russia actually meddled in the referendum, that long you are spreading disinformation when you keep calling the situation as annexation.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum
So it would only count as a regime change if he stayed to get killed by an angry mob?
> that doesn't give Russia a right to annex territories
But states and their parliaments very much have a right not to acknowledge a new central government that came to power trough violence.
The Crimean state parliament did not recognize the new Ukrainian government, thus held a referendum what to do about the situation [0]
Said state parliament was voted in power by the people of Crimea before anything in Kyiv even escalated.
You acting like that doesn't matter, so you can regurgitate "Russian annexation!" does not only deny the Crimean state parliament agency, it very casually denies the Crimean people, as represented by the state parliament, their own representation.
So unless you have evidence how Russia replaced the whole state parliament, how Russia actually meddled in the referendum, that long you are spreading disinformation when you keep calling the situation as annexation.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum
> So it would only count as a regime change if he stayed to get killed by an angry mob?
It doesn't count as "been overthrown". Also, there is no evidence that he would have been killed. He might go under a trial in a court though.
There is one important thing you don't mention: the "referendum" was held after occupation of Crimea Peninsula by Russian military. Specifically, the article you refer to says that Russian military occupied Crimea on February, 27 and the referendum was held on March, 16.
Therefore, parliament could not vote freely as its members were not protected from pressure by Russian military authorities. You cannot vote freely when surrounded by enemy soldiers. Also at that time the territory was controlled by Russia and the parliament had no real power anymore.
Also, I do not know if Ukranian law at that time allowed a region to declare independence. You cannot hold a referendum whose outcome would contradict the law. For example, you cannot hold such a referendum in Russia.
> You acting like that doesn't matter, so you can regurgitate "Russian annexation!"
Let's look at the definition of "annexation":
> Annexation in international law, is the forcible acquisition of one state's territory by another state and is generally held to be an illegal act.
Russian army has occupied the territory earlier that anything else happened. Therefore it is an annexation. There was no significant movement for independence of Crimea before occupation.
> it very casually denies the Crimean people, as represented by the state parliament, their own representation.
Do Crimean people or their Parliament now have a right to separate from Russia if they change their mind? They don't. Does it mean that Putin, as you say, "casually denies the Crimean people their own representation"?
I don't think there are many countries where a region has a right to declare an independence. There are things that you cannot change with a referendum.
It doesn't count as "been overthrown". Also, there is no evidence that he would have been killed. He might go under a trial in a court though.
There is one important thing you don't mention: the "referendum" was held after occupation of Crimea Peninsula by Russian military. Specifically, the article you refer to says that Russian military occupied Crimea on February, 27 and the referendum was held on March, 16.
Therefore, parliament could not vote freely as its members were not protected from pressure by Russian military authorities. You cannot vote freely when surrounded by enemy soldiers. Also at that time the territory was controlled by Russia and the parliament had no real power anymore.
Also, I do not know if Ukranian law at that time allowed a region to declare independence. You cannot hold a referendum whose outcome would contradict the law. For example, you cannot hold such a referendum in Russia.
> You acting like that doesn't matter, so you can regurgitate "Russian annexation!"
Let's look at the definition of "annexation":
> Annexation in international law, is the forcible acquisition of one state's territory by another state and is generally held to be an illegal act.
Russian army has occupied the territory earlier that anything else happened. Therefore it is an annexation. There was no significant movement for independence of Crimea before occupation.
> it very casually denies the Crimean people, as represented by the state parliament, their own representation.
Do Crimean people or their Parliament now have a right to separate from Russia if they change their mind? They don't. Does it mean that Putin, as you say, "casually denies the Crimean people their own representation"?
I don't think there are many countries where a region has a right to declare an independence. There are things that you cannot change with a referendum.
Ukrainians installed webcams at polling station on previous election, for transparency. When war started, they were still installed. We watched fake referendum in Crimea in real time on site. I personally saw about 3-5 voters per hour on most polling stations, except for stations where Russian tv was: they were full. Moreover, anybody was able to vote, including Russian tourists.
Also, you need to know that Russians are not natives in Crimea. By UN standard, natives are those people, who live in place for 200 years.
Russians expelled native Crimeans from Crimea to Ukraine, to substitute Ukrainians died during genocide, and to Siberia.
They used situation with Crimean Goths as excuse, because Germans used Crimean Goths as translators.
After expelling of natives, Crimean land was used as prize for soviet officers. They had no experience of agriculture in dry climate, so they cut vines and tried to farm potatoes, which caused famine. Also, Crimea was cut from RF, so RF was unable to help.
To fix situation, Crimea was returned back to Ukraine, to rebuild economy, because Ukrainians knows Crimea climate for more than millenia and Crimea was part of Ukraine since breakup of Russian Empire. However, Russians portait this return of Crimea as gift to Ukraine and want to stole it back.
Also, you need to know that Russians are not natives in Crimea. By UN standard, natives are those people, who live in place for 200 years.
Russians expelled native Crimeans from Crimea to Ukraine, to substitute Ukrainians died during genocide, and to Siberia.
They used situation with Crimean Goths as excuse, because Germans used Crimean Goths as translators.
After expelling of natives, Crimean land was used as prize for soviet officers. They had no experience of agriculture in dry climate, so they cut vines and tried to farm potatoes, which caused famine. Also, Crimea was cut from RF, so RF was unable to help.
To fix situation, Crimea was returned back to Ukraine, to rebuild economy, because Ukrainians knows Crimea climate for more than millenia and Crimea was part of Ukraine since breakup of Russian Empire. However, Russians portait this return of Crimea as gift to Ukraine and want to stole it back.
it pains me that in 21 century we still have to explain that voting at gunpoint from 3rd party (armed occupation from another country) can't possibly be considered valid.
It's the same strategy Russia used to annex neighboring countries before WW2. - first they get their military in by any means necessary - then they take down any means of mass communication, TV towers, radio etc. Any leaders of the opposition will be killed or jailed. Only censored Russian propaganda will be shown. - then occupation army will establish a puppet government which will stage a referendum which asks to join Russia in some form. At that point it's rather irrelevant how the people vote because as Stalin said, it's not important who votes but rather who does the counting.
I think Anne Applebaum in one of her books has described how it went down in the countries that Russia annexed. Looked eerily like following a flowchart and evidently still works and sounds plausible to some people.
Scottish independence referendum seems to be a rather good example how such independence referendums really should look like to be accepted by the world.
It's the same strategy Russia used to annex neighboring countries before WW2. - first they get their military in by any means necessary - then they take down any means of mass communication, TV towers, radio etc. Any leaders of the opposition will be killed or jailed. Only censored Russian propaganda will be shown. - then occupation army will establish a puppet government which will stage a referendum which asks to join Russia in some form. At that point it's rather irrelevant how the people vote because as Stalin said, it's not important who votes but rather who does the counting.
I think Anne Applebaum in one of her books has described how it went down in the countries that Russia annexed. Looked eerily like following a flowchart and evidently still works and sounds plausible to some people.
Scottish independence referendum seems to be a rather good example how such independence referendums really should look like to be accepted by the world.
>A very small minority
>hold a referendum. They are a democracy
These don't match. Democracy is rule of the majority. The minority is powerless and can be abused as much as the majority wishes.
>hold a referendum. They are a democracy
These don't match. Democracy is rule of the majority. The minority is powerless and can be abused as much as the majority wishes.
Then what's a better alternative to resolving the question "should Ukraine join Russia?" if not by some kind of democratic solution (either direct democracy or an elected representative deciding)?
Ahem, that's the caricature simplified version of democracy you see used a lot by Western capitalist think tanks meant to discourage people from democracy.
Protections of minorities are by most republics understood to be integral to a healthy democracy. Not simple rule by majority. That's why most voting systems are not FPTP.
Protections of minorities are by most republics understood to be integral to a healthy democracy. Not simple rule by majority. That's why most voting systems are not FPTP.
[deleted]
I've never heard what's the actual problem with whatabaoutism.
If you do bad things and get away with those, quit preaching at least.
If you do bad things and get away with those, quit preaching at least.
I think Russians generally like their country because it is their home, think it should continue to exist, prefer that it be strong and not weak, and that its citizens should be secure and not insecure. No scandal, crime, or shortcoming of particular rulers has any bearing on this.
Normal people in all countries are like this.
Normal people in all countries are like this.
True but I separate my country from whatever government is currently in power. And if the government is running the country that I love into the ground... We rally around flags not people.
It's a thought-extinguishing tactic. It attempts to redirect or scatter attention away from the topic at hand. This could be in a misguided sincere attempt to draw analogies, or could be more nefarious. Whataboutism seems to commonly occur when some agent of power is being criticized.
People who cry whataboutism are the ones extinguishing critical thought. No one can think or compare or draw analogies anymore.
Analogy: Definition, a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects. "works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"
Anytime anyone brings-up Western aggression, people cry whataboutism and so the topic cannot be discussed anymore.
It's fine for people to say that two wrongs don't make a right or that even if the Iraq invasion was based on lies about weapons of mass destruction that doesn't make Putin's invasion of Ukraine any less evil or harmful or destructive. But most people don't even bother and just cry whataboutism.
Whataboutism makes sense, victims of abuse are not allowed to abuse others just because they were abused themselves. But it's not whataboutism to critically analyse and compare what is the justification of the Iraq War and Ukraine invasion. President Biden probably wouldn't just cry whataboutism, he would state clear and convincing reasons why the Ukraine invasion isn't justified and why the Iraq invasion was. It's not whataboutism to analyze, compare, collect evidence and come to a judgment.
Analogy: Definition, a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects. "works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"
Anytime anyone brings-up Western aggression, people cry whataboutism and so the topic cannot be discussed anymore.
It's fine for people to say that two wrongs don't make a right or that even if the Iraq invasion was based on lies about weapons of mass destruction that doesn't make Putin's invasion of Ukraine any less evil or harmful or destructive. But most people don't even bother and just cry whataboutism.
Whataboutism makes sense, victims of abuse are not allowed to abuse others just because they were abused themselves. But it's not whataboutism to critically analyse and compare what is the justification of the Iraq War and Ukraine invasion. President Biden probably wouldn't just cry whataboutism, he would state clear and convincing reasons why the Ukraine invasion isn't justified and why the Iraq invasion was. It's not whataboutism to analyze, compare, collect evidence and come to a judgment.
> Anytime anyone brings-up Western aggression, people cry whataboutism and so the topic cannot be discussed anymore
This is literally lie. There are both discussions and articles about Iraq, Afganistan and what have you all the time. Especially here in HN. Hey, why do you dare to talk about Iraque when you did not stopped Balkan conflicts, you never attempted to help Tibet or stop genocide going on in Chine, so no talking about anything until those two stop.
Whataboutism is not about analyzing or drawing paralel nor anything like that. It is transparently bad faith. Somehow twisting Ukraine and Eastern Europe in EU deserving punishment for Iraque and Syria from Putin, because Americans something something.
"Why dont countries surrounding Ukraine lock their borders to refugees, like I guess, they apparently demanded other countries surrounding conflicts to lock their borders ..." something something.
This is literally lie. There are both discussions and articles about Iraq, Afganistan and what have you all the time. Especially here in HN. Hey, why do you dare to talk about Iraque when you did not stopped Balkan conflicts, you never attempted to help Tibet or stop genocide going on in Chine, so no talking about anything until those two stop.
Whataboutism is not about analyzing or drawing paralel nor anything like that. It is transparently bad faith. Somehow twisting Ukraine and Eastern Europe in EU deserving punishment for Iraque and Syria from Putin, because Americans something something.
"Why dont countries surrounding Ukraine lock their borders to refugees, like I guess, they apparently demanded other countries surrounding conflicts to lock their borders ..." something something.
Here I'll give you a quick example:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30558245
Mikeb85
"> invades Iran The difference between Ukraine and all the other countries invaded in the last 50 or so years is that Ukraine is a real democracy and liberal, modern society.
Iran, Syria, Iraq, etc... are not the same as Ukraine."
femiagbabiaka
"Truly amazing. This statement shows that you know very little about the history of Ukraine or Iran, Syria, Iraq."
Mikeb85
"It's truly amazing how much whataboutism and Russian propaganda there is in the US."
Mikeb85 is claiming that Ukraine is not the same as Iran, Syria, Iraq as a "a real democracy and liberal, modern society". femiagbabiaka challenges this claim and is stating that Mikeb85 doesn't know the history of those countries. Mikeb85 responds with "So much Russian propaganda and whataboutism".
Honestly, where is the whataboutism in what femiagbabiaka said?
Answer: no whataboutism.
All femiagbabiaka said is that Iran, Iraq, Syria were/are real societies not deserving to be bombed by stronger powers just like Ukraine; whether that is true or not is debatable but what is not debatable is not there is no whataboutism in that statement.
My pet peeve is people mis-using "whatboutism", calling whataboutism at the very mention of other countries such as Iraq; and above is a simple example of that.
Mis-using whataboutism to just kill all discussion such as on the topic of justified Western or Russian aggression.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30558245
Mikeb85
"> invades Iran The difference between Ukraine and all the other countries invaded in the last 50 or so years is that Ukraine is a real democracy and liberal, modern society.
Iran, Syria, Iraq, etc... are not the same as Ukraine."
femiagbabiaka
"Truly amazing. This statement shows that you know very little about the history of Ukraine or Iran, Syria, Iraq."
Mikeb85
"It's truly amazing how much whataboutism and Russian propaganda there is in the US."
Mikeb85 is claiming that Ukraine is not the same as Iran, Syria, Iraq as a "a real democracy and liberal, modern society". femiagbabiaka challenges this claim and is stating that Mikeb85 doesn't know the history of those countries. Mikeb85 responds with "So much Russian propaganda and whataboutism".
Honestly, where is the whataboutism in what femiagbabiaka said?
Answer: no whataboutism.
All femiagbabiaka said is that Iran, Iraq, Syria were/are real societies not deserving to be bombed by stronger powers just like Ukraine; whether that is true or not is debatable but what is not debatable is not there is no whataboutism in that statement.
My pet peeve is people mis-using "whatboutism", calling whataboutism at the very mention of other countries such as Iraq; and above is a simple example of that.
Mis-using whataboutism to just kill all discussion such as on the topic of justified Western or Russian aggression.
That is not example that would prove you are unable to discuss "western aggression" as a topic.
It is not even example of you trying to discuss it in context other then Ukraine.
It is not even example of you trying to discuss it in context other then Ukraine.
I just realized that the spacing of the Mikeb85 quote was broken and so that affected the readability of his message.
Here is the message of Mikeb85 with proper formatting and it is clear here that he is using his claim of Iran, Iraq, etc.. as not being modern, liberal, democratic etc.. as justification for Western Aggression.
Mikeb85
"> invades Iran
The difference between Ukraine and all the other countries invaded in the last 50 or so years is that Ukraine is a real democracy and liberal, modern society.
Iran, Syria, Iraq, etc... are not the same as Ukraine."
Here is the message of Mikeb85 with proper formatting and it is clear here that he is using his claim of Iran, Iraq, etc.. as not being modern, liberal, democratic etc.. as justification for Western Aggression.
Mikeb85
"> invades Iran
The difference between Ukraine and all the other countries invaded in the last 50 or so years is that Ukraine is a real democracy and liberal, modern society.
Iran, Syria, Iraq, etc... are not the same as Ukraine."
See the parent comment of Ekaros below who is talking about USA invading Iran. Then Mikeb85 chimes-in with the claim that Iran, Iraq, etc are "not a real democracy and liberal, modern society". When femiagbabiaka challenges that claim, Mikeb85 responds with "Russian propaganda and Whataboutism".
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30556335
Ekaros
"I wonder would these actions be then applied equally. Let's say USA invades Iran. Should we then terminate all of the domains and tlds hold by any USA based entity. Reclaim all of the IP space hold by them too? Surely it would solve some starvation issue, and be just, but do we want that?"
Common justification for Western aggression in Iraq and Afganistan is that these countries are not worthy of the same protections as Ukraine since they are not democatic, liberal and modern. When somebody challenges that claim, the response is simply labeled "Russian Propaganda and Whatboutism" killing the discussion.
Any questioning of the justification for Western Aggression is responded with "Russian Propaganda and Whatboutism". One cannot even discuss with Mikeb85 whether his claim is true or not, as backed by evidence.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30556335
Ekaros
"I wonder would these actions be then applied equally. Let's say USA invades Iran. Should we then terminate all of the domains and tlds hold by any USA based entity. Reclaim all of the IP space hold by them too? Surely it would solve some starvation issue, and be just, but do we want that?"
Common justification for Western aggression in Iraq and Afganistan is that these countries are not worthy of the same protections as Ukraine since they are not democatic, liberal and modern. When somebody challenges that claim, the response is simply labeled "Russian Propaganda and Whatboutism" killing the discussion.
Any questioning of the justification for Western Aggression is responded with "Russian Propaganda and Whatboutism". One cannot even discuss with Mikeb85 whether his claim is true or not, as backed by evidence.
Here is an even better example:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30548787
Razengan
"Not resorting to Whataboutism, but try to see how the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan (two in a row, and the subsequent occupation for 20 years no less!) by the US was seen as “just” by all the nations now condemning Russia. Take a look at maps of NATO expansion:
https://old.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/t37zf4/countries_j...
If America was concerned about Russian nukes in Cuba, shouldn’t Russia be concerned about an alliance encroaching up to their literal border?"
selfhoster11
"This is basically whataboutism. I don't consider myself well informed enough on any Middle Eastern conflicts, but if I found anything objectionable there, I'm happy to call out both the US and Russia on their BS. BTW, "NATO expansion" was there for a reason, and you don't get to claim that the new members didn't want to join of their own initiative. Every post-communist country that wants to keep their self-determination is worried about falling back into being Russian puppets once more."
Razengan raises the perfectly valid point of how come invasion of Iraq and Afganistan was not met by any outcry or sanctions by those countries who supposedly value countries sovereign rights?
selfhoster11 instantly replies with "whataboutism" and so kills the discussion that way.
Question: how is asking about what makes the Ukraine invasion different from the Iraq invasion, whataboutism?
Answer: It's not whatboutism.
People just throw blindly throw whatboutism when there is any discussion about other countries even when there is zero whatboutism. In this example, selfhoster11 doesn't even bother to come-up with any explanation on the differences between Iraq and Ukraine and just cites "whataboutism" like it's a magic word.
Russia would be committing Whatboutism if they just said since USA got to invade Iraq and Afganistan and violated those countries rights', we should be able to do the same to Ukraine. Basically, USA committed a wrong and so we get to do the same as well.
But that's not what Russia is saying, what Russia is saying that there is such a thing as justified aggression versus a threat; USA's justification for the Iraq invasion was Iraq having WMDs. Russia's justification is threat of Nato Expansion and the interesting discussion would be if that justification is valid or not. But no, most discussions just cry "whatboutism" and all discussion ends there.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30548787
Razengan
"Not resorting to Whataboutism, but try to see how the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan (two in a row, and the subsequent occupation for 20 years no less!) by the US was seen as “just” by all the nations now condemning Russia. Take a look at maps of NATO expansion:
https://old.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/t37zf4/countries_j...
If America was concerned about Russian nukes in Cuba, shouldn’t Russia be concerned about an alliance encroaching up to their literal border?"
selfhoster11
"This is basically whataboutism. I don't consider myself well informed enough on any Middle Eastern conflicts, but if I found anything objectionable there, I'm happy to call out both the US and Russia on their BS. BTW, "NATO expansion" was there for a reason, and you don't get to claim that the new members didn't want to join of their own initiative. Every post-communist country that wants to keep their self-determination is worried about falling back into being Russian puppets once more."
Razengan raises the perfectly valid point of how come invasion of Iraq and Afganistan was not met by any outcry or sanctions by those countries who supposedly value countries sovereign rights?
selfhoster11 instantly replies with "whataboutism" and so kills the discussion that way.
Question: how is asking about what makes the Ukraine invasion different from the Iraq invasion, whataboutism?
Answer: It's not whatboutism.
People just throw blindly throw whatboutism when there is any discussion about other countries even when there is zero whatboutism. In this example, selfhoster11 doesn't even bother to come-up with any explanation on the differences between Iraq and Ukraine and just cites "whataboutism" like it's a magic word.
Russia would be committing Whatboutism if they just said since USA got to invade Iraq and Afganistan and violated those countries rights', we should be able to do the same to Ukraine. Basically, USA committed a wrong and so we get to do the same as well.
But that's not what Russia is saying, what Russia is saying that there is such a thing as justified aggression versus a threat; USA's justification for the Iraq invasion was Iraq having WMDs. Russia's justification is threat of Nato Expansion and the interesting discussion would be if that justification is valid or not. But no, most discussions just cry "whatboutism" and all discussion ends there.
In addition Whataboutism never tries to deliver an argument in favour of your position, only arguments against other positions.
It is usually invoked in the fashion:
- We have this and that reason to do {thing}.
- These reasons are laughable and you still don't have excuse to do {thing}.
- What about when you did {thing} with ever worse reasons stated?
In this case I would say whataboutism is justified, or at least, no constructive dialogue is possible.
- We have this and that reason to do {thing}.
- These reasons are laughable and you still don't have excuse to do {thing}.
- What about when you did {thing} with ever worse reasons stated?
In this case I would say whataboutism is justified, or at least, no constructive dialogue is possible.
It is not justified because however worse the reasons of the other party are, it will never make your own argument true. Your example exhibits the tu-quoque fallacy.
You are right with the last sentence. Unfortunately few people are interested to find out what's true in our world nowadays — for them it is more important to feel justified with their position regardless if its true or false.
You are right with the last sentence. Unfortunately few people are interested to find out what's true in our world nowadays — for them it is more important to feel justified with their position regardless if its true or false.
The key here is that when talking to an American, "you" means every American since the founding of the US. Collectively, that's an endless mine of material.
When talking to anyone else, "you" means one individual, like Putin, plus one can be sure an American won't remember a single thing he did more than a year ago and that can be dismissed as a digression in any case.
When talking to anyone else, "you" means one individual, like Putin, plus one can be sure an American won't remember a single thing he did more than a year ago and that can be dismissed as a digression in any case.
The reasoning is: Two wrongs don't make a right, and the subject being discussed is A not B.
That's what's wrong with whataboutism.
That's what's wrong with whataboutism.
Yup, there's nothing wrong with it. Crying about it just an effective way to shut down dissent.
glogla(1)
Loads of things wrong with this interpretation; just to point out a few:
- it’s pointless to insist on zero hypocrisy before entertaining the ideas of another because there’s no such thing in any human and never has been. You’re a hypocrite. So am i. Get over it.
- “what about x?” distracts from the issue being discussed and usually has absolutely nothing to do with it anyway
For example, imagine something like this:
Pro-Invasion guy: “Putin is right, the US pushed them into this, they’re acting in self defense!”
Not-Bullshit guy: “Oh come on, it’s not like the US or NATO launched an attack from a base of operations within Ukraine.“
PIG: “What about the US invasion of Iraq under the Bush doctrine of preemptive war?”
The two are entirely unrelated for a myriad of reasons. It’s a purely emotional reaction meant to vindicate your fragile little ego, and nothing more. Worst of all, it wastes time and effort that’s better spent working the real problem. We could have been finding ways to help the Russian people circumvent Putin’s news censorship instead of this just now, which would have done a hell of a lot more to promote the cause of human liberty than this discussion, and possibly could have indirectly saved lives in the long run.
But here we are…
- it’s pointless to insist on zero hypocrisy before entertaining the ideas of another because there’s no such thing in any human and never has been. You’re a hypocrite. So am i. Get over it.
- “what about x?” distracts from the issue being discussed and usually has absolutely nothing to do with it anyway
For example, imagine something like this:
Pro-Invasion guy: “Putin is right, the US pushed them into this, they’re acting in self defense!”
Not-Bullshit guy: “Oh come on, it’s not like the US or NATO launched an attack from a base of operations within Ukraine.“
PIG: “What about the US invasion of Iraq under the Bush doctrine of preemptive war?”
The two are entirely unrelated for a myriad of reasons. It’s a purely emotional reaction meant to vindicate your fragile little ego, and nothing more. Worst of all, it wastes time and effort that’s better spent working the real problem. We could have been finding ways to help the Russian people circumvent Putin’s news censorship instead of this just now, which would have done a hell of a lot more to promote the cause of human liberty than this discussion, and possibly could have indirectly saved lives in the long run.
But here we are…
Ready.gov suggests a hand crank or NOAA weather radio. Specifically, I suppose some good goals would be:
1. Receive instructions from any functioning local or state government. This would require that the local government know which type of radio the populace is likely to be listening on, which gives an advantage to FM or weather radios.
2. Communicate with other regional survivors.
3. Global news, for which shortwave would be indispensable.
Maybe multiple radios that can receive on different frequencies would be best? I really know very little about this topic other than basic physical signal characteristics.
Edit: I don't "prep," but I occasionally browse this website when doomscrolling, which has a few suggestions: https://theprepared.com/gear/reviews/emergency-radio/