Note: Do not interpret anything in this post as an allusion to my feelings about Ukraine or Russia. I'm only discussing how our ruling class sees it and America's perceived responsibility to it.

A few weeks ago, The New York Times hosted a conversation on Twitter about the war in Ukraine, and how it might end (or not end). The entire conversation was absolutely amazing in terms of how our ruling class thinks about things, including their casual discussion of how the United States is in many ways responsible for much of the current suffering taking place in Ukraine. Seriously, it was breathtaking.

One part of the transcript I want to share with you is their discussion of Russian disinformation vs. Ukraine information campaigns. The following is an abridged version of the larger exchange between the Times' National Security Correspondent David Sangar and his guests from various think tanks and institutes of Leftist thought:

NYT: “To what extent is the Kremlin trying to control public opinion here, not just in Russia but in other countries through online disinformation campaigns about the war? Obviously we’ve seen them try to downplay to many Russians the degree to which they’ve suffered casualties… how successful has Russia’s disinformation campaign been beyond Russia’s borders?”

Guest: “I’d say in the countries of Europe and the United States it's not been terribly successful. I think the [media] coverage has been justifiably sympathetic to Ukraine and critical of Russia.

NYT: "Seven years ago, we were discussing just about every day, the Russian attacks on the election system here and the success to some degree of their disinformation campaign in the United States. We're a long way down the line and having Americans and others far more educated about their techniques. Would you agree with Richard that this is a little bit of a a declining coin of the realm for the Russians?"

Guest: "I do, I think that the Ukrainians have unquestionably won the information war, not just by publicizing the reality of the atrocities and the horrible tactics that the Russian military is using, but in many ways amplifying their successes with some propaganda. Of course the, uh, the fighter of Kiev, that they've promoted since the start of the war. That's turned out now not to be real. And you know, if you had listened to the stories about the their supposed successes, you would have thought that this this lone individual had shot down the entire Russian Air Force. And you've seen that obviously was a snake island mythology initially about the defenders of that island saying to the Russian warship an obscenity, but then they ended up surrendering to the Russians. So they've done very, very well in promoting their narrative of both their valiant struggle against the Russians, and obviously portraying the reality of this brutal war. The Russians have seen the limits of their information operations. It's not that they haven't tried to promote their narratives, both to try to demoralize the Ukrainians.
And to try to garner support for their actions, it's just that it has not been effective."

They then move on to a discussion on how the Biden Administration has made a mistake in how they've framed this conflict. If you don't understand why this exchange is simply incredible, please go back and read it a few more times. What we have here is a discussion about Russian disinformation that includes references to how Western media has fostered sympathy for Ukraine (understandably so) with admissions that much of this coverage has been Ukrainian propaganda that turned out to be absolutely false (or 'mythology' as the guest calls it). The framing is among the many aspects of this to consider, in that they refer to this propaganda and mythology as Ukraine winning the information war, as contrasted to Russia's disinformation efforts.

There's a lot to unpack here, but much of it goes back to another quote from earlier in the conversation:

“Since Putin can’t afford to lose, and The West can’t afford to let him win, how far will the US go on this?”

While its never made clear why 'The West can't afford to let Putin win,' this axiom explains why Ukrainian propaganda and Western media's dissemination of it is good, while anything Russia says constitutes misinformation (which is probably a mostly accurate description of Russian media). As I reference in my chapter on why The Left are not hypocritical, consequentialist ethics is behind all of this. Once you understand this aspect of The Regime and how it operates in practice via The Cathedral, all of this makes sense. Mythology and Propaganda are, in fact, "information" because they serve the goals of those in power, in this case, defeating Russia via opportunity for a proxy war in Ukraine.

The reason I told you how the conversation progressed after the section I quoted is to also illuminate the fact that they did not pause at all on Western media support of Ukraine's propaganda and mythology. They all knew those things weren't true, but they also agree that the veracity didn't matter in any substantive way. They didn't discuss it because it wasn't worthy of discussion in their minds, as they all see it the same way.

I'm going to include a link to the entire conversation, because it is 100% worth listening to in its entirety. The main takeaways, however, are pretty straightforward:

-Begin with the axiom "The West can't afford to let Putin win."
-The war in Ukraine will probably result in a stalemate because Ukraine will continue to fight an unwinnable war of defense, made an unwinnable war of Russian offense via Western aid.
-Aid to Ukraine is necessary because of a Russian blockade on their ports, which has destroyed ~90% of Ukraine's economy. Russia will remove the blockade if America removes sanctions, which "isn't an option."
-Ukraine will "have incentive to keep fighting as long as the aid keeps coming.”
-The aid will keep coming as long as the American people are invested in the conflict. The Cathedral will do everything in their power to keep them interested as long as possible.
-"The West can't afford to let Putin win" so they will continue to support Ukraine's fight against him, no matter the cost to Ukraine and its people.

This is just one example of why I've shifted my focus to almost pure strategy on the fastest way to not have these people in charge of anything. They lie to you, exploit the suffering of others, and do anything else available to them in the maintenance of their power. Their rhetoric of compassion for the downtrodden is a front for the maintenance of their power. Their lofty claims about defending freedom is a front for the maintenance of their power. Their attacks on regular people who even question them is a front for the maintenance of their power. They are dangerous not simply because their ideas are bad, but because of their absolute sincere dedication to the lies they've told themselves to justify those bad ideas.

This is also why I am increasingly frustrated with "opposition" to The Regime that turns out to be about as effective in a practical sense as shooting spitwads at NORAD.

Just as "The West can't afford to let Putin win," we can't afford to keep shooting spitwads at NORAD. Strategy doesn't have to evolve; it has to emerge. You don't evolve from bad strategy, you abandon it.

https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1kvJpARgdoDxE?s=20