[Mick]

Putin says Russia is building a new world, in this Barron's article:

https://www.barrons.com/news/putin-says-...d-758dda60

Mick, you've earned my undying respect as a poster on this board, but honestly, why should anyone care what Putin says? The guy lies about everything, kills his own citizens, terrorizes people, and has no regard for life or limb.

Just stop it with this hegemonic bullshit. Allowing people to be free and choose their own way is incompatible with autocratic rule. That's what threatens Russia and Putin, and Xi, and China. It works for 90% of the countries in the world, but Russia and China, Iran, and North Korea are threatened by freedom and democracy.

NATO and the EU are not imperialist threats. If Putin GAF about his people, he'd eagerly reform Russia and be willing to be replaced in the name of making lives better for Russians. The fact he won't proves the guy is nothing more than a glorified organized crime boss who doesn't want his power threatened, and has an ego that can't be contained.

No credible source of information would give Putin a platform to gaslight and spread his propaganda.

While I agree with your assessment of Putin, I think staying current on the latest in Russian propaganda can be useful. Russian propaganda is so ham-handed that it functions as a practice exercise for Intro to Recognizing Gaslighting. It is also helpful to be able to recognize the source when someone else tries to peddle somewhat refined versions of the same BS.

Right as rain. I honestly didn't think I needed to offer up the caveat, but here it is: to be clear, I neither admire nor advocate Putin's positions or propaganda. I do think it is interesting and relevant to keep up on the asinine scribblings of the ex-KGB thug dictator (a) because these are the lies that he is conveying to his population and to allies, and (b) it gives you an idea of his mindset, no matter how farfetched or nonsensical.

I suspect that is likely Barron's position as well. They're taken seriously by a percentage of the financial, economic and political worlds, and I believe they are merely sharing Russian propaganda with the underlying assumption that their readers understand that no one who is part of their community has anything but contempt and alarm for a thug dictator, and that it's better to keep on top of him rather than ignore him...particularly when he is losing a hot war, is in combat against NATO proxies and has a degree of control over a nuclear arsenal.

[Mick]

Putin says Russia is building a new world, in this Barron's article:

https://www.barrons.com/news/putin-says-...d-758dda60

Mick, you've earned my undying respect as a poster on this board, but honestly, why should anyone care what Putin says? The guy lies about everything, kills his own citizens, terrorizes people, and has no regard for life or limb.

Just stop it with this hegemonic bullshit. Allowing people to be free and choose their own way is incompatible with autocratic rule. That's what threatens Russia and Putin, and Xi, and China. It works for 90% of the countries in the world, but Russia and China, Iran, and North Korea are threatened by freedom and democracy.

NATO and the EU are not imperialist threats. If Putin GAF about his people, he'd eagerly reform Russia and be willing to be replaced in the name of making lives better for Russians. The fact he won't proves the guy is nothing more than a glorified organized crime boss who doesn't want his power threatened, and has an ego that can't be contained.

No credible source of information would give Putin a platform to gaslight and spread his propaganda.

While I agree with your assessment of Putin, I think staying current on the latest in Russian propaganda can be useful. Russian propaganda is so ham-handed that it functions as a practice exercise for Intro to Recognizing Gaslighting. It is also helpful to be able to recognize the source when someone else tries to peddle somewhat refined versions of the same BS.

Right as rain. I honestly didn't think I needed to offer up the caveat, but here it is: to be clear, I neither admire nor advocate Putin's positions or propaganda. I do think it is interesting and relevant to keep up on the asinine scribblings of the ex-KGB thug dictator (a) because these are the lies that he is conveying to his population and to allies, and (b) it gives you an idea of his mindset, no matter how farfetched or nonsensical.

I suspect that is likely Barron's position as well. They're taken seriously by a percentage of the financial, economic and political worlds, and I believe they are merely sharing Russian propaganda with the underlying assumption that their readers understand that no one who is part of their community has anything but contempt and alarm for a thug dictator, and that it's better to keep on top of him rather than ignore him...particularly when he is losing a hot war, is in combat against NATO proxies and has a degree of control over a nuclear arsenal.

[OutsiderFan]

I believe they are merely sharing Russian propaganda with the underlying assumption that their readers understand that no one who is part of their community has anything but contempt and alarm for a thug dictator, and that it's better to keep on top of him rather than ignore him...particularly when he is losing a hot war, is in combat against NATO proxies and has a degree of control over a nuclear arsenal.

The problem is nowhere on the page is there any disclaimer warning people they are reading propaganda that should not be taken as truth. Nor does it point out Putin is a war criminal. It doesn't say "just so you are aware, this is the nonsense Putin is peddling this week."

It's reported at face value with no caveats. Not acceptable, IMO.

[OutsiderFan]

I believe they are merely sharing Russian propaganda with the underlying assumption that their readers understand that no one who is part of their community has anything but contempt and alarm for a thug dictator, and that it's better to keep on top of him rather than ignore him...particularly when he is losing a hot war, is in combat against NATO proxies and has a degree of control over a nuclear arsenal.

The problem is nowhere on the page is there any disclaimer warning people they are reading propaganda that should not be taken as truth. Nor does it point out Putin is a war criminal. It doesn't say "just so you are aware, this is the nonsense Putin is peddling this week."

It's reported at face value with no caveats. Not acceptable, IMO.

[rogpodge]

The problem is nowhere on the page is there any disclaimer warning people they are reading propaganda that should not be taken as truth. Nor does it point out Putin is a war criminal. It doesn't say "just so you are aware, this is the nonsense Putin is peddling this week."

It's reported at face value with no caveats. Not acceptable, IMO.

Did Brian Stelter write this?  A speech by a world leader is news.  A news article should be able to report the facts, that is, the words the leader spoke, and attribute the words to "Russian President Vladimir Putin" because that is all accurate.  Injecting disclaimers, warnings, propaganda labels, a label that Putin is a war criminal, etc. does not help convey the facts.  It just converts an article into... propaganda... propaganda that you like.  It's stuff like this that has resulted in journalists and the news becoming one of the least trusted institutions in America.  Read your sign off phrase again.  "It's reported at face value with no caveats.  Not acceptable."  Are you kidding me?  Reporting things at face value is (used to be?) news.  The caveats, disclaimers, labeling, etc. is what made something an op-ed, not news.  But maybe I'm just old-fashioned. 

In my opinion, all the "context" you would require insults the intelligence of the reader.  I can form an opinion that this speech is not truthful, that Putin has ulterior motives, etc. on my own without being spoon-fed opinions or being told to start the two minutes of hate every time I see Putin made a speech.  I find it useful to read facts so I can develop some insight into Putin's thinking, or noticing a trend on how he's trying to manipulate world opinion without feeling like I'm reading counter-propaganda.  Here's the crazy thing... I can hold those same opinions of the speaker, and still appreciate objective reporting, without ascribing bad motives to the writer of an article (or the publication, or the parent company) for simply reporting the facts.

[rogpodge]

The problem is nowhere on the page is there any disclaimer warning people they are reading propaganda that should not be taken as truth. Nor does it point out Putin is a war criminal. It doesn't say "just so you are aware, this is the nonsense Putin is peddling this week."

It's reported at face value with no caveats. Not acceptable, IMO.

Did Brian Stelter write this?  A speech by a world leader is news.  A news article should be able to report the facts, that is, the words the leader spoke, and attribute the words to "Russian President Vladimir Putin" because that is all accurate.  Injecting disclaimers, warnings, propaganda labels, a label that Putin is a war criminal, etc. does not help convey the facts.  It just converts an article into... propaganda... propaganda that you like.  It's stuff like this that has resulted in journalists and the news becoming one of the least trusted institutions in America.  Read your sign off phrase again.  "It's reported at face value with no caveats.  Not acceptable."  Are you kidding me?  Reporting things at face value is (used to be?) news.  The caveats, disclaimers, labeling, etc. is what made something an op-ed, not news.  But maybe I'm just old-fashioned. 

In my opinion, all the "context" you would require insults the intelligence of the reader.  I can form an opinion that this speech is not truthful, that Putin has ulterior motives, etc. on my own without being spoon-fed opinions or being told to start the two minutes of hate every time I see Putin made a speech.  I find it useful to read facts so I can develop some insight into Putin's thinking, or noticing a trend on how he's trying to manipulate world opinion without feeling like I'm reading counter-propaganda.  Here's the crazy thing... I can hold those same opinions of the speaker, and still appreciate objective reporting, without ascribing bad motives to the writer of an article (or the publication, or the parent company) for simply reporting the facts.

[cardcrimson]

The problem is nowhere on the page is there any disclaimer warning people they are reading propaganda that should not be taken as truth. Nor does it point out Putin is a war criminal. It doesn't say "just so you are aware, this is the nonsense Putin is peddling this week."

It's reported at face value with no caveats. Not acceptable, IMO.

Did Brian Stelter write this?  A speech by a world leader is news.  A news article should be able to report the facts, that is, the words the leader spoke, and attribute the words to "Russian President Vladimir Putin" because that is all accurate.  Injecting disclaimers, warnings, propaganda labels, a label that Putin is a war criminal, etc. does not help convey the facts.  It just converts an article into... propaganda... propaganda that you like.  It's stuff like this that has resulted in journalists and the news becoming one of the least trusted institutions in America.  Read your sign off phrase again.  "It's reported at face value with no caveats.  Not acceptable."  Are you kidding me?  Reporting things at face value is (used to be?) news.  The caveats, disclaimers, labeling, etc. is what made something an op-ed, not news.  But maybe I'm just old-fashioned. 

In my opinion, all the "context" you would require insults the intelligence of the reader.  I can form an opinion that this speech is not truthful, that Putin has ulterior motives, etc. on my own without being spoon-fed opinions or being told to start the two minutes of hate every time I see Putin made a speech.  I find it useful to read facts so I can develop some insight into Putin's thinking, or noticing a trend on how he's trying to manipulate world opinion without feeling like I'm reading counter-propaganda.  Here's the crazy thing... I can hold those same opinions of the speaker, and still appreciate objective reporting, without ascribing bad motives to the writer of an article (or the publication, or the parent company) for simply reporting the facts.

Brilliant post rogpodge. Unfiltered news, not narrative. Of course, the propagandists think otherwise. . . .

[cardcrimson]

The problem is nowhere on the page is there any disclaimer warning people they are reading propaganda that should not be taken as truth. Nor does it point out Putin is a war criminal. It doesn't say "just so you are aware, this is the nonsense Putin is peddling this week."

It's reported at face value with no caveats. Not acceptable, IMO.

Did Brian Stelter write this?  A speech by a world leader is news.  A news article should be able to report the facts, that is, the words the leader spoke, and attribute the words to "Russian President Vladimir Putin" because that is all accurate.  Injecting disclaimers, warnings, propaganda labels, a label that Putin is a war criminal, etc. does not help convey the facts.  It just converts an article into... propaganda... propaganda that you like.  It's stuff like this that has resulted in journalists and the news becoming one of the least trusted institutions in America.  Read your sign off phrase again.  "It's reported at face value with no caveats.  Not acceptable."  Are you kidding me?  Reporting things at face value is (used to be?) news.  The caveats, disclaimers, labeling, etc. is what made something an op-ed, not news.  But maybe I'm just old-fashioned. 

In my opinion, all the "context" you would require insults the intelligence of the reader.  I can form an opinion that this speech is not truthful, that Putin has ulterior motives, etc. on my own without being spoon-fed opinions or being told to start the two minutes of hate every time I see Putin made a speech.  I find it useful to read facts so I can develop some insight into Putin's thinking, or noticing a trend on how he's trying to manipulate world opinion without feeling like I'm reading counter-propaganda.  Here's the crazy thing... I can hold those same opinions of the speaker, and still appreciate objective reporting, without ascribing bad motives to the writer of an article (or the publication, or the parent company) for simply reporting the facts.

Brilliant post rogpodge. Unfiltered news, not narrative. Of course, the propagandists think otherwise. . . .

[OutsiderFan]

The problem is nowhere on the page is there any disclaimer warning people they are reading propaganda that should not be taken as truth. Nor does it point out Putin is a war criminal. It doesn't say "just so you are aware, this is the nonsense Putin is peddling this week."

It's reported at face value with no caveats. Not acceptable, IMO.

Did Brian Stelter write this?  A speech by a world leader is news.  A news article should be able to report the facts, that is, the words the leader spoke, and attribute the words to "Russian President Vladimir Putin" because that is all accurate.  Injecting disclaimers, warnings, propaganda labels, a label that Putin is a war criminal, etc. does not help convey the facts.  It just converts an article into... propaganda... propaganda that you like.  It's stuff like this that has resulted in journalists and the news becoming one of the least trusted institutions in America.  Read your sign off phrase again.  "It's reported at face value with no caveats.  Not acceptable."  Are you kidding me?  Reporting things at face value is (used to be?) news.  The caveats, disclaimers, labeling, etc. is what made something an op-ed, not news.  But maybe I'm just old-fashioned. 

In my opinion, all the "context" you would require insults the intelligence of the reader.  I can form an opinion that this speech is not truthful, that Putin has ulterior motives, etc. on my own without being spoon-fed opinions or being told to start the two minutes of hate every time I see Putin made a speech.  I find it useful to read facts so I can develop some insight into Putin's thinking, or noticing a trend on how he's trying to manipulate world opinion without feeling like I'm reading counter-propaganda.  Here's the crazy thing... I can hold those same opinions of the speaker, and still appreciate objective reporting, without ascribing bad motives to the writer of an article (or the publication, or the parent company) for simply reporting the facts.

In your perfect world, I would agree 100%. The problem is we don't live in a perfect world. Many people are not able to think critically, are unable to see through bullshit, and are easily influenced. Platforming proven liars without demonstrating why they might not be trustworthy normalizes and legitimizes them and what they say. I guarantee you there are Russian propaganda pushers using that Barron's article to legitimize Putin's absurd position, winning people over, and creating political power that enables Putin. I mean the German Chancellor is on record just this week saying he has reticence about giving missiles to Ukraine that can hit Russia for fear of war escalation. That fear is just him afraid of losing political support. If he had his druthers, he'd arm Ukraine to the teeth to defeat Russia. But Russia does a great job using propaganda for political influence in all countries - including Germany - that Barron's is dutifully helping to spread.

I argue journalism is not trusted because just reporting what people in power say, not fact-checking them, or providing context about what they say with a goal to promote truth, leads to people being misinformed and believing things that are objectively not true. And it has real world impact on how society makes decisions.

The entire Russian country is ruled by lies that propagate in media with absolutely zero pushback. It's simply not credible to say taking extra steps to promote truth isn't needed, because history demonstrates what happens when lies go unchecked and liars are normalized. People die. Wars are fought. Our environment is ruined, and it ends up costing us treasure.

Would you take issue with Barrons pointing out something like "Vladimir Putin is the undemocratically elected leader of Russia who has consolidated his power by eliminating the free press and fair elections." ? It doesn't require fact-checking his points (though that would be preferred), just a reminder that the guy is not credible, to remind readers they should consider the source before believing what is reportedly said.

[OutsiderFan]

The problem is nowhere on the page is there any disclaimer warning people they are reading propaganda that should not be taken as truth. Nor does it point out Putin is a war criminal. It doesn't say "just so you are aware, this is the nonsense Putin is peddling this week."

It's reported at face value with no caveats. Not acceptable, IMO.

Did Brian Stelter write this?  A speech by a world leader is news.  A news article should be able to report the facts, that is, the words the leader spoke, and attribute the words to "Russian President Vladimir Putin" because that is all accurate.  Injecting disclaimers, warnings, propaganda labels, a label that Putin is a war criminal, etc. does not help convey the facts.  It just converts an article into... propaganda... propaganda that you like.  It's stuff like this that has resulted in journalists and the news becoming one of the least trusted institutions in America.  Read your sign off phrase again.  "It's reported at face value with no caveats.  Not acceptable."  Are you kidding me?  Reporting things at face value is (used to be?) news.  The caveats, disclaimers, labeling, etc. is what made something an op-ed, not news.  But maybe I'm just old-fashioned. 

In my opinion, all the "context" you would require insults the intelligence of the reader.  I can form an opinion that this speech is not truthful, that Putin has ulterior motives, etc. on my own without being spoon-fed opinions or being told to start the two minutes of hate every time I see Putin made a speech.  I find it useful to read facts so I can develop some insight into Putin's thinking, or noticing a trend on how he's trying to manipulate world opinion without feeling like I'm reading counter-propaganda.  Here's the crazy thing... I can hold those same opinions of the speaker, and still appreciate objective reporting, without ascribing bad motives to the writer of an article (or the publication, or the parent company) for simply reporting the facts.

In your perfect world, I would agree 100%. The problem is we don't live in a perfect world. Many people are not able to think critically, are unable to see through bullshit, and are easily influenced. Platforming proven liars without demonstrating why they might not be trustworthy normalizes and legitimizes them and what they say. I guarantee you there are Russian propaganda pushers using that Barron's article to legitimize Putin's absurd position, winning people over, and creating political power that enables Putin. I mean the German Chancellor is on record just this week saying he has reticence about giving missiles to Ukraine that can hit Russia for fear of war escalation. That fear is just him afraid of losing political support. If he had his druthers, he'd arm Ukraine to the teeth to defeat Russia. But Russia does a great job using propaganda for political influence in all countries - including Germany - that Barron's is dutifully helping to spread.

I argue journalism is not trusted because just reporting what people in power say, not fact-checking them, or providing context about what they say with a goal to promote truth, leads to people being misinformed and believing things that are objectively not true. And it has real world impact on how society makes decisions.

The entire Russian country is ruled by lies that propagate in media with absolutely zero pushback. It's simply not credible to say taking extra steps to promote truth isn't needed, because history demonstrates what happens when lies go unchecked and liars are normalized. People die. Wars are fought. Our environment is ruined, and it ends up costing us treasure.

Would you take issue with Barrons pointing out something like "Vladimir Putin is the undemocratically elected leader of Russia who has consolidated his power by eliminating the free press and fair elections." ? It doesn't require fact-checking his points (though that would be preferred), just a reminder that the guy is not credible, to remind readers they should consider the source before believing what is reportedly said.

[Goose]

The history of organized attempts to ensure a "right thinking" populace is long and fraught with failures that led to the exact opposite. The credibility of news organizations has been greatly compromised in the last 20 years or so by them presenting opinion as fact. There are, and probably always will be, organizations that are purportedly "news" outlets that actually spread their opinions as fact. In the past, the public could easily identify these outlets and take their statements with many grains of salt. Today, even the mainstream news reports stories with significant "editorial bias". On top of that many "talking head" opinion programs are presented as "news", when in reality they are a small group of mostly like-minded individuals expressing their opinions.

Arguably, no "news" reporting organization can be completely unbiased, as at a minimum they must chose what to report and what not to report. It is difficult to avoid bias in that decision, but "responsible" news organizations try. The inherent assumption of American Democracy has always been that the people can sort through the "facts" and arrive at the truth. However, when the "facts" are accompanied by opinions that caveat  the reports, the public does indeed cease to trust the media and then often chooses among the all universally biased reporting the one that matches their own personnel biases. IMO that is where we sit. We have indeed people that attempt to "facilitate" "right-thinking" by pointing out that "you can't trust person X". In many cases, these caveats may be correct, but their presence destroys the neutrality and objectivity of the reports.

IMO support for Ukraine is best served by simply reporting the facts. The facts in this war tell their own story. They don't require a "Ukraine for Dummies". It may be that the public is no longer capable of (or willing to) sorting fact from opinion, but there is a lot better chance of a "correct" consensus being reached that way than by "well-meaning" (or not) guides telling us what to believe and what to ignore.

[Goose]

The history of organized attempts to ensure a "right thinking" populace is long and fraught with failures that led to the exact opposite. The credibility of news organizations has been greatly compromised in the last 20 years or so by them presenting opinion as fact. There are, and probably always will be, organizations that are purportedly "news" outlets that actually spread their opinions as fact. In the past, the public could easily identify these outlets and take their statements with many grains of salt. Today, even the mainstream news reports stories with significant "editorial bias". On top of that many "talking head" opinion programs are presented as "news", when in reality they are a small group of mostly like-minded individuals expressing their opinions.

Arguably, no "news" reporting organization can be completely unbiased, as at a minimum they must chose what to report and what not to report. It is difficult to avoid bias in that decision, but "responsible" news organizations try. The inherent assumption of American Democracy has always been that the people can sort through the "facts" and arrive at the truth. However, when the "facts" are accompanied by opinions that caveat  the reports, the public does indeed cease to trust the media and then often chooses among the all universally biased reporting the one that matches their own personnel biases. IMO that is where we sit. We have indeed people that attempt to "facilitate" "right-thinking" by pointing out that "you can't trust person X". In many cases, these caveats may be correct, but their presence destroys the neutrality and objectivity of the reports.

IMO support for Ukraine is best served by simply reporting the facts. The facts in this war tell their own story. They don't require a "Ukraine for Dummies". It may be that the public is no longer capable of (or willing to) sorting fact from opinion, but there is a lot better chance of a "correct" consensus being reached that way than by "well-meaning" (or not) guides telling us what to believe and what to ignore.

[rogpodge]

In your perfect world, I would agree 100%. The problem is we don't live in a perfect world. Many people are not able to think critically, are unable to see through bullshit, and are easily influenced. Platforming proven liars without demonstrating why they might not be trustworthy normalizes and legitimizes them and what they say. I guarantee you there are Russian propaganda pushers using that Barron's article to legitimize Putin's absurd position, winning people over, and creating political power that enables Putin. I mean the German Chancellor is on record just this week saying he has reticence about giving missiles to Ukraine that can hit Russia for fear of war escalation. That fear is just him afraid of losing political support. If he had his druthers, he'd arm Ukraine to the teeth to defeat Russia. But Russia does a great job using propaganda for political influence in all countries - including Germany - that Barron's is dutifully helping to spread.

Would you take issue with Barrons pointing out something like "Vladimir Putin is the undemocratically elected leader of Russia who has consolidated his power by eliminating the free press and fair elections." ? It doesn't require fact-checking his points (though that would be preferred), just a reminder that the guy is not credible, to remind readers they should consider the source

No. This whole idea of "platforming" and curating sources you don't like is what authoritarians and totalitarians do. It's propagandistic, no matter what side you're on. I also don't believe that this labeling or context has your desired effect in all cases. 

Let's look at your example of the German chancellor. While he may personally want to neutralize the Russian threat by any means necessary, do you honestly think that if Barron's labeled their report on what Putin said, he would be suddenly emboldened to risk nuclear war? Or he may be doing what generations of risk adverse politicians who don't want to live with the consequences of a nuclear strike in Europe? Plus his country until recently, was dependent on Russia for energy and is still going to be located very close to Russia.

Let's look at a current example. Whatever your view of the Palestinian conflict, in this situation, Hamas launched an unprovoked strike targeting civilians (mostly kidnapping elderly people and children). But first, let's label Israel and Netanyahu, before relaying what Israel is doing about it. 

Just because a news agency is called Pravda doesn't mean it is telling the truth.  The whole fact-checking industry on both sides has discredited itself.  So no. I don't believe that only certain people should be "platformed."  I believe that relaying facts, including what terrible people say, is proper.  I'm open to looking at counter-evidence if presented with sources so I can weigh the evidence myself. But I don't like pre-labeling everything and presenting opinions as "context."

[rogpodge]

In your perfect world, I would agree 100%. The problem is we don't live in a perfect world. Many people are not able to think critically, are unable to see through bullshit, and are easily influenced. Platforming proven liars without demonstrating why they might not be trustworthy normalizes and legitimizes them and what they say. I guarantee you there are Russian propaganda pushers using that Barron's article to legitimize Putin's absurd position, winning people over, and creating political power that enables Putin. I mean the German Chancellor is on record just this week saying he has reticence about giving missiles to Ukraine that can hit Russia for fear of war escalation. That fear is just him afraid of losing political support. If he had his druthers, he'd arm Ukraine to the teeth to defeat Russia. But Russia does a great job using propaganda for political influence in all countries - including Germany - that Barron's is dutifully helping to spread.

Would you take issue with Barrons pointing out something like "Vladimir Putin is the undemocratically elected leader of Russia who has consolidated his power by eliminating the free press and fair elections." ? It doesn't require fact-checking his points (though that would be preferred), just a reminder that the guy is not credible, to remind readers they should consider the source

No. This whole idea of "platforming" and curating sources you don't like is what authoritarians and totalitarians do. It's propagandistic, no matter what side you're on. I also don't believe that this labeling or context has your desired effect in all cases. 

Let's look at your example of the German chancellor. While he may personally want to neutralize the Russian threat by any means necessary, do you honestly think that if Barron's labeled their report on what Putin said, he would be suddenly emboldened to risk nuclear war? Or he may be doing what generations of risk adverse politicians who don't want to live with the consequences of a nuclear strike in Europe? Plus his country until recently, was dependent on Russia for energy and is still going to be located very close to Russia.

Let's look at a current example. Whatever your view of the Palestinian conflict, in this situation, Hamas launched an unprovoked strike targeting civilians (mostly kidnapping elderly people and children). But first, let's label Israel and Netanyahu, before relaying what Israel is doing about it. 

Just because a news agency is called Pravda doesn't mean it is telling the truth.  The whole fact-checking industry on both sides has discredited itself.  So no. I don't believe that only certain people should be "platformed."  I believe that relaying facts, including what terrible people say, is proper.  I'm open to looking at counter-evidence if presented with sources so I can weigh the evidence myself. But I don't like pre-labeling everything and presenting opinions as "context."

[cardcrimson]

In your perfect world, I would agree 100%. The problem is we don't live in a perfect world. Many people are not able to think critically, are unable to see through bullshit, and are easily influenced. 

Exactly. The unwashed masses are too stupid to realize what's right and what's wrong. They can't comprehend what is good for them and what isn't. We need our leadership to determine that, and the media to convey the messaging. . . ..

[cardcrimson]

In your perfect world, I would agree 100%. The problem is we don't live in a perfect world. Many people are not able to think critically, are unable to see through bullshit, and are easily influenced. 

Exactly. The unwashed masses are too stupid to realize what's right and what's wrong. They can't comprehend what is good for them and what isn't. We need our leadership to determine that, and the media to convey the messaging. . . ..

[BigJohn043]

The problem is nowhere on the page is there any disclaimer warning people they are reading propaganda that should not be taken as truth. Nor does it point out Putin is a war criminal. It doesn't say "just so you are aware, this is the nonsense Putin is peddling this week."

It's reported at face value with no caveats. Not acceptable, IMO.

Did Brian Stelter write this?  A speech by a world leader is news.  A news article should be able to report the facts, that is, the words the leader spoke, and attribute the words to "Russian President Vladimir Putin" because that is all accurate.  Injecting disclaimers, warnings, propaganda labels, a label that Putin is a war criminal, etc. does not help convey the facts.  It just converts an article into... propaganda... propaganda that you like.  It's stuff like this that has resulted in journalists and the news becoming one of the least trusted institutions in America.  Read your sign off phrase again.  "It's reported at face value with no caveats.  Not acceptable."  Are you kidding me?  Reporting things at face value is (used to be?) news.  The caveats, disclaimers, labeling, etc. is what made something an op-ed, not news.  But maybe I'm just old-fashioned. 

In my opinion, all the "context" you would require insults the intelligence of the reader.  I can form an opinion that this speech is not truthful, that Putin has ulterior motives, etc. on my own without being spoon-fed opinions or being told to start the two minutes of hate every time I see Putin made a speech.  I find it useful to read facts so I can develop some insight into Putin's thinking, or noticing a trend on how he's trying to manipulate world opinion without feeling like I'm reading counter-propaganda.  Here's the crazy thing... I can hold those same opinions of the speaker, and still appreciate objective reporting, without ascribing bad motives to the writer of an article (or the publication, or the parent company) for simply reporting the facts.

In your perfect world, I would agree 100%. The problem is we don't live in a perfect world. Many people are not able to think critically, are unable to see through bullshit, and are easily influenced. Platforming proven liars without demonstrating why they might not be trustworthy normalizes and legitimizes them and what they say. I guarantee you there are Russian propaganda pushers using that Barron's article to legitimize Putin's absurd position, winning people over, and creating political power that enables Putin. I mean the German Chancellor is on record just this week saying he has reticence about giving missiles to Ukraine that can hit Russia for fear of war escalation. That fear is just him afraid of losing political support. If he had his druthers, he'd arm Ukraine to the teeth to defeat Russia. But Russia does a great job using propaganda for political influence in all countries - including Germany - that Barron's is dutifully helping to spread.

I argue journalism is not trusted because just reporting what people in power say, not fact-checking them, or providing context about what they say with a goal to promote truth, leads to people being misinformed and believing things that are objectively not true. And it has real world impact on how society makes decisions.

The entire Russian country is ruled by lies that propagate in media with absolutely zero pushback. It's simply not credible to say taking extra steps to promote truth isn't needed, because history demonstrates what happens when lies go unchecked and liars are normalized. People die. Wars are fought. Our environment is ruined, and it ends up costing us treasure.

Would you take issue with Barrons pointing out something like "Vladimir Putin is the undemocratically elected leader of Russia who has consolidated his power by eliminating the free press and fair elections." ? It doesn't require fact-checking his points (though that would be preferred), just a reminder that the guy is not credible, to remind readers they should consider the source before believing what is reportedly said.

I think two things are true:

1)  News organizations (on both sides) over the last 20 years have significantly increased the amount of "context" and "editorializing" they put in their stories.

2)  The public's trust in news organizations has plummeted.

The only news I can even watch anymore is CNBC.  Investors all have political views but they also care about objective reality.

[BigJohn043]

The problem is nowhere on the page is there any disclaimer warning people they are reading propaganda that should not be taken as truth. Nor does it point out Putin is a war criminal. It doesn't say "just so you are aware, this is the nonsense Putin is peddling this week."

It's reported at face value with no caveats. Not acceptable, IMO.

Did Brian Stelter write this?  A speech by a world leader is news.  A news article should be able to report the facts, that is, the words the leader spoke, and attribute the words to "Russian President Vladimir Putin" because that is all accurate.  Injecting disclaimers, warnings, propaganda labels, a label that Putin is a war criminal, etc. does not help convey the facts.  It just converts an article into... propaganda... propaganda that you like.  It's stuff like this that has resulted in journalists and the news becoming one of the least trusted institutions in America.  Read your sign off phrase again.  "It's reported at face value with no caveats.  Not acceptable."  Are you kidding me?  Reporting things at face value is (used to be?) news.  The caveats, disclaimers, labeling, etc. is what made something an op-ed, not news.  But maybe I'm just old-fashioned. 

In my opinion, all the "context" you would require insults the intelligence of the reader.  I can form an opinion that this speech is not truthful, that Putin has ulterior motives, etc. on my own without being spoon-fed opinions or being told to start the two minutes of hate every time I see Putin made a speech.  I find it useful to read facts so I can develop some insight into Putin's thinking, or noticing a trend on how he's trying to manipulate world opinion without feeling like I'm reading counter-propaganda.  Here's the crazy thing... I can hold those same opinions of the speaker, and still appreciate objective reporting, without ascribing bad motives to the writer of an article (or the publication, or the parent company) for simply reporting the facts.

In your perfect world, I would agree 100%. The problem is we don't live in a perfect world. Many people are not able to think critically, are unable to see through bullshit, and are easily influenced. Platforming proven liars without demonstrating why they might not be trustworthy normalizes and legitimizes them and what they say. I guarantee you there are Russian propaganda pushers using that Barron's article to legitimize Putin's absurd position, winning people over, and creating political power that enables Putin. I mean the German Chancellor is on record just this week saying he has reticence about giving missiles to Ukraine that can hit Russia for fear of war escalation. That fear is just him afraid of losing political support. If he had his druthers, he'd arm Ukraine to the teeth to defeat Russia. But Russia does a great job using propaganda for political influence in all countries - including Germany - that Barron's is dutifully helping to spread.

I argue journalism is not trusted because just reporting what people in power say, not fact-checking them, or providing context about what they say with a goal to promote truth, leads to people being misinformed and believing things that are objectively not true. And it has real world impact on how society makes decisions.

The entire Russian country is ruled by lies that propagate in media with absolutely zero pushback. It's simply not credible to say taking extra steps to promote truth isn't needed, because history demonstrates what happens when lies go unchecked and liars are normalized. People die. Wars are fought. Our environment is ruined, and it ends up costing us treasure.

Would you take issue with Barrons pointing out something like "Vladimir Putin is the undemocratically elected leader of Russia who has consolidated his power by eliminating the free press and fair elections." ? It doesn't require fact-checking his points (though that would be preferred), just a reminder that the guy is not credible, to remind readers they should consider the source before believing what is reportedly said.

I think two things are true:

1)  News organizations (on both sides) over the last 20 years have significantly increased the amount of "context" and "editorializing" they put in their stories.

2)  The public's trust in news organizations has plummeted.

The only news I can even watch anymore is CNBC.  Investors all have political views but they also care about objective reality.

[thatboy]

Hi Goose & 81Alum. It's been a long week, so I'm just now getting back to this, but thank you for your responses regarding that video I posted. Very insightful and great feedback.

[thatboy]

Hi Goose & 81Alum. It's been a long week, so I'm just now getting back to this, but thank you for your responses regarding that video I posted. Very insightful and great feedback.

[OutsiderFan]

Is there any connection between the Hamas (Iran/Russia) attack on Israel, and Ukraine?

Might Russia be hoping to get support that would go to Ukraine going to help Israel? I doubt it because Israel is armed to beat the tar out of Hamas, and doesn't need much help. But war talk could turn western countries off of spending more on defense.

I think this would be a Putin miscalculation, and I actually think this Hamas nonsense will help Ukraine get more aid from the west, once the dots are connected back to Iran and Russia.

[OutsiderFan]

Is there any connection between the Hamas (Iran/Russia) attack on Israel, and Ukraine?

Might Russia be hoping to get support that would go to Ukraine going to help Israel? I doubt it because Israel is armed to beat the tar out of Hamas, and doesn't need much help. But war talk could turn western countries off of spending more on defense.

I think this would be a Putin miscalculation, and I actually think this Hamas nonsense will help Ukraine get more aid from the west, once the dots are connected back to Iran and Russia.

[TrumpCard]

The main connection is Iran. 

Iran funds and supports Hamas for ideological reasons, partly real and partly faked to justify the regime’s continued power. In addition, supporting Hamas allows Iran to project power in the region while maintaining non-plausible deniability that some believe despite the thinness of the veneer. 

To the best of my understanding, Iran supports Russia against Ukraine for a different reason, which is that Russia can actually provide material support to Iran, as well as veto UNSC resolutions on Iran’s behalf. This is more Machiavellian than ideological. 

I don’t think Russia cares about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (though I could be proven wrong).

[TrumpCard]

The main connection is Iran. 

Iran funds and supports Hamas for ideological reasons, partly real and partly faked to justify the regime’s continued power. In addition, supporting Hamas allows Iran to project power in the region while maintaining non-plausible deniability that some believe despite the thinness of the veneer. 

To the best of my understanding, Iran supports Russia against Ukraine for a different reason, which is that Russia can actually provide material support to Iran, as well as veto UNSC resolutions on Iran’s behalf. This is more Machiavellian than ideological. 

I don’t think Russia cares about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (though I could be proven wrong).

[Goose]

The main connection is Iran. 

Iran funds and supports Hamas for ideological reasons, partly real and partly faked to justify the regime’s continued power. In addition, supporting Hamas allows Iran to project power in the region while maintaining non-plausible deniability that some believe despite the thinness of the veneer.

To the best of my understanding, Iran supports Russia against Ukraine for a different reason, which is that Russia can actually provide material support to Iran, as well as veto UNSC resolutions on Iran’s behalf. This is more Machiavellian than ideological.

I think you are correct about the above. Chaos in the middle east is viewed in Iran as a "good thing". Iran has delusions of becoming the dominant regional power. Preventing other powers from concentrating on Iran as the "enemy" is good in Iranian eyes. As long as they aren't "frozen out" by peace breaking out in the middle east, Iranian ambitions have at least some local credibility.

I don’t think Russia cares about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (though I could be proven wrong).

Russia cares very much about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict because the Russians hope to return to the days when their naval presence in the Mediterranean Sea was a significant problem for NATO. That is why Russia is in Syria. They had been forced by circumstances to pull all their forces out of the Mediterranean. That allowed the US to gut the 6th fleet and move essentially all of the (reduced) assets to the 5th fleet in the Persian Gulf. 

Russia's return to the anchorages in Syria in late 2015 (Moskva and two escorts plus an unknown number of Kilos periodically) really shook up NATO South. NATO South is now basically the Italian Navy, and this responsibility weighs heavily on them. They took it over without a fuss and did the job the 6th fleet used to do. Granted, Russia isn't what they were, but Italy wasn't really resourced to to do this task. They get no credit in public, but in private the US Navy knows the score. That is one reason that the Ford was "exercising" with the Giuseppe Garibaldi. We need those guys.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cr...yag_(1983)

In early January 2016, after a visit to India, Varyag entered the Mediterranean Sea through the Suez Canal to be deployed off Syria′s shore replacing sister ship Moskva,[23] in support of Russia's air operation in Syria that had begun in autumn 2015. The ship was named flagship of the Russian naval task force positioned in the eastern Mediterranean.[24]

She didn't stay all that long, but it is worthy of note that she (unlike Moskva) was "fully modernized" and fresh out of the yards at that point. This replacement created another tsunami of activity in NATO South.

Russia believes that it's presence in the middle east and Mediterranean creates big problems for NATO. Anything that weakens US ally Israel makes it more difficult for the US to counter this Russian influence. It also makes it more difficult for other middle eastern states to oppose Russian ambitions in the area. Lebanon is a poster child for this effect, as is Yemen. As long as Hamas has power in Gaza, it can stir the pot in Israel and elsewhere in the middle east. Russia likes that a lot. This strategy goes back to the days of Nasser/UAR days which is what actually started the US/Israel alliance. Despite a few "ups" and many "downs" for this approach, Russia still believes conflict in the middle east is to their advantage. In the past, they also had financial incentives they could provide to their client states. They basically can no longer do this, but they do have some military support that is an attraction. Iran is operating somewhat as a Russian "proxy" in the middle east, but for their own reasons, not Russian ones. Russia is getting the benefit at a very low cost to itself.

[Goose]

The main connection is Iran. 

Iran funds and supports Hamas for ideological reasons, partly real and partly faked to justify the regime’s continued power. In addition, supporting Hamas allows Iran to project power in the region while maintaining non-plausible deniability that some believe despite the thinness of the veneer.

To the best of my understanding, Iran supports Russia against Ukraine for a different reason, which is that Russia can actually provide material support to Iran, as well as veto UNSC resolutions on Iran’s behalf. This is more Machiavellian than ideological.

I think you are correct about the above. Chaos in the middle east is viewed in Iran as a "good thing". Iran has delusions of becoming the dominant regional power. Preventing other powers from concentrating on Iran as the "enemy" is good in Iranian eyes. As long as they aren't "frozen out" by peace breaking out in the middle east, Iranian ambitions have at least some local credibility.

I don’t think Russia cares about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (though I could be proven wrong).

Russia cares very much about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict because the Russians hope to return to the days when their naval presence in the Mediterranean Sea was a significant problem for NATO. That is why Russia is in Syria. They had been forced by circumstances to pull all their forces out of the Mediterranean. That allowed the US to gut the 6th fleet and move essentially all of the (reduced) assets to the 5th fleet in the Persian Gulf. 

Russia's return to the anchorages in Syria in late 2015 (Moskva and two escorts plus an unknown number of Kilos periodically) really shook up NATO South. NATO South is now basically the Italian Navy, and this responsibility weighs heavily on them. They took it over without a fuss and did the job the 6th fleet used to do. Granted, Russia isn't what they were, but Italy wasn't really resourced to to do this task. They get no credit in public, but in private the US Navy knows the score. That is one reason that the Ford was "exercising" with the Giuseppe Garibaldi. We need those guys.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cr...yag_(1983)

In early January 2016, after a visit to India, Varyag entered the Mediterranean Sea through the Suez Canal to be deployed off Syria′s shore replacing sister ship Moskva,[23] in support of Russia's air operation in Syria that had begun in autumn 2015. The ship was named flagship of the Russian naval task force positioned in the eastern Mediterranean.[24]

She didn't stay all that long, but it is worthy of note that she (unlike Moskva) was "fully modernized" and fresh out of the yards at that point. This replacement created another tsunami of activity in NATO South.

Russia believes that it's presence in the middle east and Mediterranean creates big problems for NATO. Anything that weakens US ally Israel makes it more difficult for the US to counter this Russian influence. It also makes it more difficult for other middle eastern states to oppose Russian ambitions in the area. Lebanon is a poster child for this effect, as is Yemen. As long as Hamas has power in Gaza, it can stir the pot in Israel and elsewhere in the middle east. Russia likes that a lot. This strategy goes back to the days of Nasser/UAR days which is what actually started the US/Israel alliance. Despite a few "ups" and many "downs" for this approach, Russia still believes conflict in the middle east is to their advantage. In the past, they also had financial incentives they could provide to their client states. They basically can no longer do this, but they do have some military support that is an attraction. Iran is operating somewhat as a Russian "proxy" in the middle east, but for their own reasons, not Russian ones. Russia is getting the benefit at a very low cost to itself.

[needle]

I know very little about geopolitics. But there have been reports of an influx of private Russian wealth into Israel. 

 It’s not just billionaires that are looking to Israel. The country seems to be attracting a broad spread of Russia’s wealthier residents. Israel-based attorney Eli Gervits, who specializes in the “Law of Return,” told Forbes his law firm is seeing 25 times more business compared to before the war. The surge is even greater than after Russia’s annexation of Crimea, he notes. “Almost all of the people that approach us are not from Ukraine,” Gervits says. “They are not from Russia. They are from Moscow,” emphasizing the surge of inquiries from businesspeople from the country’s capital.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevo...29bcb46ef7

Maybe this is simply too small to matter in the big picture of things, but for many other reasons (as discussed in this thread) I think it's interesting to consider how any kind of prolonged "war" between Israel and Hamas might pressure the powers that be in Russia.

[needle]

I know very little about geopolitics. But there have been reports of an influx of private Russian wealth into Israel. 

 It’s not just billionaires that are looking to Israel. The country seems to be attracting a broad spread of Russia’s wealthier residents. Israel-based attorney Eli Gervits, who specializes in the “Law of Return,” told Forbes his law firm is seeing 25 times more business compared to before the war. The surge is even greater than after Russia’s annexation of Crimea, he notes. “Almost all of the people that approach us are not from Ukraine,” Gervits says. “They are not from Russia. They are from Moscow,” emphasizing the surge of inquiries from businesspeople from the country’s capital.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevo...29bcb46ef7

Maybe this is simply too small to matter in the big picture of things, but for many other reasons (as discussed in this thread) I think it's interesting to consider how any kind of prolonged "war" between Israel and Hamas might pressure the powers that be in Russia.

[TrumpCard]

Russia cares very much about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict because the Russians hope to return to the days when their naval presence in the Mediterranean Sea was a significant problem for NATO. That is why Russia is in Syria. They had been forced by circumstances to pull all their forces out of the Mediterranean. That allowed the US to gut the 6th fleet and move essentially all of the (reduced) assets to the 5th fleet in the Persian Gulf. . . .  

I don't see much here about the connection to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.  This looks more like Russia's interest in regional influence.  I don't have any beef here.

Russia believes that it's presence in the middle east and Mediterranean creates big problems for NATO. Anything that weakens US ally Israel makes it more difficult for the US to counter this Russian influence. It also makes it more difficult for other middle eastern states to oppose Russian ambitions in the area. Lebanon is a poster child for this effect, as is Yemen. As long as Hamas has power in Gaza, it can stir the pot in Israel and elsewhere in the middle east. Russia likes that a lot. This strategy goes back to the days of Nasser/UAR days which is what actually started the US/Israel alliance. Despite a few "ups" and many "downs" for this approach, Russia still believes conflict in the middle east is to their advantage. In the past, they also had financial incentives they could provide to their client states. They basically can no longer do this, but they do have some military support that is an attraction. Iran is operating somewhat as a Russian "proxy" in the middle east, but for their own reasons, not Russian ones. Russia is getting the benefit at a very low cost to itself.

This feels like a stretch.  Lebanon has very little power.  It is Iran's puppet.  Terrorist activity emanating from Lebanon has occasion been a distraction to Israel, but it is not a significant drain on U.S. influence in the world or even in the region.  The situation in Yemen is pretty complicated because of tribal conflicts, but I don't think chaos in Yemen is of substantial value to Russia either.  There are rebellions in Yemen that distract Saudi Arabia, and SA is somewhat aligned with US interests in the region because both SA and the US are enemies of Iran.  But, as with the situation in Lebanon, I don't see anything happening in Yemen as a big enough issue to reduce US influence in the region.  The effect is generalized "chaos" seems too small to help Russia, whether in these two places or in connection with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.  

But don't take my word for it.  The proof is in the pudding.  Has Russia ever been shown to have done anything substantial to support the Palestinians?  Again, maybe I missed it.  That's just not something I've read.

[TrumpCard]

Russia cares very much about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict because the Russians hope to return to the days when their naval presence in the Mediterranean Sea was a significant problem for NATO. That is why Russia is in Syria. They had been forced by circumstances to pull all their forces out of the Mediterranean. That allowed the US to gut the 6th fleet and move essentially all of the (reduced) assets to the 5th fleet in the Persian Gulf. . . .  

I don't see much here about the connection to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.  This looks more like Russia's interest in regional influence.  I don't have any beef here.

Russia believes that it's presence in the middle east and Mediterranean creates big problems for NATO. Anything that weakens US ally Israel makes it more difficult for the US to counter this Russian influence. It also makes it more difficult for other middle eastern states to oppose Russian ambitions in the area. Lebanon is a poster child for this effect, as is Yemen. As long as Hamas has power in Gaza, it can stir the pot in Israel and elsewhere in the middle east. Russia likes that a lot. This strategy goes back to the days of Nasser/UAR days which is what actually started the US/Israel alliance. Despite a few "ups" and many "downs" for this approach, Russia still believes conflict in the middle east is to their advantage. In the past, they also had financial incentives they could provide to their client states. They basically can no longer do this, but they do have some military support that is an attraction. Iran is operating somewhat as a Russian "proxy" in the middle east, but for their own reasons, not Russian ones. Russia is getting the benefit at a very low cost to itself.

This feels like a stretch.  Lebanon has very little power.  It is Iran's puppet.  Terrorist activity emanating from Lebanon has occasion been a distraction to Israel, but it is not a significant drain on U.S. influence in the world or even in the region.  The situation in Yemen is pretty complicated because of tribal conflicts, but I don't think chaos in Yemen is of substantial value to Russia either.  There are rebellions in Yemen that distract Saudi Arabia, and SA is somewhat aligned with US interests in the region because both SA and the US are enemies of Iran.  But, as with the situation in Lebanon, I don't see anything happening in Yemen as a big enough issue to reduce US influence in the region.  The effect is generalized "chaos" seems too small to help Russia, whether in these two places or in connection with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.  

But don't take my word for it.  The proof is in the pudding.  Has Russia ever been shown to have done anything substantial to support the Palestinians?  Again, maybe I missed it.  That's just not something I've read.

[fullmetal]

Russia doesn't even support the Armenians.

[fullmetal]

Russia doesn't even support the Armenians.

[Goose]

This feels like a stretch.  Lebanon has very little power.  It is Iran's puppet.  Terrorist activity emanating from Lebanon has occasion been a distraction to Israel, but it is not a significant drain on U.S. influence in the world or even in the region.

IMO this evaluation is incorrect. The history of the conflict in Lebanon shows clearly the the US went from having significant interests and influence in a country (Lebanon) that was somewhat "stable" and "western oriented" to a situation where the US has no influence in Lebanon and Iran does what it wants, more or less, in a country that really has little or no government. Both The US and Israel have sent troops to occupy parts of Lebanon and neither has any there today, simply because it was too expensive in blood and treasure to even attempt to maintain order there. There is very much a message to the nations and people in the middle east. The US and Israel can't protect you and will leave if the going gets tough. It also requires the IDF to maintain a border force in the area. This is for certain a drag on their manpower. Israel also has to be aware that Syria can use southern Lebanon as a route of attack. Maybe not "soon", but it can't be ignored.

UPDATE: And Israel isn't:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/israel-strike...01934.html

The situation in Yemen is pretty complicated because of tribal conflicts, but I don't think chaos in Yemen is of substantial value to Russia either.  There are rebellions in Yemen that distract Saudi Arabia, and SA is somewhat aligned with US interests in the region because both SA and the US are enemies of Iran.  But, as with the situation in Lebanon, I don't see anything happening in Yemen as a big enough issue to reduce US influence in the region.  The effect is generalized "chaos" seems too small to help Russia, whether in these two places or in connection with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

The US has for quite some time been committed to supporting the "legitimate" (whatever that means) government in Yemen. US warships have been fired upon and returned fire. Yet, despite all our efforts, chaos continues.  Again, this shows the limits of US power in the region. Whenever we are trying to influence events via diplomatic efforts, our potential partners look at Yemen and say to themselves "Well, the US can't deliver there. Why should we risk that they can/will for us?". This absolutely does help both Russia and Iran influence events.

But don't take my word for it.  The proof is in the pudding.  Has Russia ever been shown to have done anything substantial to support the Palestinians?  Again, maybe I missed it.  That's just not something I've read.

Well, if you go back to PLO days and Arafat, Russia certainly did a lot, both overtly and covertly to help the PLO. In fact, the fall of the Soviet Union was a major factor in producing the Oslo Accords. The PLO needed money that Russia wasn't giving them anymore. Today, Russia is obviously of much more limited means. However, Russia certainly does support Palestinian efforts in the UN to censure Israel. Russia also gets a lot of "help" from Iran in the direct provision of arms to Hamas and therefore to activities in Gaza, Lebanon, and Yemen.  It is very important to note that many of the arms seized by the US Navy patrols headed to Yemen are Russian in origin. So, yes, Russia is still "playing" in so far as their limited means allow. Russia is also paying Iran for the drones and such with military hardware, some of which makes its way to Gaza and Lebanon.

[Goose]

This feels like a stretch.  Lebanon has very little power.  It is Iran's puppet.  Terrorist activity emanating from Lebanon has occasion been a distraction to Israel, but it is not a significant drain on U.S. influence in the world or even in the region.

IMO this evaluation is incorrect. The history of the conflict in Lebanon shows clearly the the US went from having significant interests and influence in a country (Lebanon) that was somewhat "stable" and "western oriented" to a situation where the US has no influence in Lebanon and Iran does what it wants, more or less, in a country that really has little or no government. Both The US and Israel have sent troops to occupy parts of Lebanon and neither has any there today, simply because it was too expensive in blood and treasure to even attempt to maintain order there. There is very much a message to the nations and people in the middle east. The US and Israel can't protect you and will leave if the going gets tough. It also requires the IDF to maintain a border force in the area. This is for certain a drag on their manpower. Israel also has to be aware that Syria can use southern Lebanon as a route of attack. Maybe not "soon", but it can't be ignored.

UPDATE: And Israel isn't:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/israel-strike...01934.html

The situation in Yemen is pretty complicated because of tribal conflicts, but I don't think chaos in Yemen is of substantial value to Russia either.  There are rebellions in Yemen that distract Saudi Arabia, and SA is somewhat aligned with US interests in the region because both SA and the US are enemies of Iran.  But, as with the situation in Lebanon, I don't see anything happening in Yemen as a big enough issue to reduce US influence in the region.  The effect is generalized "chaos" seems too small to help Russia, whether in these two places or in connection with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

The US has for quite some time been committed to supporting the "legitimate" (whatever that means) government in Yemen. US warships have been fired upon and returned fire. Yet, despite all our efforts, chaos continues.  Again, this shows the limits of US power in the region. Whenever we are trying to influence events via diplomatic efforts, our potential partners look at Yemen and say to themselves "Well, the US can't deliver there. Why should we risk that they can/will for us?". This absolutely does help both Russia and Iran influence events.

But don't take my word for it.  The proof is in the pudding.  Has Russia ever been shown to have done anything substantial to support the Palestinians?  Again, maybe I missed it.  That's just not something I've read.

Well, if you go back to PLO days and Arafat, Russia certainly did a lot, both overtly and covertly to help the PLO. In fact, the fall of the Soviet Union was a major factor in producing the Oslo Accords. The PLO needed money that Russia wasn't giving them anymore. Today, Russia is obviously of much more limited means. However, Russia certainly does support Palestinian efforts in the UN to censure Israel. Russia also gets a lot of "help" from Iran in the direct provision of arms to Hamas and therefore to activities in Gaza, Lebanon, and Yemen.  It is very important to note that many of the arms seized by the US Navy patrols headed to Yemen are Russian in origin. So, yes, Russia is still "playing" in so far as their limited means allow. Russia is also paying Iran for the drones and such with military hardware, some of which makes its way to Gaza and Lebanon.

[TrumpCard]

Sorry, I got dragged into a debate that I didn't intend based on poor wording.  
The original question is "Is there any connection between the Hamas (Iran/Russia) attack on Israel, and Ukraine?"
Russia may have some interest in seeing chaos in the world or in seeing the US distracted.
I overzealously wrote that Russia doesn't care about the Hamas/Israel war.
I don't really know whether Russia cares, but I never intended to pick that fight, and I can just defer to your historical knowledge.
Nevertheless, back to the original point, I don't see Russia's hands in what's happening between Hamas and Israel now.
I don't think Russia's actions in the Syrian civil war have much to do with the current fight in another country.  
I don't know of any Russian action in Yemen, but even if Russia has, I don't think that's the same as being involved in Israel's war.  
I just think that Russia is happy to let its friend of convenience -- Iran -- be the one to make mischief.
I do not see any reason that Russia would have stuck its neck out to help or encourage Hamas.
Hamas had all the motivation it needed and Iran provided all the material support needed, without any need for Russia to get involved.

[TrumpCard]

Sorry, I got dragged into a debate that I didn't intend based on poor wording.  
The original question is "Is there any connection between the Hamas (Iran/Russia) attack on Israel, and Ukraine?"
Russia may have some interest in seeing chaos in the world or in seeing the US distracted.
I overzealously wrote that Russia doesn't care about the Hamas/Israel war.
I don't really know whether Russia cares, but I never intended to pick that fight, and I can just defer to your historical knowledge.
Nevertheless, back to the original point, I don't see Russia's hands in what's happening between Hamas and Israel now.
I don't think Russia's actions in the Syrian civil war have much to do with the current fight in another country.  
I don't know of any Russian action in Yemen, but even if Russia has, I don't think that's the same as being involved in Israel's war.  
I just think that Russia is happy to let its friend of convenience -- Iran -- be the one to make mischief.
I do not see any reason that Russia would have stuck its neck out to help or encourage Hamas.
Hamas had all the motivation it needed and Iran provided all the material support needed, without any need for Russia to get involved.

[dabigv13]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/my...or-ukraine

The U.S. military says it will soon deliver "new" air defense systems to Ukraine that fire AIM-9M Sidewinder heat-seeking missiles. What these systems are remains a mystery, but The War Zone has previously discussed the possibility of a surface-to-air Sidewinder capability for the Ukrainian forces. This followed the unexplained inclusion of AIM-9Ms, an older air-to-air version of the Sidewinder, in previous U.S. military aid packages earlier this year.

A new tranche of U.S. military aid for Ukraine "includes AIM-9 munitions for a new air-defense system that we will soon deliver to Ukraine," U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said earlier today at the sixteenth meeting of the multinational Ukraine Contact Group in Brussels, Belgium.
....
The United Kingdom announced a new aid package for the Ukrainian armed forces of its own today that includes MSI-Defene Systems Terrahawk Paladin palletized short-range air defense systems. The Terrahawk Paladin is a self-contained system that includes a turreted automatic cannon and a small radar array, as well as its own power source.

Terrahawk Paladin can accommodate multiple different types of guns, including the very popular U.S.-made 30mm Bushmaster II. It is not immediately clear exactly how the examples that Ukraine is now set to receive will be configured.
....
Germany separately announced today that it will be transferring more Gepard self-propelled anti-aircraft guns to Ukraine. Gerpards have already proven themselves to be indispensable short-range air defense assets in Ukrainian service. German authorities plan to send other air defense assets, including another Patriot long-range surface-to-air missile system and additional medium-range surface-launched IRIS-T systems, too.

Interesting article about some new/old air defense systems going to Ukraine.

[dabigv13]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/my...or-ukraine

The U.S. military says it will soon deliver "new" air defense systems to Ukraine that fire AIM-9M Sidewinder heat-seeking missiles. What these systems are remains a mystery, but The War Zone has previously discussed the possibility of a surface-to-air Sidewinder capability for the Ukrainian forces. This followed the unexplained inclusion of AIM-9Ms, an older air-to-air version of the Sidewinder, in previous U.S. military aid packages earlier this year.

A new tranche of U.S. military aid for Ukraine "includes AIM-9 munitions for a new air-defense system that we will soon deliver to Ukraine," U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said earlier today at the sixteenth meeting of the multinational Ukraine Contact Group in Brussels, Belgium.
....
The United Kingdom announced a new aid package for the Ukrainian armed forces of its own today that includes MSI-Defene Systems Terrahawk Paladin palletized short-range air defense systems. The Terrahawk Paladin is a self-contained system that includes a turreted automatic cannon and a small radar array, as well as its own power source.

Terrahawk Paladin can accommodate multiple different types of guns, including the very popular U.S.-made 30mm Bushmaster II. It is not immediately clear exactly how the examples that Ukraine is now set to receive will be configured.
....
Germany separately announced today that it will be transferring more Gepard self-propelled anti-aircraft guns to Ukraine. Gerpards have already proven themselves to be indispensable short-range air defense assets in Ukrainian service. German authorities plan to send other air defense assets, including another Patriot long-range surface-to-air missile system and additional medium-range surface-launched IRIS-T systems, too.

Interesting article about some new/old air defense systems going to Ukraine.

[Hurlburt88]

interesting on the air defense systems

I may becoming cynical . . . I feel like this war has already been "won", but the combatants don't realize it and haven't figured out how to stop fighting.   It has been "won" by the US and NATO in a strategic sense, stopping Russia from encroaching more directly on NATO territory.  Not worth it to contribute whatever it takes to push Russia back to original borders.  So now I hope and pray that a path can be found to a new peace.  Ugly . . . 

Looking forward to other views!

[Hurlburt88]

interesting on the air defense systems

I may becoming cynical . . . I feel like this war has already been "won", but the combatants don't realize it and haven't figured out how to stop fighting.   It has been "won" by the US and NATO in a strategic sense, stopping Russia from encroaching more directly on NATO territory.  Not worth it to contribute whatever it takes to push Russia back to original borders.  So now I hope and pray that a path can be found to a new peace.  Ugly . . . 

Looking forward to other views!