Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

10 Comments

  1. Pat, I think you miss the reality of what’s behind most of the whataboutism in regard to conversations regarding the behaviours of USA, Russia and other global power players and personalities.

    You insert the

    “(which makes it OK)”

    in the above article. It must be stressed that this conclusion is both your own insertion and assertion. at worst it is a strawman.

    Seldom, if ever, do I read that direct assertion from the people actually making such comments and comparisons of the behaviour of USA Russia etc..

    In reality the whataboutism to which to refer, when it is used, is I believe, overwhelmingly used as an appeal from one party to another to exhort them examine their own possible double standards of reaction to the conflict and how it is framed just about everywhere.

    In terms of the Ukraine conflict it is both inane and dishonest to apportion blame to Russia as the aggressor whilst simultaneously refusing to honestly examine the events leading up to it over several decades. in fact, factors involving the consequences of invasions unleashed on sovereign soil that go back centuries affect the psyche of the Russian and Ukrainian parties factors that most in the West, particularly the largely ignorant bulk of USA’s populace haven’t a hope of grasping.

    Yet our government and media just feed us a steady diet of pro NATO, anti Putin, anti Russian propaganda. Those in the USA have had a non-stop diet of such crap for over a century and have no qualms about exporting their paranoia and dragging us into their manufactured problems.

  2. Good on ya Pat, can’t see the Putin Apologists taking any of this to heart through.
    Just a lot easier running with their ‘the West bad / anyone opposed to the West good’ worldview.

    1. The ‘Putin apologists’ are too far down the rabbit hole to turn back.
      The Putin curious following them maybe not.

  3. There is no whataboutism here, only someone hearing what they want to hear and then cherry-picking what they want to be seen/read. Key wording here “if that is true”, not ….. “….Russia is committing war crimes. Well, that is true.” Secondary point, there is no doubts which side of this war the Venezuelan government is on, a government still largely supported by its people. Nonetheless, brave man for posting the link, looks interesting.

    1. “if that is true”

      There is no “if”. Targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure is a war crime, no matter who does it.

      1. You misquoted Brian Berletic henceforth your “Whataboutism ‘ point is erroneous. You want to argue war crimes in general – have at it – because this argument relies upon, not so much the truth, but to whom we care to listen to.

        Interesting that Brian Berletic shows concern for Ukraine, Ukrainian people and most of all, Ukrainian soldiers. As such, he’s more a critic of the mechanisms of power, namely the military industrial complex and mainstream media, cleverly using mainstream media coverage to make his points, than he is a cheerleader for Russia, granted that critiquing mechanisms of power borders upon blasphemy in this day and age. Such is the state of the world today…no wonder the calls for peace barely exist…there is no call/media coverage for it.

  4. Thanks Pat, I tend to agree.

    Whilst life is never black and white, we must resist all imperialistic moves across the globe.

Comments are closed.