Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Fuiking]

Yes, but that doesn't change that Putin generally is popular. You have to accept that.

Reminds me of the bloody fuckery, skullduggery Mark ''IDONTHAVEANACTIVEMEMORYOFTHAT'' Rutte has done and will do to remain in power. But you have to give the man: He brings stability. and if you think about it, Putin is doing the same.. and if people love one thing.. its stability.

[JohnBrown1917]

Reminds me of the bloody fuckery, skullduggery Mark ''IDONTHAVEANACTIVEMEMORYOFTHAT'' Rutte has done and will do to remain in power. But you have to give the man: He brings stability. and if you think about it, Putin is doing the same.. and if people love one thing.. its stability.

Rutte actually keeps his power through democratic means.

[Fuiking]

Rutte actually keeps his power through democratic means.

Debateable. - Source: bunch of people/commenters on youtube/reddit/whatever social media we have.

[Mayhem]

Yes, but that doesn't change that Putin generally is popular. You have to accept that.

Sure, maybe, but in a dictatorship the bar of "disapproval" is set extremely low, or high, depending on how you want to look at it.

I mean, if disapproval is equated with starting a coup people are probably much more likely to approve of shit they wouldn't in a free society.

Having a high approval rating in a dictatorship is not indicative of actual approval.
Having a low approval rating in a dictatorship is not indicative of a coup because if approval ratings are that low, the coup is already in full force.

[Ausr]

People believing that Putin has a high approval rating are probably the same people who genuinely believe he gets more than 100% of the vote during election times. For example: https://www.businessinsider.com/in-o...r-putin-2012-3

Like don't talk to these people rationally.

[Kaleredar]

An unpopular dictatorship runs the risk of being overthrown a lot more.

People in North Korea seem to be doing pretty shitty under Un, but there doesn’t seem to be any real evidence of immediate change.

“Putin must be a good leader because he hasn’t been overthrown yet” is a rather specious argument.

[Yadryonych]

People in North Korea seem to be doing pretty shitty under Un, but there doesn’t seem to be any real evidence of immediate change.

They know it's hardly his fault, Korea has been under sanctions and embargoes since forever

[JohnBrown1917]

People in North Korea seem to be doing pretty shitty under Un, but there doesn’t seem to be any real evidence of immediate change.

“Putin must be a good leader because he hasn’t been overthrown yet” is a rather specious argument.

If that is what you somehow got out of my post I really don't know what to say.

[Easo]

Sure, maybe, but in a dictatorship the bar of "disapproval" is set extremely low, or high, depending on how you want to look at it.

I mean, if disapproval is equated with starting a coup people are probably much more likely to approve of shit they wouldn't in a free society.

Having a high approval rating in a dictatorship is not indicative of actual approval.
Having a low approval rating in a dictatorship is not indicative of a coup because if approval ratings are that low, the coup is already in full force.

He has an actual high approval. Russia isn't dictatorship, but authoritarian state, Pu has long way to go until level of Kim. It has to be noted though - his approval level has fallen over the recent years, which is not surprising considering it was high when oil price was skyhigh and rouble's course wasn't driven in the ground due to sanctions.

Oh, one more thing - Good Tsar, Bad Boyars. Quite a popular, if naive view over there...

People believing that Putin has a high approval rating are probably the same people who genuinely believe he gets more than 100% of the vote during election times. For example: https://www.businessinsider.com/in-o...r-putin-2012-3

Like don't talk to these people rationally.

My suggestion to you is this - widen your worldview, especially outside memes and stereotypes.

They know it's hardly his fault, Korea has been under sanctions and embargoes since forever

Topkek.

[Mayhem]

He has an actual high approval. Russia isn't dictatorship, but authoritarian state, Pu has long way to go until level of Kim.

Anyone has a long way to go to get to Kims level. Agreed though, he is a rather tame dictator compared to others or he has a better system behind him and isn't himself believing to be omnipotent.

[alkyd]

Again, your proof that he’s massively popular is entirely based on respondents knowing he’s a murderous asshole who goes after dissenters. Yes. Pussy Riot was gone after because they made Putin angry. No, it had nothing to do with public opinion.

Just because you said 'NO' in a poll, will not get you imprisoned in Russia. Getting funded by a foreign state to create division in the country will do, though. Just like in any country, including democratic ones. Try that in the U.S., let's see what happens to you.

[Specialka]

Just because you said 'NO' in a poll, will not get you imprisoned in Russia. Getting funded by a foreign state to create division in the country will do, though. Just like in any country, including democratic ones. Try that in the U.S., let's see what happens to you.

As far I know, there are RT and Sputnik news in other countries.

[alkyd]

As far I know, there are RT and Sputnik news in other countries.

And there is BBC and DW in Russia. So what? And by the way RT Deustche was banned in Europe.

[Specialka]

And there is BBC and DW in Russia. So what? And by the way RT Deustche was banned in Europe.

So now the BBC is at the same level of BSshitery than RT?

[alkyd]

So now the BBC is at the same level of BSshitery than RT?

Depends from whose perspective you watch it. No media outlet is neutral. Everyone is biased with their own agenda and narrative.

[Edge-]

Depends from whose perspective you watch it.

Not really. BBC or VoA are both government funded, but my understanding is that they continue to operate largely independently of the government proper outside of funding related issues, there's minimal editorial control over their content. Are they free from all influence? No. But they aren't intentional propaganda arms intended to spread misinformation.

Which stands in contrast to a site like Sputnik, which is just transparent propaganda, and RT, which actively mixes in some actual reporting with the propaganda to try to give it an air of credibility.

https://www.state.gov/report-rt-and-...nda-ecosystem/

You can red more here if you're interested.

[Shalcker]

Not really. BBC or VoA are both government funded, but my understanding is that they continue to operate largely independently of the government proper outside of funding related issues, there's minimal editorial control over their content. Are they free from all influence? No. But they aren't intentional propaganda arms intended to spread misinformation.

VoA always was and remains to be propaganda arm.

Not every propaganda arm requires constant editorial control.

[Edge-]

VoA always was and remains to be propaganda arm.

Not for the US government, which is how RT/Sputnik operate.

https://thehill.com/policy/internati...om-of-voice-of

This was a point of controversy during the Trump administration when they tried to exert editorial control over the previously independent news arm.

Now if we're talking propaganda in the "light" sense as in simply taking a slightly more pro-US/Russia view, sure, VoA or BBC fall under that. But if we're talking malicious propaganda including actual misinformation no, that's fairly unique to RT/Sputnik.

[alkyd]

Not for the US government, which is how RT/Sputnik operate.

https://thehill.com/policy/internati...om-of-voice-of

This was a point of controversy during the Trump administration when they tried to exert editorial control over the previously independent news arm.

Now if we're talking propaganda in the "light" sense as in simply taking a slightly more pro-US/Russia view, sure, VoA or BBC fall under that. But if we're talking malicious propaganda including actual misinformation no, that's fairly unique to RT/Sputnik.

I don't know. WMD in Iraq was heralded as true story by CNN and BBC. Even when there were facts that there weren't any WMDs. So in the end, all those outlets are propaganda arm of their respective governments, state funded or not.

[Edge-]

I don't know. WMD in Iraq was heralded as true story by CNN and BBC.

That's an entirely separate issue of the US government publicly announcing incorrect information to justify the war in Iraq, and those outlets simply picked up the news. Not propaganda, simply coverage of the Bush administration lying, before they knew they were lying. This wasn't pushed through US media as misinformation, but was covered by international press as the Bush administration lied.

I'm talking about intentional misinformation campaigns like those that continue to be run on RT and Sputnik.