If the purpose of propoganda stories is to paint the Russians as untrustworthy to the Western world (hint: that is the purpose!) then it is surely effective.
If Russia does not wish to look untrustworthy to its ISS partners, it should probably look into increasing its quality control: two coolant leaks, a launch failure with crew aboard, a hull leak, a brand-new module that sent the station spinning out of control… it has not been a trust-building past few years for the Russian space program. All of these are concrete incidents, not propaganda, and not things that can be expected to “just happen” in such numbers.
Not sure why you are being downmodded, there's no need for "Russian" to be in the title here.
This is a very common trope from alt-right media. If the culprit is ever black, Muslim, or an immigrant, they will absolutely let you know in the headline.
There have been 5 major incidents at the ISS since 2018 that could have led to loss of the station if it were caught later. One of which was only ameliorated by a module running out of fuel.
The problem here appears to be that the quality standards of roscosmos is in steep decline.
This is why Russia is in the title.
Now if you want to draw the linkage between the Ukraine war and regressions to their space program, the evidence is certainly there, but I think this story stands quite well on its own.
Yeah, right. It's only propaganda when it's coming from the enemy's side.
As an ethnic Russian who has never been to that country and has no love lost for Putin's regime, I am feeling less and less sympathy towards "the West" the longer this shit drags on.
Even though I have absolutely zero responsibility for this war, I was shat upon and called every name in the book from the likes of you pretty much every day for the past year. I'm noticing that it's definitely taking its toll on my worldview.
Your politicians were absolutely fine with Putin's regime when he was building up his power (for 20 years!) and destroying whatever was left of the opposition inside the country, because hey, cheap gas and oil, and money paid for that gas and oil were stolen by his cronies and funneled back into London and New York.
Now that this finally came back to bite you, my friends and relatives are somehow deemed responsible. Fuck off.
I feel sorry for you - and the original context is now deleted - but I would point out that many of the leaders in the west have not been okay with Putin for a very long time, and every Russian I have talked too has said either they can’t do anything about it, or the Ukrainians had it coming and Russia was abandoned after the Cold War (it was not), there should have been a Marshall plan(there was), that Russia has never been a aggressor (it frequently is), that Putin isn’t popular (he is) and that the Russians can do nothing about this(they can)x
West stoles Russia money and now Russia is untrustworthy. Right. No. You broke your own "private property is holy right" dogma. Russia is not breaking its obligations. It even pays Ukraine for gas transfer right now, an act which many Russian people find weird and questionable.
Don’t want to be under sanctions? Don’t invade other countries murder innocents, kill babies. Want to be trusted? Follow the treaties you signed. Don’t want to be accused of breaking g your obligations? Read the UN charter.
Iraq gassed their own citizens, tried to assassinate a U.S. president, invaded their neighbors, engaged in terrorism (not Al Qaeda). At the time of the gulf war there were regularly trying to shoot down iUS and NATO aircraft in the no-fly zone designed to keep Saddam from killing the Kurds. Iraq was a horrible mistake and tragedy - but no oil was stolen, nor was territory seized. While many people died, there was never any systematic assault on civilian populations - Iraq became a disaster because of an Iraqi civil war. It was a single country.
Russia is invading a country whose security they guaranteed. They are raping and murdering people, flattening cities and directly targeting infrastructure that is only for civilian purposes. They are attacking those who are not a threat to them, and never engaged in any of the above causes beli. They are I’m doing so to enlarge their nation and subjugate others. They are threading the same to other nations. They unleashed the largest European war since WWII.
So if you see that as symmetric, there is almost nothing we can discuss in an objective way.
Simply ignoring the points? Just as a reminder, here they are again:
Iraq gassed their own citizens, tried to assassinate a U.S. president, invaded their neighbors, engaged in terrorism (not Al Qaeda). At the time of the gulf war there were regularly trying to shoot down iUS and NATO aircraft in the no-fly zone designed to keep Saddam from killing the Kurds. Iraq was a horrible mistake and tragedy - but no oil was stolen, nor was territory seized. While many people died, there was never any systematic assault on civilian populations - Iraq became a disaster because of an Iraqi civil war. It was a single country.
Russia is invading a country whose security they guaranteed. They are raping and murdering people, flattening cities and directly targeting infrastructure that is only for civilian purposes. They are attacking those who are not a threat to them, and never engaged in any of the above causes beli. They are I’m doing so to enlarge their nation and subjugate others. They are threading the same to other nations. They unleashed the largest European war since WWII.
So if you see that as symmetric, there is almost nothing we can discuss in an objective way.
As I mentioned, if you really can't tell the difference and apply objective criteria, then it's not worth continuing this discussion.
Not sure why you are trying to move the goalposts. Look where our discussion started.
In your more recent reply above you cherry-picked the features of both wars in a way that's supposed to make your argument look valid. You ignored facts that contradict it.
I don't think you are arguing in good faith and are prepared to change your position. You seem to model Russia as "the enemy" that does everything bad. That's fine by me.
Iraq gassed their own citizens, tried to assassinate a U.S. president, invaded their neighbors, engaged in terrorism (not Al Qaeda). At the time of the gulf war there were regularly trying to shoot down iUS and NATO aircraft in the no-fly zone designed to keep Saddam from killing the Kurds. Iraq was a horrible mistake and tragedy - but no oil was stolen, nor was territory seized. While many people died, there was never any systematic assault on civilian populations - Iraq became a disaster because of an Iraqi civil war. It was a single country.
Compare to:
Russia is invading a country whose security they guaranteed. They are raping and murdering people, flattening cities and directly targeting infrastructure that is only for civilian purposes. They are attacking those who are not a threat to them, and never engaged in any of the above causes beli. They are I’m doing so to enlarge their nation and subjugate others. They are threading the same to other nations. They unleashed the largest European war since WWII.
Your inability to see a difference here is either astounding or predictable, depending on your core ideologies, but I have a solid suspicion of which I believe it is.
If the purpose of propoganda stories is to paint the Russians as untrustworthy to the Western world (hint: that is the purpose!) then it is surely effective.