Left anticom section of the "Blackshirts and Reds" explains it the best.
this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2026
82 points (83.1% liked)
Memes
56087 readers
469 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
all 47 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Here some non-western source free from the empire
Looks inside
pro-Russia propaganda
Related post from YPTB: https://lemmy.ml/post/44625171
Also your posts from TASS and RT downvoted on ML as well.
Russian propaganda is when maybe the Uktaine war didn't just start one day by itself for no reason
For example, it's when they talk about how they're "liberating" Ukrainian people. Here are some of the recent posts from the OP:
- Russian troops liberate Aleksandrovka community in Donetsk region over past day
- Russian troops liberate two communities in Ukraine operation over past day — top brass
- Russian army liberates settlement of Golubovka in DPR
Do they oppose the US? Sure. But are they freeing Ukrainian people? Hell no - they've been suffering for 4 years.
It's like saying "America is just helping Iranian people to overthrow their government". They don't care about Iranian people at all.
If we're talking about people in eastern Ukraine, they are absolutely being liberated from the US-backed fascist puppet government that had spent a decade killing 14,000 of them in a campaign of ethnic cleansing and outlawing their culture.
Well, this is what those "liberated" cities look like:
Chasiv Yar
And dwellers of those cities can't just cross the frontline and start living in Russia. They only can evacuate deeper into Ukraine because otherwise they won't survive. And Ukrainian government doesn't build new houses for them. They give them a bit of money (but you won't be able to afford rent), and sometimes they offer quickly built barracks (trust me, you wouldn't want to live there). So I doubt you would find any of those "liberated" people happy.
If that's not enough, Russia also bombs electricity infrastructure in winter (it's a high demand season). Because of this, people across the country suffer from electricity outages. Imagine having only 3 hours of electricity per day (that's how it was in Odessa about a month ago). It's also quite cold in here. I'm not sure what Russia's strategy is, maybe they're trying to destroy the country's economy or hurt manufacturing abilities, but it's simply inhumane. Regular people suffer a lot because of it.
What I'm trying to say is that it's not about liberating people. Many Ukrainians hate their government, especially after TCR gone wild (it's like ICE, but much worse), and recent corruption scandals tied to Zelensky's inner circle. But it's replacing one shitty government with another. Russia is also corrupt, half of the internet is banned, you can't even access YouTube or popular Matrix servers, and LGBTQ is illegal (also, every time it's mentioned it's labeled with "the LGBT movement is recognized as extremist and banned in Russia" - here you can see this in a TASS article for example).
Here's the city of Caen, France, after being "liberated" by the allies. Still think fighting nazis is cool??
Yeah dude, fighting makes places fucked up, what a stunning insight. I have no choice but to slap on an Azov patch and seig heil in the face of such moral wisdom.
France was occupied by Germany. When you start a war with another country because their government gone wild, it's not liberation. Is the US liberating the Iranian people?
I jumped on the grenade and read this all so you don't have to folks
Nowhere in those three paragraphs is a good faith response to what ShimmeringKoi said. They went completely off topic and only tied it back insofar as to say 'and that's why it's not liberating'
You can't even access youtube.
You can't even access the website of the biggest spying complex in history, that works for your biggest enemy, the one that wanted to genocide you for decades.
I wonder why.
I don't think they're doing this because they are concerned about citizens' safety or privacy. I think the main goal is to replace these platforms with their own proprietary alternatives. This way, the ruling class can earn more money and gain full control over the content people consume. If safety were truly a concern, why not fund PeerTube development? Or open-source what they've developed?
Anyway, I prefer to decide which websites to access on my own. I think allowing an oligarchy to make that decision for us can't be a good thing.
They are freeing Russian-Ukrainians in Ukraine.
Those have been suffering for 12 years.
Ukraine had a coup and the new leader decided to oppress the Russian-Ukrainians.
Zelensky presented himself as a peace candidate opposing the warmongering corrupt government,
but did the opposite once in power.
Large parts of Russia have been given to Ukraine in the past during the Soviet times,
ironically to prevent invasion of both Russia and Ukraine from Western powers.
Russia wants those areas back and those areas want Russia back.
The Russian-Ukrainians in Donetsk and Lugansk Oblasts
tried doing an independence referendum before the war,
but were shot and killed at the polling station.
These sound like Russian propaganda talking points. The simple matter of the fact is that Russia invaded Ukraine wayyy before 4 years ago. They are simply trying to put the USSR back together and you Ukraine isn’t having it.
Ukraine is a US puppet regime, has been since the US-backed coup in 2014, invading and overthrowing them is doing the world a favor
@Amnesigenic that’s quite an interesting take, playoff the crack pipe 😂😂
I'm right, cry about it
You've got nothing, you're losing and you know it
@Amnesigenic dawg im winning in real life, if you’ve deluded yourself into believing ‘i’m right you’re not’ im out😂 have a blessed day
You realise the Donbas has been getting shelled by western Ukraine since 2014 right? That the people of the Donbas are majority ethnic Russians? That those people have been asking for Russia to help them for years?
Whatever about the "real" motives etc etc this war is liberatory for the people of the Donbas, that liberation being a side effect of the war to avoid NATO missiles on the Russian border doesn't change the material outcome.
These sound like Russian propaganda talking points.
With that type of poor argumentation I can defeat all your arguments with one full swoop.
Anything you say are now Usonian propaganda talking points.
The simple matter of the fact is that Russia invaded Ukraine wayyy before 4 years ago.
Usonian propaganda talking points
They are simply trying to put the USSR back together and you Ukraine isn’t having it.
Usonian propaganda talking points
Done.
In my comment below, I explained what happens to Ukrainians in those territories. To put it short, they lose their homes and have to evacuate somewhere else within Ukraine (they can't leave the country or cross the front line). Did Russia provide any help to those poor souls? No. Is this what is called "freeing"?
Did Russia provide any help to those poor souls? No. Is this what is called “freeing”?
As long as the war continues, any money sent to displaced Ukrainians would end up in the pockets of the corrupt Ukrainian government and be used to buy weapons to attack Russia or to further suppress Russian-Ukrainians.
[deleted]
I don't think sources like TASS are any different.
You say both are bad yet you default to only trust western sources
I'm not a westerner. But TASS and RT are like Fox News in the US. Those are simply bad sources.
Your comment reveals a lack of media literacy. There is a fundamental difference between Russian outlets like TASS and RT, which are state-controlled, and Fox News, which is corporate-owned. State media acts as the direct voice of the government, whereas corporate media answers to advertisers and owners. This makes the bias in state media far more explicit regarding national interests; their agenda is transparent. Conversely, Fox News still operates within a framework of journalistic standards and market competition. It contains valuable context depending on the situation, so dismissing it entirely is a mistake
I know this. I just don't think state-controlled media is much different from corporate media under oligarchy. US don't have state media (edit: state-owned, not just state-funded) as far as I know, but if they were, those media would simply change bias toward the ruling party.
I mentioned Fox News because they feel similar in spirit: conservative and usually not trustworthy.
State media is biased towards it's ruling party/class and therefore not trustworthy. I'll assume whatever media source that confirms my bias is trustworthy
Sounds like an echo chamber
Also
US don’t have state media
PBS, NPR, CSPAN, VoA, RadioFree, etc
Parenti and Chomsky to some degree argue that private corporate media is closely aligned to state interest, due to its intertwining with intelligence services
I’ll assume whatever media source that confirms my bias is trustworthy
Why are you making up what I think?
PBS, NPR, CSPAN, VoA, RadioFree, etc
I realized that I wrote "state media" when I meant "state-owned." The media you listed are state-funded, while TASS is state-owned. But that's not the point. I'm not a native speaker, so sometimes what I say might not be entirely clear. I'm saying that some sources are worse than others. I don't like TASS or RT, similar to the mentioned Fox News - you can see my comment above as an example of why.
Why are you making up what I think?
Because it's essentially what you're saying in subtext. You're free to clarify
I realized that I wrote “state media” when I meant “state-owned.” The media you listed are state-funded, while TASS is state-owned.
Yet either way you try to (re)define it both reflect either states ruling class bias and you arbitrarily decide to dismiss one of those and didn't even realize about the existence of the other.
I’m saying that some sources are worse than others.
And I'm saying it's a logical fallacy to dismiss it in it's entirety, as there exists context where these sources of information are valuable.
Because it’s essentially what you’re saying in subtext.
No, I didn’t imply any of this.
I'm not sure what you mean. I don't like any of the media we mentioned in this dialogue. Not because of where they get their funding, but because of their content. I explained why I don't like TASS in this comment section above.
Whether you like or dislike a source is a personal reaction that doesn't determine its factual accuracy
Yeah, but their content does.
On an article to article basis dependent on the context. Not as the entire outlet like you suggest. You're intellectually dishonest to yourself if you do
US don’t have state media as far as I know
Lol
Doesn't matter whether you think it's pro-russian or propaganda, only thing that matters is that it's true
