Russia(gate/bot) Russia-Ukraine War Political Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Which fits the general trend of 'Russia's invasion of Ukraine is bad' being about the only thing the left and right agree on these days, even if there is disagreement on how much to support the Ukrainians.
The same applies to now mostly forgotten ISIL. Which is too radical, brutal and expansive in its goals for even the usual islamism apologist leftists to defend. Unlike more subtle and optics aware organizations like Hezbollah, PLO and Muslim Brotherhood.

Once you leave a specific country and time, the left-right distinction becomes way too simple to be useful in describing political conflicts. There are way more distinct political factions in the world than 2, with their own agendas, supporters, goals and enemies, that sometimes align and sometimes not. Notably, they rarely care about the internal ideological struggles of the West beyond how they can be made useful to their own international policy goals. They won't ask if USA is ruled by progressives or nationalists, they will ask whether the USA is ruled by someone who will interfere against their own expansionist endeavors and other efforts to expand and wield power over the world, and side with those who are most likely to either not do that, or make USA unable to do that even if it wants to, no matter who they are politically.
Both Russia and China are in that club.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
Your own link also states that Soros and his ops opposed the USSR...
He also opposes the CCP.

And? Communism died in 1991 in the USSR, Soros continues to fund Ukraine to this day. The Maidan movement, which he takes credit for, banned the Communist Party of Ukraine years ago; yet, he continues to fund and support movements in Ukraine.

Stick to your silly "Soros opposes Russia so Russia has to be a based bastion of conservative values" 12 year old smartass takes and eventually you're gonna become an actual communist party member to stick it to the libs.
Meanwhile i don't care for supporting old commies to stick it to new commies they are in a power struggle with, i hate both, ditto for any compromise deals of new commies with old commies, the more they fight the better.

Trump Says Ukraine Should Have Done Deal With Putin

During an appearance on the The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show podcast, the former president suggested that Ukraine could have "given up" the territory of Crimea, which was annexed by Russia in 2014, or agreed not to join NATO.​
The remarks came after Trump was asked for his opinion of the photoshoot Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky and his wife, Olena, did for Vogue magazine, which has come under scrutiny given it took place while the country was at war.​
"Probably not the greatest thing," Trump said, before adding his much repeated stance that the Russia invasion would have "never happened" if he was still president.​
"He [Putin] wouldn't have done it with me. He wouldn't have done it. At a minimum, they should have made a deal," Trump said.​
"They could have given up Crimea. They could have done something with NATO, 'Okay, we're not gonna join NATO,' and you'd have a country, because I believe Putin wanted to make a deal," Trump said.​
"And now I don't think he wants to make a deal. I think it's much tougher to make a deal. He's blowing up the whole place. I mean, he'll take over the whole place. And it's very, very sad to watch what happened with Ukraine. Very, very sad."​
Trump said that he does not believe Putin "ever intended" to start a war with Ukraine but will now "rather have the whole country, now that he started."​

I'm not getting "so angry", you are getting so stupid.

Thank you for precisely proving my point. You have my sympathies, because it's clear you've now hit the stage of coping and attempting to rationalize your views, at least subconsciously, given the disconnect between them you've now been forced to uncover; I know this must be painful.

My point exactly. It was half a fucking year ago. Long before the pacifist cuck article you have linked. Perhaps, idunno, Soros changed his mind for some reason?

Why the Ukraine crisis is a defining moment for George Soros’ OSF, from June:

In March, OSF contributed an initial $25 million to launch a fund for “a Free and Democratic Ukraine,” with the goal of raising a total of $100 million from other foundations, philanthropists, and the private sector. Beyond OSF’s own contribution, the fund has so far collected more than $18 million from donors such as the Schmidt Family, Oak, and Ford foundations, “with further commitments in the pipeline,” OSF spokesperson Jonathan Birchall told Devex. The funds are being distributed as grants to organizations in Ukraine and other countries.​
The International Renaissance Foundation, or IRF — an OSF foundation in Ukraine — is involved in all aspects of this work, such as strategy, fund governance, and some grant-making to civil society partners in country, Birchall added.​
The democracy fund is intended to sustain Ukraine’s civil society, including a free media and human rights, OSF President Mark Malloch-Brown told Devex. Those aspects of a free society are now under threat as towns are taken over by Russian forces and civilians are killed.​
“If democracy is on trial in this crisis, democracy’s answer has to be that it’s a system that works for everybody,” Malloch-Brown said.​
At last week’s dinner event, Soros described growing struggles between two “diametrically opposed” systems of governance worldwide: open societies that protect the freedom of the individual and closed societies in which the role of the individual is to serve state rulers. And as those struggles ramp up, he said, other priorities — such as avoiding nuclear war and fighting climate change — have “had to take a back seat to that struggle.”​
“Therefore, we must mobilize all our resources to bring the war to an early end,” Soros told the well-heeled crowd. “The best and perhaps only way to preserve our civilization is to defeat [Russian President Vladimir] Putin. … That’s the bottom line.”

Here's the OSF from August:



So? Since when are they spending money on USA?

Given we were talking about Ukraine, I think you're confused, oh dear Marduk.

It's a poll by shitty Soros influence op. Why do you choose to shill that poll over any other?
Are you suggesting that Soros influence op polls are more trustworthy than others?
Oh, wait, i know, it's because the Soros influence op agrees with your preassumed views.
Meanwhile in a current Reuters poll:

Again, you continue to engage in levels of self owning that are comical: Reuters is funded by the Open Society Foundation too.

So, again, which way is it Marduk? Are you consistent on all Soros funding being bad and suspect, or not? If so, then why are you citing a poll funded by Soros? Why are you backing the Ukrainian Government, which was brought into power by Soros?
 

History Learner

Well-known member
Notably here, like most left-aligned media groups, Reuters are generally left-biased.

However, like most long-running left-aligned media groups, they also know that they can't warp their polling too far from what actual opinions are, or they'll completely destroy their credibility. Even if we assume that this poll is 5-10% off what an unbiased sample and questions would get you in the poll, that still shows solid majority support.

Which fits the general trend of 'Russia's invasion of Ukraine is bad' being about the only thing the left and right agree on these days, even if there is disagreement on how much to support the Ukrainians.

Supporting Ukraine is an overwhelmingly Left Wing thing in the United States, so I don't know why you would assume they would want to "warp" this:

9doATSpk_o.jpg
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Supporting Ukraine is an overwhelmingly Left Wing thing in the United States, so I don't know why you would assume they would want to "warp" this:

9doATSpk_o.jpg

It's like you think the same rhetorical trick will work if you just keep repeating it often enough.

Sure, the margin in the data that you provide is much narrower on the Republican side, but the fact remains that a majority support keeping with the Ukrainians in the long run to defeat Russia, as do a (much larger) majority of the political left. Further, if you look at any leading voices on the right who don't want to throw money at Ukraine, it's about internal fiscal and border matters; they'd like the Ukrainians to win, they just want us to focus on our own problems first.

This is still more agreement that the left and right have on pretty much any major political issue of the day.

The particularly hilarious part here, is you don't even seem to realize that you've self-owned by posting this less than five hours after your poll that claims Americans want to stop supporting the Ukrainians.

Your poll from two pages ago said 57% "support the US pursuing diplomatic negotiations as soon as possible to end the war in Ukraine, even if it requires Ukraine making compromises with Russia." This poll you've posted here says 66% support a prolonged conflict for Ukraine to regain territory.

Your capacity for just grabbing whatever source that supports what you want to 'prove' in any given moment, and ignore any data that doesn't suit the point you want to make the next, is truly impressive.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
What I am trying to accomplish is to get through to him how stupid his actions are in light of developments in the actual invasion thread, which he never seems to visit.

Likely because he doesn't want to see hard evidence of how much Ru propaganda he's sucked down and see evidence of how good the Ukrainian military is doing.
Well you're failing at it; miserably. Nobody has ever been convinced that they were wrong with insults; that's how you get people to stop listening to you altogether. That's why I stopped going to that thread, and added a number of people in there to my ignore list; because they seemed more interested in attacking me on a personal level than anything else when I disagreed with them.

You're a decent person Bacle; but you have a habit of crusading for certain causes to the point of losing sight of the fact that those who disagree with you might not be doing so because they're ignorant or evil, but because they simply came to different conclusions than you did, or have different priorities.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
It's like you think the same rhetorical trick will work if you just keep repeating it often enough.

Sure, the margin in the data that you provide is much narrower on the Republican side, but the fact remains that a majority support keeping with the Ukrainians in the long run to defeat Russia, as do a (much larger) majority of the political left. Further, if you look at any leading voices on the right who don't want to throw money at Ukraine, it's about internal fiscal and border matters; they'd like the Ukrainians to win, they just want us to focus on our own problems first.

This is still more agreement that the left and right have on pretty much any major political issue of the day.

The particularly hilarious part here, is you don't even seem to realize that you've self-owned by posting this less than five hours after your poll that claims Americans want to stop supporting the Ukrainians.

Your poll from two pages ago said 57% "support the US pursuing diplomatic negotiations as soon as possible to end the war in Ukraine, even if it requires Ukraine making compromises with Russia." This poll you've posted here says 66% support a prolonged conflict for Ukraine to regain territory.

Your capacity for just grabbing whatever source that supports what you want to 'prove' in any given moment, and ignore any data that doesn't suit the point you want to make the next, is truly impressive.

I see you have yet to figure out how to lie convincingly.

That's why, instead of directly quoting me, you claimed I said this or that, while taking it out of context. Let's see what I actually said, shall we?
New poll signals Americans are growing tired of support for Ukraine without diplomacy as the war against Russia drags on

According to a poll conducted by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and Data for Progress, 57% of likely voters strongly or somewhat support the US pursuing diplomatic negotiations as soon as possible to end the war in Ukraine, even if it requires Ukraine making compromises with Russia. Just 32% of respondents were strongly or somewhat opposed to this.

And nearly half of the respondents (47%) said they only support the continuation of US military aid to Ukraine if the US is involved in ongoing diplomacy to end the war, while 41% said they support the continuation of US military aid to Ukraine whether the US is involved in ongoing diplomacy or not.

The Biden administration and Congress need to do more diplomatically to help end the war, according to 49% of likely voters, while 37% said they have done enough in this regard, the poll showed.

So not only did you misquote the poll itself, you outright lied about my commentary on it; I never said the U.S. public at large was suddenly Pro-Russia. So that's two lies in one, truly impressive and explains exactly why you didn't directly quote me, doesn't it? Now, with that out of the way, let's also consider the fact that Gallup poll is from data collected in August, while this new poll came out in the past week, so it's more recent. What explains the flips?
  • Donald Trump endorsed a peace deal with concessions for Russia, making it a viable position for Republicans to take
  • The economic situation has greatly worsened since August
Indeed, on the last point, I directly cited it as a casual factor:
Likely a very big factor explaining both Trump and Musk getting behind Pro-Peace movement lately; it's politically popular, given 61% of Americans are now reporting economic pain related to the war.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
And? Communism died in 1991 in the USSR,
KGB says hi, stop being a lolcow. Communism may have died, but the same people are in charge :D
Also tell me what's the biggest legal opposition party in Russia...
Soros continues to fund Ukraine to this day. The Maidan movement, which he takes credit for, banned the Communist Party of Ukraine years ago; yet, he continues to fund and support movements in Ukraine.
Soros "funds" Ukraine in the same way he "funds" USA. Keep the bullshit for yourself, your rhetorical tricks are good enough for moderately intelligent twitter bots only.
Trump Says Ukraine Should Have Done Deal With Putin

During an appearance on the The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show podcast, the former president suggested that Ukraine could have "given up" the territory of Crimea, which was annexed by Russia in 2014, or agreed not to join NATO.​
The remarks came after Trump was asked for his opinion of the photoshoot Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky and his wife, Olena, did for Vogue magazine, which has come under scrutiny given it took place while the country was at war.​
"Probably not the greatest thing," Trump said, before adding his much repeated stance that the Russia invasion would have "never happened" if he was still president.​
"He [Putin] wouldn't have done it with me. He wouldn't have done it. At a minimum, they should have made a deal," Trump said.​
"They could have given up Crimea. They could have done something with NATO, 'Okay, we're not gonna join NATO,' and you'd have a country, because I believe Putin wanted to make a deal," Trump said.​
"And now I don't think he wants to make a deal. I think it's much tougher to make a deal. He's blowing up the whole place. I mean, he'll take over the whole place. And it's very, very sad to watch what happened with Ukraine. Very, very sad."​
Trump said that he does not believe Putin "ever intended" to start a war with Ukraine but will now "rather have the whole country, now that he started."​
And? I'm not a fan of idol politics.
Thank you for precisely proving my point. You have my sympathies, because it's clear you've now hit the stage of coping and attempting to rationalize your views, at least subconsciously, given the disconnect between them you've now been forced to uncover; I know this must be painful.
My views need no rationalizing because they are rational to begin with, and i have nothing to cope with, except the sheer amazement at the incredible combination of stubborn idiocy you represent.
Why the Ukraine crisis is a defining moment for George Soros’ OSF, from June:

In March, OSF contributed an initial $25 million to launch a fund for “a Free and Democratic Ukraine,” with the goal of raising a total of $100 million from other foundations, philanthropists, and the private sector. Beyond OSF’s own contribution, the fund has so far collected more than $18 million from donors such as the Schmidt Family, Oak, and Ford foundations, “with further commitments in the pipeline,” OSF spokesperson Jonathan Birchall told Devex. The funds are being distributed as grants to organizations in Ukraine and other countries.​
The International Renaissance Foundation, or IRF — an OSF foundation in Ukraine — is involved in all aspects of this work, such as strategy, fund governance, and some grant-making to civil society partners in country, Birchall added.​
The democracy fund is intended to sustain Ukraine’s civil society, including a free media and human rights, OSF President Mark Malloch-Brown told Devex. Those aspects of a free society are now under threat as towns are taken over by Russian forces and civilians are killed.​
“If democracy is on trial in this crisis, democracy’s answer has to be that it’s a system that works for everybody,” Malloch-Brown said.​
At last week’s dinner event, Soros described growing struggles between two “diametrically opposed” systems of governance worldwide: open societies that protect the freedom of the individual and closed societies in which the role of the individual is to serve state rulers. And as those struggles ramp up, he said, other priorities — such as avoiding nuclear war and fighting climate change — have “had to take a back seat to that struggle.”​
“Therefore, we must mobilize all our resources to bring the war to an early end,” Soros told the well-heeled crowd. “The best and perhaps only way to preserve our civilization is to defeat [Russian President Vladimir] Putin. … That’s the bottom line.”

Here's the OSF from August:


Again, so fucking what? You have discovered that Soros influence ops take opportunities they see? Congratulations!
Now do you have something useful to say?
Given we were talking about Ukraine, I think you're confused, oh dear Marduk.



Again, you continue to engage in levels of self owning that are comical: Reuters is funded by the Open Society Foundation too.
A huge organization, to a tune of "between £50k and £200k".
So, again, which way is it Marduk? Are you consistent on all Soros funding being bad and suspect, or not? If so, then why are you citing a poll funded by Soros? Why are you backing the Ukrainian Government, which was brought into power by Soros?
Did you learn debating in a preschool? Do you fail to understand the difference between Soros throwing pocket change at an organization older than him, and Soros providing majority of founder money to a organization founded 3 years ago? Do you understand the difference in level of control that comes with each?
 
Last edited:

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Well you're failing at it; miserably. Nobody has ever been convinced that they were wrong with insults; that's how you get people to stop listening to you altogether. That's why I stopped going to that thread, and added a number of people in there to my ignore list; because they seemed more interested in attacking me on a personal level than anything else when I disagreed with them.
So you stopped being informed about realities on the ground because people weren't humoring the bullshit you have spouted and called you out.

Most of the pro-Ru people in the political thread seem not to like to see the actual realities on the ground in the frontlines, because it is so very easy to call out their bullshit there and link to mountains of evidence that support the Ukrainian side and debunk the Ru side.
You're a decent person Bacle; but you have a habit of crusading for certain causes to the point of losing sight of the fact that those who disagree with you might not be doing so because they're ignorant or evil, but because they simply came to different conclusions than you did, or have different priorities.
Ukraine's sovereignty isn't just 'certain causes', nor is this a matter of not being willing to call out domestic corruption and issues.

I've seen the war crimes Russia has done to Ukraine, I've seen the way the disregard nuclear power plant safety in multiple instances, I see it was Putin's pet rebels who downed that airliner, and I see people opposing Ukraine either because they buy Ru propaganda or still believe in the foolish notion of 'fiscal conservatism' as a national driving force or unifying stance.

The pro-Ru people do not want to see the realities on the ground in Ukraine, and they will use almost any excuse to not look at or acknowledge what Russia has done and is doing in Ukraine.

The mass kidnapping of Ukrainian children alone means Russia has committed a crime that will make them a pariah for decades, and ensure Ukraine's allies use SOF units to rescue those children and punish those who have taking part in the kidnapping plots.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
KGB says hi, stop being a lolcow. Communism may have died, but the same people are in charge :D

Also tell me what's the biggest legal opposition party in Russia...

So, exactly as I said? Thank you for agreeing with me, Marduk. Perhaps there is hope for you after all!

Soros "funds" Ukraine in the same way he "funds" USA. Keep the bullshit for yourself, your rhetorical tricks are good enough for moderately intelligent twitter bots only.

"Rhetorical tricks" is a funny way of saying you lack basic reading comprehension, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt as I usually do mostly because I find you hilarious. By all means, do explain how this is a rhetorical trick, if you are capable of such advance concepts, of course:

Soros responded: “Well, I set up a foundation in Ukraine before Ukraine became independent of Russia. And the foundation has been functioning ever since. And it played a — an important part in events now.”​

Here's the man, directly, saying he played in important role in organizing the Maidan. It's not me saying it, it's he himself advancing the claim on CNN. Again, why are you so filled with cowardice you cannot answer the question I've posed several times: is everything Soros backed bad, or not? Why the lack of consistent application of this viewpoint, Marduk?

And? I'm not a fan of idol politics.

And yet you engaged in a bizarre litmus test with me on Soros. You'll recall you started this conversation with an attempt at a gotcha that has rather hilariously exploded on you now.

My views need no rationalizing because they are rational to begin with, and i have nothing to cope with, except the sheer amazement at the incredible combination of stubborn idiocy you represent.

Your continued raging is both pleasing to me on a personal level, but also because it confirms literally everything I've said so far about you. If you were not seething and attempt to justify your position, you would not be trying this limp wristed insults every time; it's very clearly you going through the five stages of grief and lashing out.

Again, so fucking what? You have discovered that Soros influence ops take opportunities they see? Congratulations!
Now do you have something useful to say?

So, again, what does this say about your position on Ukraine given the Soros influence op is why the Maidan happened, again, in his own words and that of the Open Society Foundation? They directly say they played an important role in organizing and directing the events, and continue to invest hundreds of millions in NGOs that influence the course of the Ukrainian government since 2014. For another case in point:



A huge organization, to a tune of "between £50k and £200k".

Did you learn debating in a preschool? Do you fail to understand the difference between Soros throwing pocket change at an organization older than him, and Soros providing majority of founder money to a organization founded 3 years ago? Do you understand the difference in level of control that comes with each?

Marduk, I continue to be amazed at how you can bluster when it's obvious you can't even grasp basic math and English skills. Let's look at your link shall we:

Soros and Koch each provided $500,000 in initial funding for the think tank. Approximately $800,000 was provided by other donors. The Boston Globe reported that the goal is to have the think tank secure $3.5 million in total funding by 2021.​
500,000 out of 3,500,000 is 14% of the total starting funds. Can you please explain in what universe 14% is a larger number than 50%, given you specifically said majority? Also, once again, why do you continue to be too cowardly to answer the question I've posed to you repeatedly now: is all Soros funding bad, yes or no? Why is it you can exercise nuance only when it benefits your position? Seems very clear you're acting in bad faith; do better.
 
Last edited:

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
So, exactly as I said? Thank you for agreeing with me, Marduk. Perhaps there is hope for you after all!
Duh, obviously you are too dumb to understand sarcasm.
So if dyed communists are in charge while being buddies with non dyed communists (if they weren't buddies, the non dyed communist would be where the rest of serious opposition is), that means communism has died.
Good thing that even the keks in charge aren't this stupid.

"Rhetorical tricks" is a funny way of saying you lack basic reading comprehension, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt as I usually do mostly because I find you hilarious. By all means, do explain how this is a rhetorical trick, if you are capable of such advance concepts, of course:

Soros responded: “Well, I set up a foundation in Ukraine before Ukraine became independent of Russia. And the foundation has been functioning ever since. And it played a — an important part in events now.”​

Here's the man, directly, saying he played in important role in organizing the Maidan. It's not me saying it, it's he himself advancing the claim on CNN. Again, why are you so filled with cowardice you cannot answer the question I've posed several times: is everything Soros backed bad, or not? Why the lack of consistent Marduk?

And i should care about Soros' self-backpatting because... reasons?
Or because you think you have made a strategic genius "enemy of my enemy is my friend" flip (for the record, no, it's still stupid)?

And yet you engaged in a bizarre litmus test with me on Soros. You'll recall you started this conversation with an attempt at a gotcha that has rather hilariously exploded on you now.
The only thing that has exploded here is public knowledge of your stubborn idiocy.
You still fail to see the difference between being approved by Soros and having Soros as biggest known sponsor. But what do i expect from your propaganda addled mind...

Your continued raging is both pleasing to me on a personal level, but also because it confirms literally everything I've said so far about you. If you were not seething and attempt to justify your position, you would not be trying this limp wristed insults with every time; it's very clearly you going through the five stages of grief.
As i said before, you are not worthy of my rage, but you can have my contempt.

So, again, what does this say about your position on Ukraine given the Soros influence op is why the Maidan happened,
Again with the shitty rhetorical tricks. When will you learn that you can't sneak that through with me? Soros self-backpats that he had an important role in the events, and now you up the ante on his self backpat and claim it was him who did the whole thing all along!
Are you a Soros PR representative or what?

again, in his own words and that of the Open Society Foundation? They directly say they played an important role in organizing and directing the events, and continue to invest hundreds of millions in NGOs that influence the course of the Ukrainian government since 2014. For another case in point:


So they played some role... and? It was a stab of new commies against old commies. Good. The more they fight, the better, as far as i'm concerned. To add insult to injury local nationalists grabbed part of the power in the chaos, which is even better.

Marduk, I continue to be amazed at how you can bluster when it's obvious you can't even grasp basic math and English skills. Let's look at your link shall we:

Soros and Koch each provided $500,000 in initial funding for the think tank. Approximately $800,000 was provided by other donors. The Boston Globe reported that the goal is to have the think tank secure $3.5 million in total funding by 2021.​
500,000 out of 3,500,000 is 14% of the total starting funds. Can you please explain in what universe 14% is a larger number than 50%, given you specifically said majority? Also, once again, why do you continue to be too cowardly to answer the question I've posed to you repeatedly now: is all Soros funding bad, yes or no? Why is it you can exercise nuance only when it benefits your position? Seems very clear you're acting in bad faith; do better.

"Goal is to have". So we don't know who gave the rest, if anyone did, or Soros shell corps did. From the money we know were given, Soros had the plurality.
And you dare to talk about reading comprehension...
 
Last edited:

Batrix2070

RON/PLC was a wonderful country.
Ah yes, Russia. The bastion of conservative beliefs.
Like giving your buddy a blow job in the middle of a combat zone.
Or having one the Europe's highest HIV cases.
It makes me wonder how the Russians managed to sell this to all the gullible people?
I understand that some people are looking for a mythical conservative paradise, the problem is that we are talking about a country whose communism ploughed it to the core.
It's hard to expect a country that until recently was among the most progressive countries to suddenly become conservative.
 

PsihoKekec

Swashbuckling Accountant
OSINTers arnt paid..paid.
Officially they are not, but plenty take money from ''sponsors''. Let's face it, people are spending well over 40 hours per week doing this, so they are unlikely to refuse a chance to monetize it, as sheer enthusiasm doesn't bring food to table, you either find a way to get money or eventually drop out. Oryx and Bellingcat were but first to take money for favorable attention, with their successful utilization, other propaganda departments realized that paying OSINTers could be fairly cheap way to influence internet opinion.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Officially they are not, but plenty take money from ''sponsors''. Let's face it, people are spending well over 40 hours per week doing this, so they are unlikely to refuse a chance to monetize it, as sheer enthusiasm doesn't bring food to table, you either find a way to get money or eventually drop out. Oryx and Bellingcat were but first to take money for favorable attention, with their successful utilization, other propaganda departments realized that paying OSINTers could be fairly cheap way to influence internet opinion.
Or some people just find OSINT work a fun hobby, because it lets them put that super-autism to use in screwing over Russia's day.

A lot of people get warm glows in their chest when they know they are screwing over Russia's day, pay or no pay.
 

PsihoKekec

Swashbuckling Accountant
in screwing over Russia's day.
How? By preaching to the choir, as people mostly took sides on the day one of the conflict and I don't think Russians are losing their sleep over OSINTers providing you with dopamine hits.

A lot of people get warm glows in their chest when they know they are screwing over Russia's day, pay or no pay.
Warm glow in the chest does not make up for the empty stomach, if you are putting in more hours than you could for work, then you need to somehow get money to survive. Most OSINTers are paid for what they do, but of course they maintain facade of independent researchers, so people can pretend that people bringing propaganda for their side are plucky underdogs on the quest for truth and nothing but the truth.

To be fair USA is several leagues ahead of Russians in propaganda war, in their Middle East wars they learned a lot about controlling media narrative in both MSM and internet, while Russians are still mentally in the age of Pravda. And to think that many still believe that Russians were somehow able to manipulate American elections.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Warm glow in the chest does not make up for the empty stomach, if you are putting in more hours than you could for work, then you need to somehow get money to survive. Most OSINTers are paid for what they do, but of course they maintain facade of independent researchers, so people can pretend that people bringing propaganda for their side are plucky underdogs on the quest for truth and nothing but the truth.

Do you actually have anything to substantiate this, or is it just ad hominem against people saying things you don't like?

Also, what about people who are getting paid, but by crowdfunding, like Perun?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top