This may be seen as heresy. But consider looking at a variety of sources for this issue. And all issues for that matter.
RT.com. If you can access it. Odysee.com. Take care in not only looking at sources that censor or aggressively filter some things.
Of course the wider you cast your net, the more dross you will pull in. It is up to you to not only seek out the broadest sources of information. But to make the effort to balance it out logically for yourself.
Propaganda abounds. But gather both sides of it and balance it out.
I spend hours sifting through this shit. But then I have no life. It is my hobby. I know most folks have better things to do. But some things are more important. Even if at first glance they do not seem to directly effect you in a major way. Best to keep an even eye on them.
Are you fucking kidding?
Stranger
No. I am not.
Which source do you consider to be the purveyor of the total absolute truth, so no other source is required?
There is no truth at all in the sources you mentioned. They are pure propaganda.
ETA: Based on this, it looks like you’ve bought into Russian propaganda. So I’m sure I’m wasting my time with this post. 
Again. Tell me which source contains the total truth.
I did not say to not look at any sources. But to also look at at least two other sources. Look at as many as you can and consider the source and the information given. Then consider it all as best you can.
How about fuck off?
This is like saying, “If you can’t tell me what gives me perfect sustenance, I will continue to munch on dog shit.”
You’re coming off like a complete troll here.
There is a broad gulf of distinction between conventional media with often uncertain background knowledge and a tenuous grasp of the players seeking a compelling narrative to string facts and imagery to keep viewers engaged, and the official propaganda arm of the Russian government in the guise of news feeding pravda from Putin’s inner circle of advisors primarily intended for the Russian sycophants worldwide (although, curiously, with the largest audience in the United States). The appeal/ that you can find ‘truth’ in some kind of balance of competing propaganda is flawed enough without citing a ‘news’ source that promotes conspiracy theories and creates ‘facts’ out of whole cloth. You’d be better off watching Alex Jones drunkenly screaming into whatever video media platform will carry him because he was at least actually forced to admit that what he does is all an act intended to generate outrage.
Stranger
Pretty much all of the information I consider of use is actually from high level U.S. people that have held high posts in the military and other government positions. Not some blogger.
Half hour or more in depth interviews. Sometimes with a third or forth person also with past high level positions in U.S. or other country positions in military or government.
The people may be conducting the interview on a lower level media outlet. But they are who they are. From multiple countries and positions in those countries governments and militaries.
…On Odyssee, right? The site that the far right created because they got tired of YouTube censoring their conspiracy theories and other dangerous misinformation? I’m sure there are people there who claim those credentials, or that they got that info second hand from those people on condition of anonymity, because the Deep State will have them assassinated by the Clinton hit squads.
Which parts of the “Based on this…” Do you disagree with? I put forth several things.
All of it. That Russia is not failing in Ukraine. That it was very quick initially, but then got bogged down because of all the care they took not to kill civilians or damage non-military infrastructure. That they surrounded Kiev quickly. That the end game is to have a “neutral” Ukraine.
These are all Russian lies. You are drunk on the vodka-mixed Kool-Aid. You are a clown.
“I am dissatisfied with the imperfect veracity of legitimate news sources. Therefore I will voluntarily strap myself into the enemy’s Ludovico machine of falsehood, and call myself informationally balanced.”
One example of an interesting interview on RT.com.
Former secretary of state Colin Powell’s chief of staff, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson.
https://www.rt.com/shows/going-underground/552175-russia-invasion-nato-expansion/
I am not just looking at some random bloggers. I consider the experience of the person being interviewed. Not just what place they are being interviewed on. I look at all sorts of platforms, seeking out people that I feel have some good insight of the situation.
I wish this had not happened. I hope that it will resolve best for Ukraine. I don’t really feel it will make a huge difference to Russia or the west at it’s conclusion compared to the moment it began. Hopefully it will be stable after it is done. The ongoing stability would be the best outcome. With Ukraine getting back on its feet and moving forward. Russia and the West being secure the aftermath.
Okay.
The only thing that I feel may be up in the air is the final result. I stand by my overall description of things so far.
But it is quite possible that Russia may not get all that it desires from this. And it may cost them more than they expected to even get a lesser result. It is still a live and unpredictable action. Also whatever short term resolution happens. It would be under duress. So the longevity is unknown.
Best outcome. Ukraine could get the best of many options fulfilled. If neutrality. Get it with lots of good economic guarantees from Russia. Reparations to rebuild. Best trade options with Russia, with no restrictions to trade to the west as well. Security guarantees with multiple nations, so less expenditure on military. More on economics of the country.
I actually think Ukraine should have been using it’s precarious and valuable position between West and Russia to get these kind of deals long ago. Missed peaceful opportunities to play West/Russia off each other for their own benefit.
The passive language (“I wish this had not happened.”, “I hope it will be stable after it is done.”) says pretty much everything about your “balanced” viewpoint. This invasion of Ukraine didn’t just happen as some kind of oversight or a diplomatic slip; it was a very deliberately planned campaign by Putin and the coterie of extremists that are advising him to engage in—in his own words—“denazification” of the country. Regardless of whether you think this occurred because of legitimate security concerns of NATO expanding to surround Russia, or because as an export petrostate Russia needs access to more resources and industry to shore up its struggling economy, or because Vladimir Putin dreams of great visions of Russia being somehow elevated to imperial status and Moscow being “The Third Rome”, or whatever your interpretation, the Russian Army as directed by Putin engaged in the unprovoked, undeclared, unilateral war against Ukraine, targeting civilian structures including hospitals, schools, and aid warehouses, and putting all of Central and Eastern Europe at risk of radiation contamination by barreling through the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone and interfering with the maintenance of safety operations as well as creating the potential for global famine by disrupting the critical Ukrainian grain planting season.
Even if the stories about Russians sending off Ukrainian ‘prisoners of war’ to labor camps in Russia is not true—I mean, it isn’t as if Russia has any kind of history with this sort of thing—there are plenty of examples of almost unilateral aggression and war crimes that the idea that there is some kind of neutral stance is risible on the face.
Stranger
It has been about 20 or more years of high ranking people in government and military of many nations warning that NATO encroachment up to Russia’s borders would cause what has happened.
Russian government and military people said it as well.
You are right. It was not oversight or slip. It happened in spite of constant warnings. It was deliberate. It could have been avoided.
Avoided by capitulating to a murderous dictator who constantly wants more?
Better to draw a line and fight.
Ukraine was not part of NATO. This was not “encroachment up to Russia’s borders”, if that was the real issue Russia would have invaded the Baltics or Poland. This was a land and resources grab and Russia is engaging in genocide so they can replace the Ukrainian population with loyal Russians, which they have done before, see Narva, Estonia.
You’re blaming the victim for the bully’s actions. Lots of other nation border adversaries without feeling a compulsion to invade, loot, rape, pillage, torture, and kill. The blame here, all the blame, is on Putin’s Russia. Ukraine was no threat. It was not part of NATO. It was not part of the EU. If it had been either of those things Russia would not have invaded.
Please stop peddling lies.
Just as the battered spouse can usually minimize the risk of being assaulted by staying as silent and compliant as possible, and any time they’re attacked, it’s mostly their own fault.
Ukraine shouldn’t have worn that red shirt, then the bull wouldn’t have attacked. Poor fashion sense!
@Kedikat, to give you the benefit of the doubt for some reason, maybe you don’t know that rt.com is straight up Russian propaganda. If there are any true stories there, it’s accidental.
If this were WWII, you’d be telling us about all these interesting facts you found out about from Tokyo Rose. You’re an unwitting (I assume) Russian stooge.
Unless you’re a journalist, I’m not even sure why you think it’s necessary to get your news from multiple sources to somehow balance it out. You’re balancing well-researched, well-edited news stories with lies and propaganda and coming to the conclusion that the truth is somewhere in the middle.
I prefer the NY Times, because I like the puzzles, but maybe the Washington Post is more up your alley. Or, for just straight news, just go to AP, NPR, or the BBC. Everything else will make you less informed about actual events in the world.
Seriously, stop following those shitty news sources and join the reality-based world.