I don't think we know whether there was any diplomatic intervention, as not all of it gets publicly known. Indeed, I would be very surprised if there wasn't any.

Our major error was allowing ourselves to become reliant on Russian energy supplies. That was an epic strategic mistake and a lesson learned. I have no doubt Russian commodities will continue to find a way into the market, but the west turning their back on direct trade, and pressurising others to do the same, will take a toll. It will take time, possibly a long time, and I do not expect to see our door opening again to Russia in my lifetime, but cutting the Russian's off from the west will work.

Ensuring we do this in a way that prevents famine in vulnerable countries is a challenge that needs to be faced. We must do this together, in a co-ordinated programme. Those who dismiss the importance of the UN and the WEF in facing up to such global challenges need to think again.

No single source offers a complete picture. Mainstream news does however operate within a socially understood range due to the numbers of eyeballs on screens, so nothing extreme or terroristic is likely to feature (unlike online). There is a reputational aspect and longevity (making accuracy at least a consideration), unlike the endless 'pop up' websites that cost about 12 pence to set up, or encrypted sites and chats that can totally veer off into the deep end with heavy crafted warped perspectives (often because that's would appeals rather than what is true) that excite their idler adherents. 'Group polarisation' at work.

There's often less structure online, and so people tend to more easily go down hyper partisan rabbit hole routes due to their own biases and hang ups to the point where they can become far more indoctrinated than they realise. Emotional crack for the socially inept and mentally unwell. These types routinely do not recognise that this is even happening to them (as that would require a modicum of self awareness that would put the brakes on it to begin with).

'Opinion' led news from rabble rousers of the Tucker Carlson and Keith Olbermann type moulds diverge from news in a significantly negative way though, as they instead push heavily emotion led narratives to those suseptable to them who enjoy 'performative' politically polarised offerings rather than actual news (indeed Tucker Carlon has defended himself again slander with the legal position that he's not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary' - which of course is true.) One eyed sensationalist 'commentator' led news is often derivative; a glossy version of the very same tripe people get on activist or basement dweller sites online. The opposite of having a genuine interest in nuance, people or current events.

The best way to take in news is to do so from multiple sources, often of somewhat different perspectives, to form a patchwork of sorts. The main pitfall online is fear and hatred based echo chambers of left and right, that so heavily curate and skew information and events that they just function as comfort blankets for the mentally weak - dark dives built intentionally blotting out other realities and perspectives. The information is certainly out there and can be taken onboard in a fair way by the principled, but there is so little quality control that the mix of what people end up taking in instead sometimes over time leads them to places and ideas that range from unfortunate to dangerous. 'Alt media scholars' often scoffing at the mainstream, would have a point if they were not typically the most mentally out of it people you could ever interact with.

Edited by BlueJay (05 Jun 2022 11.27am)

I’m off here for a while but you will be found to be excusing the inexcusable

Exactly, the UN is a useless waste of money.

I wonder if "Has he started his project yet" become as popular a post in this section as "Has he signed yet" is in Transfer Talk at this time of year?

There would be no significant difference if it didn't exist.