RayC

Whereas of course, you are able to cut through the propaganda and misinformation and have a clear view of the true situation. Oh, the arrogant delusion of the conspiracy theorist.

And you have shown time and again that you are on the side of Russia.

The MSM narrative on COVID being what? That the vaccines offered some protection against the virus? Brand is nothing more than a self-serving conspiracy theorist.

I'm not surprised that you don't have an opinion on the article as it undermines your premise that the US is to blame for the current conflict. The last paragraph does not show any bias on Patrikarakos' part; it shows that he does not believe Putin which is a different thing. Events in Ukraine since 2014 add ample evidence to support Patrikarakos' skepticism re Putin's intentions. Wrt the Crimea. I accept that polls can get results wrong but, call me cynical if you like, I find it hard to believe that support by those in the Crimea for unifying with Russia rose from 41% (according to a poll) in February 2014 to 96% a mere month later in the referendum.

Of course, silly me. It's completely independent and free of any Kremlin influence.

Thanks for the details. Someone posted an article from the Grey zone. I don't know whether it is representative of the site as a whole but it was incoherent gibberish. Russell Brand? In the words of John McEnroe, 'You cannot be serious?': I'll have a look at the others when I get a chance. At least we agree on something: RT is Kremlin propaganda.

None of which lends any justification to Putin invading a sovereign country, a fact that you are unable to counter. As for US interference in the UK. It's been happening for years. For example, Obama attempted to sway the result of the Brexit Referendum by suggesting that the UK would be at the back of the queue for any trade deals if we left the EU. Obama's intervention obviously didn't have the desired effect although, to date, he has been proved correct.

I disagree that it is academic. If the Maidan uprising had simply been the work of an anti-Russian faction hell bent on overthrowing a democratically elected pro-Russian leader, who had the support of the Ukrainian people, then Putin might have some justification for his actions. However, this was not the case. As I outlined in previous posts, Yanukovych did not have the mandate to implement pro-Russian policies. Therefore, his removal was completely justified. What is not justified are Putin's subsequent actions.

Not a quote but an article. No doubt you will dismiss this as more MSM bias. https://time.com/6150046/ukraine-statehood-russia-history-putin/

So you're in favour of the state involving itself in extra judicial killings?

So you think that it's perfectly acceptable for a politician - elected on a platform which promised closer ties to the West with the ultimate aim of gaining EU membership - to unilaterally break that promise and instead effectively become Putin's poodle? You also presumably think that the Ukrainian electorate should have simply grinned and bore this volte-face? The Maidan uprising was completely justified. What isn't justified is Putin's actions in Ukraine. That Ukraine may have been a money laundering centre is completely irrelevant unless you also believe that ridding Ukraine of such practices justifies Russia launching a war.

You mean this? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957.amp That the US had a preference for who should become President of Ukraine is hardly news. Russia also had its' own ideas about what should happen in Ukraine. From the same article: Sergei Glazyev stated that Russia" ... 'must interfere in Ukraine' and the authorities there should use force against the demonstrators". The transcript doesn't refute my proposition that the catalyst for the Maidan Uprising was Yanukovych's refusal to enact the mandate on which he was elected and sign the EU-Ukraine Agreement. Russia refused to accept that Yanukovych's removal was justified and legitimate and she has escalated the conflict ever since.

What are the names of these outlets? I'll look for myself.

Bin Laden and Syria are way off topic. However, as I introduced them to the conversation - albeit in the context of undermining Baud as a credible witness - I must take responsibility. Whether Bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11 or not is besides the point. The atrocity was committed by Al-Qaeda. Bin Laden was the founder and a leading member of the organisation, and was thus a legitimate target for the US. QED. Wrt to use of chemical weapons in Syria, I apologise but I do not have the time or enthusiasm to research Mate's claims. However, even if we accept that he has a valid point, it is tangential to the war in Ukraine and the subject of this thread in particular.

Ah, that old chestnut. When all else fails roll out the bias MSM line.

That is very debatable. Firstly, the extra year also gave Germany more time to develop its' armaments. Secondly, no one in 1938 or '39 - even the German High Command - thought that France and the Low Countries would capitulate so quickly. Thirdly, invading the UK would not have been easy as we had naval superiority. If an invasion were to be successful then the Luftwaffe would have had to lay the groundwork by nullifying the Royal Navy's advantage by establishing superiority in the air. As the Battle of Britain later showed, this didn't happen and there is no reason to think that it would have been any different in 1938.

As I stated previously, the "dude" was elected on a pro-Western platform, so the Ukrainian electorate expected him to implement that mandate. Why don't you address my argument directly rather than spout the same old tired anti-US, pro- Russian propaganda? It's a rhetorical question: It's quite clear that you cannot.

So you resort to insults when you realise that your argument has more holes than a string vest. Me uninformed? You do realise that Nuland was the US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia Affairs, don't you? Why then should it come as a surprise that Nuland was ... err ... taking an interest in European matters and was actually seen on the European continent? You know nothing other than parroting the Kremlin's line.

Imo no chance. Nieta is the best of the UK female sprinters. If they reach the finals they will have done well.

😂😂😂😂😂

So why are China and Iran taking part if the Olympics is nothing more than " ...a politicized circle-jerk manufactured solely by the West" (whatever that may?).

There is a reference in the very first line: " A far-left activist has been arrested in connection with a series of attacks on France's high-speed train network ...". He didn't act alone. Dopey bunch. All they succeed in doing was inconveniencing and alienating the public.

The US did not depose a democratically elected leader: Yanukovych was ousted by a popular uprising. The Ukrainian parliament had passed a bill approving the signing of the EU - Ukraine Association Agreement. Yanukovych was elected on a platform which promised that this bill would be signed into law. The Ukrainian electorate made their view clear: they wanted Ukraine to look West, not East. Following his election, Yanukovych unilaterally decided not to sign the Agreement. To put this into context, it is akin to Boris Johnson standing on a platform of 'Get Brexit done' and then, once elected, unilaterally deciding that the UK would remain in the EU. This was the catalyst for the Maidan revolution. Prior to the popular uprising, Putin had been giving the Ukrainian rebels in the East, economic and military aid i.e. he was interfering in the domestic affairs of another sovereign nation. He now went a step further and invaded Crimea and the Dombass and things have escalated from there. The truth of the matter is that the war in Ukraine has little to do with US interference and everything to do with Russian aggression and expansionism.

Even easier (although extremely unlikely). Russia withdraws its' troops and leaves Ukraine to manage its' own affairs.

How is CNN warmongering? Unfortunately, there is a war going on between Russia and Ukraine; that is an undeniable fact. Trump is a candidate for the presidency of the US; that is another fact. Given these circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable for journalists to ask Trump which side he would support if he became President. Trump gave an (understandably) evasive answer