8 hours ago, frank83628 said:

It falls on deaf ears. The propaganda machine has told them Putins evil, nothing will change their minds.

Putin is evil.  How can you not see this? 

By connda
Sunday at 07:25 PM in The War in Ukraine

 

But, but, but Nobodys fried yet silly

Wednesday 5:00 

 

 

10 minutes ago, sharot724 said:

By connda
Sunday at 07:25 PM in The War in Ukraine

 

But, but, but Nobodys fried yet silly

Wednesday 5:00 

 

 

Yep. So this thread will fade away until sombody else opens the same discussion again- So we all are allowed to read the same russian propaganda again. Thats how it works. Everywhere. 

 

Propaganda techniques -> Wikipedia

Interesting if you have the time and want to know more about this.

Ad nauseam

This uses tireless repetition of an idea. An idea, especially a simple slogan, that is repeated enough times, may begin to be taken as the truth. This approach is more effective alongside the propagandist limiting or controlling the media.

18 hours ago, Schoggibueb said:

Lots of letters rowed in lines and most of it is of whataboutism.

 

Lets keep it simple. In your oppinion - and that is clear russian propaganda - the bully (russia) has all the rights to take what he wants to because he has nuclear weapons. And the rest of the world shall nod their heads and say - sure go and take it.

 

Thats not how it works. But you will find out that the ideas of Putin will not have success. Even all of his bots try to hammer it into the heads by repeating the same bulls excrement again and again. Worldwide in many threads.

 

I just have to repeat myself -> boring.

 

Again, you simply don't get it. You really don't. I'll give you this much, though: you're good at regurgitating propaganda. 

 

It's not about what "rights" Putin has to take what he wants because he has nuclear weapons. In your Neocon fantasy world, Putin has no such right. Ukraine is an independent nation, as you say.  And yet, Putin has taken parts of Ukraine, which are now part of Russia.  And Putin does have nukes.  

 

So, whether that's "how it works" or not (in your fantasyland), that's the reality of the situation. It's history and it's established fact.  Parts of what used to be Ukraine have now been annexed by Russia and Putin does have nukes. 

 

And unless the Neocons have a Time Machine and have some way to go back and change history, the issues must be addressed prospectively. What are you going to do about it?  Gamble with the future of humanity because you simply can't grasp the fact that USA led Western hegemony isn't what it used to be and is fading fast?  Pretending that's not the case is what the Neocon Fantasy is all about, and they've done a good job of brainwashing people like you.  

 

Perhaps it's time to drop the Russian Boogeyman routine and deal with the real world.  

 

 

17 hours ago, candide said:

False equivalences.

 

Mexico or Canada would not place offensive weapons near the border because they are not invaded or threatened by the U.S. (Trump is actually threatening them but everyone knows he's talking B.S.)

 

The U.S. or other NATO countries did not smuggle trucks and drones to Russia. Ukraine has done it without their help and didn't need it. Actually, it seems they have been bought and assembled in Russia. 

Fale equivalences?  LOL

 

You assume it would be Mexico or Canada placing the weapons near the border? Hardly. As with Ukraine, you have to imagine that somehow Russia or China had corrupted the governments of Mexico or Canada and was able to install its military hardware.  

 

As for who smuggled trucks and drones into Russia? If you think any of that operation was done without the help of the US and NATO., think again. Ukraine does not have the technical expertise, and certainly does not have the ability to select targets. If you don't understand that, you don't understand anything, I'm afraid. 

8 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Ukraine does not have the technical expertise, and certainly does not have the ability to select targets. 

Gross underestimation of Ukraine.

7 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Gross underestimation of Ukraine.

Another person who just doesn't get it.  I have two words for you.

 

Palantir. Starink.  

2 hours ago, jas007 said:

Another person who just doesn't get it.  I have two words for you.

 

Palantir. Starink.  

CIA. MI6. Mossad. The Poles and Finns.

 

Google.

 

 

10 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

CIA. MI6. Mossad. The Poles and Finns.

 

Google.

 

 

I'm not sure what your point is, but you can be assured that both the CIA and MI6 use Palantir and Starlink.  It's not hard to connect the dots.  And if you don't understand how it all fits together, do some research.  You're missing an integral part of the picture.  

2 hours ago, jas007 said:

Fale equivalences?  LOL

 

You assume it would be Mexico or Canada placing the weapons near the border? Hardly. As with Ukraine, you have to imagine that somehow Russia or China had corrupted the governments of Mexico or Canada and was able to install its military hardware.  

 

As for who smuggled trucks and drones into Russia? If you think any of that operation was done without the help of the US and NATO., think again. Ukraine does not have the technical expertise, and certainly does not have the ability to select targets. If you don't understand that, you don't understand anything, I'm afraid. 

You did write false equivalences

 

1. Canada and Mexico have no reason to put Russian or Chinese weapons near U.S. borders because, unlike Ukraine, they are not going to be invaded or under threat of attack by their neighbour. Your comparison doesn't make sense.

 

2. It's you who mentioned smuggling trucks and drones. We agree that was not the case. Of course, Ukraine gets access to information from U.S. satellites, but they also have their own spies in Russia. On top of it, most locations have probably not changed since the collapse of the Soviet Union. 

 

And again, Mexico or Canada won't need Russian information to attack U.S. military bases because they are not going to be invaded by the U.S. 🤣

9 minutes ago, jas007 said:

I'm not sure what your point is, but you can be assured that both the CIA and MI6 use Palantir and Starlink.  It's not hard to connect the dots.  And if you don't understand how it all fits together, do some research.  You're missing an integral part of the picture.  

Im not missing anything, Im taking the position that Ukraine could not have pulled that off without help, overt or otherwise.

 

Behind the scenes, the continuation of the war benefits Europe. Weaken Putin with Ukraine as the cannon fodder.

16 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Im not missing anything, Im taking the position that Ukraine could not have pulled that off without help, overt or otherwise.

OK. I misunderstood.  The had to have help.  They simply don't have the technical expertise. 

26 minutes ago, candide said:

You did write false equivalences

 

1. Canada and Mexico have no reason to put Russian or Chinese weapons near U.S. borders because, unlike Ukraine, they are not going to be invaded or under threat of attack by their neighbour. Your comparison doesn't make sense.

 

2. It's you who mentioned smuggling trucks and drones. We agree that was not the case. Of course, Ukraine gets access to information from U.S. satellites, but they also have their own spies in Russia. On top of it, most locations have probably not changed since the collapse of the Soviet Union. 

 

And again, Mexico or Canada won't need Russian information to attack U.S. military bases because they are not going to be invaded by the U.S. 🤣

I disagree.

 

Do you not understand why happened to Ukraine?  Imagine the same thing happened to Canada or Mexico.  A government is toppled, a puppet dictator is installed that is friendly to an enemy of the USA, and, with the help of such an enemy, equipment and technical expertise is provided to allow the installation of military equipment and missiles along the border, including technical targeting information available 24/7.  That's exactly what happened in Ukraine, and it's not hard to imagine the same thing could in Mexico or Canada, although the US would never allow such a scheme to proceed very far.  US sphere of influence and all that....

 

As for either one not being invaded or attacked by a neighbor?  If I'm not mistaken, US officials have openly discussed sending troops into Mexico to deal with the drug cartels. And I could imagine them doing the same thing if the Fentanyl traffic from Canada doesn't stop. 

 

I'm assuming you're just here causing trouble and aren't really that stupid. 

30 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Im not missing anything, Im taking the position that Ukraine could not have pulled that off without help, overt or otherwise.

 

Behind the scenes, the continuation of the war benefits Europe. Weaken Putin with Ukraine as the cannon fodder.

..........or the very lax Putin regime regarding taking care of stuff, except targeting civilians in another country.........................🤔

15 minutes ago, transam said:

..........or the very lax Putin regime regarding taking care of stuff, except targeting civilians in another country.........................🤔

Wow. What does that mean LOL

22 minutes ago, jas007 said:

I disagree.

 

Do you not understand why happened to Ukraine?  Imagine the same thing happened to Canada or Mexico.  A government is toppled, a puppet dictator is installed that is friendly to an enemy of the USA, and, with the help of such an enemy, equipment and technical expertise is provided to allow the installation of military equipment and missiles along the border, including technical targeting information available 24/7.  That's exactly what happened in Ukraine, and it's not hard to imagine the same thing could in Mexico or Canada, although the US would never allow such a scheme to proceed very far.  US sphere of influence and all that....

 

As for either one not being invaded or attacked by a neighbor?  If I'm not mistaken, US officials have openly discussed sending troops into Mexico to deal with the drug cartels. And I could imagine them doing the same thing if the Fentanyl traffic from Canada doesn't stop. 

 

I'm assuming you're just here causing trouble and aren't really that stupid. 

You are posting misleading Russian propaganda information. The President was toppled because, under foreign influence, he refused to apply an agreement voted by the parliament. All successive governments have been elected in legal elections (controlled by the OSCE).

 

And you are still avoiding the fact that Russia attacked Ukraine. Military equipment was supplied to Ukraine because Russia invaded it.

 

Everybody knows Trump is talking B.S., but in case the U.S. would invade Mexico or Canada, it would be legitimate for them to get help from other countries.

 

I assume you're just here to diffuse Russian propaganda and are not really that stupid!

16 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Wow. What does that mean LOL

I thought you wouldn't understand, no loss though....

14 minutes ago, candide said:

You are posting misleading Russian propaganda information. The President was toppled because, under foreign influence, he refused to apply an agreement voted by the parliament. All successive governments have been elected in legal elections (controlled by the OSCE).

 

And you are still avoiding the fact that Russia attacked Ukraine. Military equipment was supplied to Ukraine because Russia invaded it.

 

Everybody knows Trump is talking B.S., but in case the U.S. would invade Mexico or Canada, it would be legitimate for them to get help from other countries.

 

I assume you're just here to diffuse Russian propaganda and are not really that stupid!

I think you're the one regurgitating propaganda.  Do you really think the CIA was not involved in stirring up trouble in Ukraine, and that they were not instrumental in facilitating the Maiden Revolution in 2014?  After all, that's their usual modus operandi.  They've pulled off similar stunts all over the world. Would you like a list?

 

Do you know of Victoria Nuland?  They have her on tape admitting to discussing who should be installed as the next president of Ukraine, and she admitted it was her on the tape.  She called the audio quality of the recording good, or something like that.  Anyway, if you want to believe in fairy tales, go right ahead. 

 

And the fact the Russia invaded Ukraine is beside the point, and, in any event, sidesteps the issue of whether the invasion was justified. 

 

As for the legitimacy of Canada or Mexico getting help from other countries if invaded?  Sure. In your fairytale fantasy world.  In reality, the US would never allow enemy tanks and missiles on its border and the legitimacy would matter not one iota.  

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

I'm not sure what your point is, but you can be assured that both the CIA and MI6 use Palantir and Starlink.  It's not hard to connect the dots.  And if you don't understand how it all fits together, do some research.  You're missing an integral part of the picture.  

 

Absolutely correct, after Euromaidan Ukraine entered into a formal partnership with the CIA. They supplied the CIA with intel on Russia. It is inconceivable that Ukraine would not have had CIA assistance in the recent drone attack..

 

Of course they and the US have to deny it at the moment. If you believe that you 'll believe anything.

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

OK. I misunderstood.  The had to have help.  They simply don't have the technical expertise. 

Slow walk you getting so rilled up and don"t you fret, a War like this is neverending.

56 minutes ago, candide said:

You are posting misleading Russian propaganda information. The President was toppled because, under foreign influence, he refused to apply an agreement voted by the parliament. All successive governments have been elected in legal elections (controlled by the OSCE).

 

And you are still avoiding the fact that Russia attacked Ukraine. Military equipment was supplied to Ukraine because Russia invaded it.

 

Everybody knows Trump is talking B.S., but in case the U.S. would invade Mexico or Canada, it would be legitimate for them to get help from other countries.

 

I assume you're just here to diffuse Russian propaganda and are not really that stupid!

I personally agree with you.

Anyway from a certain point on I don't react anymore -> don't feed the trolls. The just repeat themselves.

Also from the same point on I don't give any reactions to them. The reason is simple. They have the feedback that their B.S. has arrived.

 

Just my point of view how to deal with russian trolls

1 hour ago, transam said:

I thought you wouldn't understand, no loss though....

Good Ive been at the market all day and have heard enough broken english for a while. Yap yap, see ya again Im sure

2 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Im not missing anything, Im taking the position that Ukraine could not have pulled that off without help, overt or otherwise.

 

Behind the scenes, the continuation of the war benefits Europe. Weaken Putin with Ukraine as the cannon fodder.

Why WOULDN'T Europe want to see him weakened?  Russia supporters always reveal this like it's some hidden knowledge or damning information that only the truly wise can see...  You want to see your enemies weakened.  It's what Russia did to Georgia, Moldova, and in its first two invasions of Ukraine.

44 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Absolutely correct, after Euromaidan Ukraine entered into a formal partnership with the CIA. They supplied the CIA with intel on Russia. It is inconceivable that Ukraine would not have had CIA assistance in the recent drone attack..

 

Of course they and the US have to deny it at the moment. If you believe that you 'll believe anything.

No one denies the CIA supplies Ukraine with intel.  The very start of Russia's third invasion was the U.S. trying to warn everyone it was coming -- Burns went openly to Moscow to ask them not to invade.  Russia denied they were going to, and Ukraine didn't believe they would.  And during one of Trump's more obvious acts of serving Russia he cut off intelsharing -- particularly related to targeting.  Again, this is all open.

4 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

Why WOULDN'T Europe want to see him weakened?  Russia supporters always reveal this like it's some hidden knowledge or damning information that only the truly wise can see...  You want to see your enemies weakened.  It's what Russia did to Georgia, Moldova, and in its first two invasions of Ukraine.

I have no problem with the Euros weakening him and I bet we help. I just dont want to be involved more than that. No money, cash for guns, do your thing without us. Its your backyard.

18 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

I have no problem with the Euros weakening him and I bet we help. I just dont want to be involved more than that. No money, cash for guns, do your thing without us. Its your backyard.

Why.............?  🤔

 

After all, there have been quite a few conflicts where others helped the USA out, far away from their homes..

 

You talking of backyard, if your Cambodia went rouge, would you refuse help from the USA..?  🤔 

2 hours ago, jas007 said:

I think you're the one regurgitating propaganda.  Do you really think the CIA was not involved in stirring up trouble in Ukraine, and that they were not instrumental in facilitating the Maiden Revolution in 2014?  After all, that's their usual modus operandi.  They've pulled off similar stunts all over the world. Would you like a list?

 

Do you know of Victoria Nuland?  They have her on tape admitting to discussing who should be installed as the next president of Ukraine, and she admitted it was her on the tape.  She called the audio quality of the recording good, or something like that.  Anyway, if you want to believe in fairy tales, go right ahead. 

 

And the fact the Russia invaded Ukraine is beside the point, and, in any event, sidesteps the issue of whether the invasion was justified. 

 

As for the legitimacy of Canada or Mexico getting help from other countries if invaded?  Sure. In your fairytale fantasy world.  In reality, the US would never allow enemy tanks and missiles on its border and the legitimacy would matter not one iota.  

 

 

 

 

The following governments have all been democratically elected. There was (and is) no puppet government imposed by the U.S. You are regurgitating Russian propaganda.

 

The fact that Ukraine was invaded is exactly the point. Of course, as you are in full propaganda mode, you are doing your best to ignore it. No invasion, no need to deliver weapons to Ukraine to defend itself from an invasion.

 

Again, you go on with a ridiculous fictive example. The U.S. is not invading or threatening to invade its neighbors (beside Trump's BS), so Mexico and Canada don't need to put weapons near the border.

 

The case of Cuba is a relevant comparison. The Soviet Union withdrew its missiles after the U.S. agreed not to attack/invade Cuba.

7 minutes ago, candide said:

The following governments have all been democratically elected. There was (and is) no puppet government imposed by the U.S. You are regurgitating Russian propaganda.

 

The fact that Ukraine was invaded is exactly the point. Of course, as you are in full propaganda mode, you are doing your best to ignore it. No invasion, no need to deliver weapons to Ukraine to defend itself from an invasion.

 

Again, you go on with a ridiculous fictive example. The U.S. is not invading or threatening to invade its neighbors (beside Trump's BS), so Mexico and Canada don't need to put weapons near the border.

 

The case of Cuba is a relevant comparison. The Soviet Union withdrew its missiles after the U.S. agreed not to attack/invade Cuba.

You still don't get it. 

 

As for my supposed "fictitious example."  Of course it's fictitious.  It hasn't happened yet.  Nut it very much could.  And I'm not sure why you can't understand that todays fiction could become tomorrow's reality.

 

As for Cuba?  Do you haver any concept of what actually happened there? You seem to be missing part of the equation and the bigger picture goes over your head. Castro overthrew the existing Batista government and took power in a coup.  At the time, the Cold War was in full swing and the Soviets managed to weasel their way into the country and install missiles that could hit the US. Kennedy wouldn't have it and set up a naval blockade. The world was on the brink of a nuclear war when Khrushchev reached a deal with Kennedy. As part of the deal, the US agreed to pull its Jupiter missiles out of Turkey. So there was more to it than just a promise not to invade Cuba. If anything, the Cuban missile crisis is a good example of a sphere of influence and a decision to look after national interest, regardless of the circumstances. Kennedy wasn't about to have Russian missiles 90 from the US, and that was that. Similarly, Russia is upset at the prospect of NATO missiles on its border at a distance with threatens its strategic defense triad. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 hours ago, stevenl said:

Gross underestimation of Ukraine.

A nation with no navy forced the Russian Black Sea Fleet to retreat from Sevastopol to Novorossiysk, 500 km away.

 

Gross underestimation indeed.

14 hours ago, Lacessit said:

A nation with no navy forced the Russian Black Sea Fleet to retreat from Sevastopol to Novorossiysk, 500 km away.

 

Gross underestimation indeed.

According to Scot Ritter, Russia now believes the operation was orchestrated by MI6, although the involvement of the US President and the higher echelons of the CIA remains questionable because of the very nature of the CIA charter itself and the extent to which the Russia department is compartmentalized and operates in a detached fashion.  Plausible deniability is the name of the game. 

 

Russia has now labeled Zelenskyy a "terrorist," and a response can be expected from Russia that will essentially devastate Ukraine and re-emphasize Russia's nuclear doctrine and established red lines. Despite with the UK and MI6 may think, Russia doesn't bluff.  Ritter suggests that Russia's response probably won't include nukes, but will, nonetheless, be sufficient to put the current Ukraine administration out of business. And for all practical purposes, Zelenskyy is a dead man walking. 

 

Reading between the lines and connecting a few more dots would lead one to conclude that being anywhere near London from this point forward might not be such good idea. 

 

Starmer needs to wake up. MI6 needs to wake up.  Britain has had it in for Russia since the 1850s, and they're still at it. Why?  The British Empire is gone. India is independent. To be sure, Russia's acquisition of Crimea gave them a warm water port and all that, but are we really going to let MI6 start WWIII simply because the UK still thinks it has an Empire to defend?