|
|
Post by Gawa on Jun 21, 2024 14:50:00 GMT
See the way I analyse is slightly different. I work with the understanding that propaganda is a tool all nations use so then I try to decipher the motivations behind why countries/groups may perform a particular action and what they could gain or lose through such an action. I then also try to do my own independent background research (such as using wiki in this instance) on those involved and what may have led them to the current predicament. So one example would be the ISIS attack on Moscow. That is just very weird and strange for me. While ISIS and Russia don't have the same goals - they do have a common enemy you could argue. So I just don't understand the motivation behind ISIS doing an attack in Moscow. What do ISIS gain? Very little. What does Russia lose? Potentially causes fear within Russia about terrorist attacks and concerns for their safety from outside attackers. Similarly there was the gas pipe that was damaged or something between Russia and Germany or something like that? Why would Russia destroy that, what is the motivation or gain? Why when Russia proposed an independent investigation at the UN did countries abstain from the vote? And why do we still not have clarity over who did it? In terms of your things that you've seen Russians do, I'm not here to contest that. I haven't seen any of the videos or really gone looking for stuff like that. But I do go back to my first paragraph in terms of processing that information. What can be gained from videos of you abusing and mistreating prisoners of war? Very little you'd like to hope. I'd like to think most British people would be opposed and disgusting by our army doing that. I do recognise however that there are evil bastards out there which likely do it because they get a kick out of it and that's their individual motivation. But in terms of a state there isn't any benefit to publicising that. There is however a benefit from exposing your enemy doing it. It rallies support for the war and paints the enemy in an unfavourable light. We seen this in Gaza were Israel implied that babies were cooked in ovens and beheaded and then our media and politicians spread it like wildfire before it was disproven. Initially though before it was found to be fake, we had people like Piers Morgan referencing it and attacking peace activists as if they justify that behaviour. So having witnessed that, I think there is motivation from both sides to paint the other as bastards. So how do you decipher that? How can we be confident the pictures of Ukrainian soldiers doing stuff aren't Russians in Ukrainian uniforms and vice versa? Alot of the bad things you say Russia have done, we have done too. Both the US and UK were found to have officers who took part in killing civilians, torture, rape, secret detention, cruel and inhumane treatment etc.. www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/iraq-twenty-years-still-no-justice-war-crimes-us-led-coalitionSo I don't think that by pointing to alleged crimes that some Russian soldiers have done is a justification to support a particular side. That would be like me saying I support Russia because the west have done some awful war crimes. And one short note on prisoners too. Israel has thousands of Palestine "prisoners" detained. I say it like that because it's in their law that they can detain Palestine's without trial. If the same law applied to Palestine then they'd be calling their hostages prisoners due to legalities. I don't doubt there are many Palestine prisoners imprisoned for the right reasons too btw but I presume many of them are also detained for the wrong reasons. When you compare how those prisoners come out compared to the hostages living in war territory and suffering famine come out - it's polar opposites. But we don't get told about those Palestine prisoners, their treatment, how they get detained, the laws behind it.... unless we look for it. What we get told is "Israel has the right to defend itself" and those Israeli hostages are worth more than the thousands of Palestine's detained against their will and being treated inhumanely with rape, torture etc.. Now I personally think all prisoners should be treated humanely despite their crimes. But again I go back to how I think - motivations. So Palestine for instance. If they have been treated so badly when imprisoned in Israel, why would they want to treat Israeli hostages well? Hamas are evil and do terrible crimes so why would they not punish hostages like many palestines have been - you sort of presume they would. My guess is they want to try and get those prisoners on side, treat them well, look after them, explain their message and send them back to their communities were potentially having experienced the attacks from Israel on Gaza territory they may see things differently. Now that comes at a risk because of course the Israeli government would not want those hostages spreading positive messages on their captors. But I can see that as a motivation. Whereas I think Palestine people imprisoned with no reason who have already experienced oppression throughout their lives are hardly going to change their view on Israel after a short stay. So I can see why there is less motivation to treat them well. It doesn't make it right. I imagine with Ukraine/Russia there are probably similar motivations at play behind the rationale of why they do certain things. And again I dont doubt many bastards too as well. I disagree that Russia is an unprovoked aggressor as per the stuff I posted in my earlier post from wikipedia research. The aggression first started within Ukraine and their treatment of those on the border areas. Russia will have an interest in those communities just like Ireland has an interest in communities in Northern Ireland because historically they were together. So by changing the names of towns, cities, changing languages etc... that is an attack on the culture of many of those people who probably have ancestoral links to Russia. Just like what Britain did to catholics was an attack on those who identified historically as Irish. And Ireland and Irish people had an interest in that. It's much more complex than Russia just needlessly attacking Ukraine. As pointed out before only 10% of Ukranians I believe had trust in the courts? There was rife corruption going on. I disagree again. There are three sides to every story, theirs, ours and the truth. And I still believe that and I also believe that the majority of Russian people are probably good people who just want a peaceful and prosperous life like ourselves. Like Ukranians, like Israelis, like palestines. I'd like to finish this by asking you. You've pointed out at various times about Russian propoganda. Can you provide me some examples of Western propoganda on the conflict in Ukraine which you've identified so far? Anyone do a shortened version? Here's one from chat gpt: The author analyzes conflicts by considering propaganda as a tool used by all nations and tries to understand the motivations and potential gains or losses behind actions. They conduct independent research to provide context. They find the ISIS attack on Moscow puzzling and question the motivations behind such actions. Similarly, they question why Russia would destroy a gas pipeline to Germany and why there's no clear investigation into it. They argue that all sides in conflicts, including the West, commit atrocities, so using war crimes to justify support for a side is flawed. They also highlight the mistreatment of Palestinian prisoners by Israel as an example of biased narratives. The author believes that motivations drive actions in conflicts and that understanding these can provide insight. They dispute the idea that Russia is an unprovoked aggressor in Ukraine, citing historical and cultural ties. Finally, they request examples of Western propaganda on the Ukraine conflict to compare narratives. |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jun 21, 2024 17:35:12 GMT
Ukrainian soldier claims russia loses 40 infantry per day in the tiny village of Hlyboke, Kharkiv.
Historically soldiers always claimed they took out way more enemy than actually happened. But nowadays there is drone video to check. I wonder if that means the soldier estimates are closer than in the past? Or are they exaggerating just as much?
|
|
|
|
Post by questionable on Jun 21, 2024 18:04:54 GMT
Seen footage of the heavy duty drones carrying anti tank mines, unlimited supply of that type of ordnance over there and unlimited amounts of drones and young kids flying these drones.
Some of these kids are pro drone racers and pro gamers who are flying these things.
From numerous reports I’ve read from russian sources the battle front skies are full of drones.
|
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jun 21, 2024 18:38:03 GMT
Seen footage of the heavy duty drones carrying anti tank mines, unlimited supply of that type of ordnance over there and unlimited amounts of drones and young kids flying these drones. Some of these kids are pro drone racers and pro gamers who are flying these things. From numerous reports I’ve read from russian sources the battle front skies are full of drones. I've seen Ukrainians say the same, drone war is hell. 😢 It seems atm Ukraine is better on the small drones, but Russia on the big ones. Everyone is inventing new things so it could change at any moment. Here's one road Russia has been advancing down, showing what drones did to their vehicles. I couldn't see corpses but I know there were tons here. |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jun 21, 2024 18:42:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by questionable on Jun 21, 2024 19:57:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jun 21, 2024 21:40:25 GMT
Seems 4 more Patriot batteries are promised. From Germany, Romania, the US and the Netherlands plus an unnamed country.
Biden has said Raytheon's new missile production goes to Ukraine first, a big move. Only Patriot and the European SAMP-T can stop everything russia has.
However, Raytheon makes under 1k patriot missiles per year. Russia will launch like 5k Shaheds annually, so Ukraine also needs cheaper options.
Sadly the Ukrainian government says $50+BN in damage has already been done to Ukraine's electricity grid and the economic damage will be even bigger. $10bn spent last year would have stopped all of that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Jun 22, 2024 10:43:01 GMT
Here's a very good interview which provides much more historical context than I previously did. Learned alot in this.
|
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Jun 22, 2024 12:15:36 GMT
Here's a very good interview which provides much more historical context than I previously did. Learned alot in this. Heaven forbid you bring any 'grey' into the issue. Even when the grey might actually be the only possible potential for peace and lives not wasted. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jun 22, 2024 12:31:54 GMT
Here's a very good interview which provides much more historical context than I previously did. Learned alot in this. Heaven forbid you bring any 'grey' into the issue. Even when the grey might actually be the only possible potential for peace and lives not wasted. That's a memorandum, it isn't legally binding and anyway the US can't make unilateral agreements on behalf of NATO. The fact is Ukraine didn't join NATO and NATO didn't invade Ukraine. This really kicked off when the West appeased Russia by taking no action over Russia's invasion of Crimea which effectively gave Putin the confidence to invade Ukraine. If the West continued to appease Russia by not supporting Ukraine they would carry on marching west and much of Scandinavia, the Baltic nations and the former east european nations of the former Soviet Union would all be under threat of invasion. You dont appease tyrants. |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jun 22, 2024 14:38:21 GMT
Here's a very good interview which provides much more historical context than I previously did. Learned alot in this. Hypothetically would you support US if they were attempting Regime Change in Israel? |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jun 22, 2024 14:57:57 GMT
Satellite images show a building at russia's Yeysk airfield was hit. We don't know what was there. It's supposedly a training area, but in video on the night of the attack it looked like there were secondary explosions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Jun 22, 2024 15:58:51 GMT
'Ukraine deserved to get war crimed because NATO looked to he expanding and Russia needs to be able to reserve the right to war crime its immediate neighbours without triggering a war with a defensive pact'
Am I missing something here?
|
|
|
|
Post by longdistancekiddie on Jun 22, 2024 16:05:26 GMT
.
|
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jun 22, 2024 17:50:48 GMT
'Ukraine deserved to get war crimed because NATO looked to he expanding and Russia needs to be able to reserve the right to war crime its immediate neighbours without triggering a war with a defensive pact' Am I missing something here? Perfectly written. Every excuse about "NATO expansion" has fuck all to do with threats to russia, that's why Russia stripped defences from its borders with NATO. NATO expansion stops Russia from war criming its neighbours. Either you want more war crimes so you make excuses for russia, or you don't want more war crimes and you stop repeating their propaganda. It's pretty fucking simple IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jun 22, 2024 17:52:51 GMT
Speaking of war crimes, here's a snapshot of a russian glide bomb that landed in Kharkiv today, murdering more civilians. The videos after are horrendous.
All over Ukraine, every day, russians murder.
|
|
|
|
Post by questionable on Jun 22, 2024 17:57:29 GMT
'Ukraine deserved to get war crimed because NATO looked to he expanding and Russia needs to be able to reserve the right to war crime its immediate neighbours without triggering a war with a defensive pact' Am I missing something here? Nothing to with the trillion dollars of raw materials within Ukraine then?? ruSSian along with china need this stuff |
|
|
|
Post by LDE76 on Jun 22, 2024 18:17:35 GMT
Just for context... Fall of the Yanukovych government: www.britannica.com/place/Ukraine/The-Maidan-protest-movementfortune.com/2022/03/02/viktor-yanukovych-yanukovich-putin-put-back-in-power-ukraine-russia/"But the agreement and Ukraine’s move closer to Europe angered Putin, who engaged in a campaign of economic pressure against Ukraine: cutting off energy supplies to the country and blocking almost all imports from Ukraine. This resulted in a 25% reduction in Ukrainian exports and pushed the country’s economy into recession. The Kremlin publicly threatened to drive Ukraine into default on its sovereign debt if it went ahead with the EU trade deal." On Jeffrey Sachs: thehill.com/opinion/international/4727046-from-economist-to-kremlin-mouthpiece-the-troubling-transformation-of-jeffrey-sachs/From Wiki: "In 2022, he appeared twice on one of the top-rated shows funded by the Russian government, hosted by Vladimir Solovyov*, to call for Ukraine to negotiate and step away from its "maximalist demands" of removing Russia from Ukrainian territory.[71] Sachs has suggested that the U.S. was responsible for the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline. In February 2023, he was invited by the Russian government to address the United Nations Security Council about the topic." *For anyone who doesn't know who Vladimir Solovyov is, he's the bloke who presents a show on Russian state TV where he and his guests discuss nuking random countries (Germany, the Netherlands, nobody is safe) and threaten to destroy the UK with a tsunami-generating nuclear torpedo. |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Jun 22, 2024 18:47:10 GMT
Here's a very good interview which provides much more historical context than I previously did. Learned alot in this. Hypothetically would you support US if they were attempting Regime Change in Israel? I analyse each situation by its own circumstances. Israel is breaking international law and should be treated the same as other countries who do so, and negotiations to find peace should be prioritised over third parties overthrowing governments. |
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jun 22, 2024 19:34:36 GMT
Here's a very good interview which provides much more historical context than I previously did. Learned alot in this. Hypothetically would you support US if they were attempting Regime Change in Israel? Yes I’d be quite happy to see the current genocidal fuckwit government in Israel Propping up the dock in The Hague |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jun 22, 2024 19:37:27 GMT
Hypothetically would you support US if they were attempting Regime Change in Israel? Yes I’d be quite happy to see the current genocidal fuckwit government in Israel Propping up the dock in The Hague I can support that but also not support the US getting itself involved, right? |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jun 22, 2024 20:09:51 GMT
Here's one from chat gpt: The author analyzes conflicts by considering propaganda as a tool used by all nations and tries to understand the motivations and potential gains or losses behind actions. They conduct independent research to provide context. They find the ISIS attack on Moscow puzzling and question the motivations behind such actions. Similarly, they question why Russia would destroy a gas pipeline to Germany and why there's no clear investigation into it. They argue that all sides in conflicts, including the West, commit atrocities, so using war crimes to justify support for a side is flawed. They also highlight the mistreatment of Palestinian prisoners by Israel as an example of biased narratives. The author believes that motivations drive actions in conflicts and that understanding these can provide insight. They dispute the idea that Russia is an unprovoked aggressor in Ukraine, citing historical and cultural ties. Finally, they request examples of Western propaganda on the Ukraine conflict to compare narratives. I totally agree that propaganda is used by all sides. I also believe that there is a reality and we should use evidence and often it's not just "in the middle". I'm very sensitive to this because I've seen people understandably want to "listen to all the sides" but in my area of expertise, one side just lies and misleads. Listening to them does nothing except increase support for actions that hurt most people to make a small group of rich people even more disgustingly rich.
The bit where you're trying to work out motives etc is possibly similar to the way I was thinking with a "mental model"? Putin wants some things, MAGA Republicans want some things, the mainstream US foreign policy establishment wants things etc. If reality contradicts the model though, then maybe the model is off a bit and it needs to be updated? Like maybe we misunderstood what a group wants or is trying to do? For Nord Stream for example, I think there's totally a model that fits Russia doing it. Russia not only had motive, but we have incontrovertible proof of means and opportunity. Do we have incontrovertible evidence of means and opportunity for Ukraine? I don't think so. And there are very good reasons why the countries involved wouldn't want an investigation if the attackers were russians too. I don't know who did the attacks btw, I just think it'd be really weird to be convinced it was Ukrainians when the russians acted exactly like they did it. |
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jun 22, 2024 20:35:35 GMT
Yes I’d be quite happy to see the current genocidal fuckwit government in Israel Propping up the dock in The Hague I can support that but also not support the US getting itself involved, right? The us is already to involved That’s why the genocidal fuckers can act with apparent impunity |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jun 22, 2024 23:28:00 GMT
'Ukraine deserved to get war crimed because NATO looked to he expanding and Russia needs to be able to reserve the right to war crime its immediate neighbours without triggering a war with a defensive pact' Am I missing something here? Brainwashed morons. |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Jun 23, 2024 1:00:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Jun 23, 2024 2:18:27 GMT
Heaven forbid you bring any 'grey' into the issue. Even when the grey might actually be the only possible potential for peace and lives not wasted. That's a memorandum, it isn't legally binding and anyway the US can't make unilateral agreements on behalf of NATO. The fact is Ukraine didn't join NATO and NATO didn't invade Ukraine. This really kicked off when the West appeased Russia by taking no action over Russia's invasion of Crimea which effectively gave Putin the confidence to invade Ukraine. If the West continued to appease Russia by not supporting Ukraine they would carry on marching west and much of Scandinavia, the Baltic nations and the former east european nations of the former Soviet Union would all be under threat of invasion. You dont appease tyrants. You are totally correct. And what Farage and others are saying is not repeating Putin propaganda, but simply restating how Putin would be able to use any perceived encroachment as justification for selling war to his public, as well as holding Putin responsible for actions. This is hardly controversial. But maybe this is too fine a point for an average BBC viewer. The hyperventilation from many quarters over such summary, and the disengenuous headlines merely serve to suggest that people don't wish to move beyond the continued loss of lives as the only solution. Which is fine when it's not their lives. In fact you could argue that the headlines themselves serve Putin by suggesting that there is support for his propaganda, when this is not the case at all. A summary of how he would use certain things for propaganda is not tacit support for it. Also, it's not appeasement. The narrative that they would carry on marching west sounds like tabloid war rhetoric. Maybe with a complete capitulation, but this is not what we're talking about here. |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jun 23, 2024 3:08:04 GMT
That's a memorandum, it isn't legally binding and anyway the US can't make unilateral agreements on behalf of NATO. The fact is Ukraine didn't join NATO and NATO didn't invade Ukraine. This really kicked off when the West appeased Russia by taking no action over Russia's invasion of Crimea which effectively gave Putin the confidence to invade Ukraine. If the West continued to appease Russia by not supporting Ukraine they would carry on marching west and much of Scandinavia, the Baltic nations and the former east european nations of the former Soviet Union would all be under threat of invasion. You dont appease tyrants. You are totally correct. And what Farage and others are saying is not repeating Putin propaganda, but simply restating how Putin would be able to use any perceived encroachment as justification for selling war to his public, as well as holding Putin responsible for actions. This is hardly controversial. But maybe this is too fine a point for an average BBC viewer. The hyperventilation from many quarters over such summary, and the disengenuous headlines merely serve to suggest that people don't wish to move beyond the continued loss of lives as the only solution. Which is fine when it's not their lives. In fact you could argue that the headlines themselves serve Putin by suggesting that there is support for his propaganda, when this is not the case at all. A summary of how he would use certain things for propaganda is not tacit support for it. Also, it's not appeasement. The narrative that they would carry on marching west sounds like tabloid war rhetoric. Maybe with a complete capitulation, but this is not what we're talking about here. In what way would Putin have need to sell anything, be it a War or a " a Special Military Operation" to his "Public" Which member of his "Public", that is still alive, is going to dissent? The proposition is preposterous. Farage is merely an apologist for Putin, we can only speculate if his motivation is founded in naivety or something more nefarious . |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Jun 23, 2024 10:38:47 GMT
Here's one from chat gpt: The author analyzes conflicts by considering propaganda as a tool used by all nations and tries to understand the motivations and potential gains or losses behind actions. They conduct independent research to provide context. They find the ISIS attack on Moscow puzzling and question the motivations behind such actions. Similarly, they question why Russia would destroy a gas pipeline to Germany and why there's no clear investigation into it. They argue that all sides in conflicts, including the West, commit atrocities, so using war crimes to justify support for a side is flawed. They also highlight the mistreatment of Palestinian prisoners by Israel as an example of biased narratives. The author believes that motivations drive actions in conflicts and that understanding these can provide insight. They dispute the idea that Russia is an unprovoked aggressor in Ukraine, citing historical and cultural ties. Finally, they request examples of Western propaganda on the Ukraine conflict to compare narratives. I totally agree that propaganda is used by all sides. I also believe that there is a reality and we should use evidence and often it's not just "in the middle". I'm very sensitive to this because I've seen people understandably want to "listen to all the sides" but in my area of expertise, one side just lies and misleads. Listening to them does nothing except increase support for actions that hurt most people to make a small group of rich people even more disgustingly rich.
The bit where you're trying to work out motives etc is possibly similar to the way I was thinking with a "mental model"? Putin wants some things, MAGA Republicans want some things, the mainstream US foreign policy establishment wants things etc. If reality contradicts the model though, then maybe the model is off a bit and it needs to be updated? Like maybe we misunderstood what a group wants or is trying to do? For Nord Stream for example, I think there's totally a model that fits Russia doing it. Russia not only had motive, but we have incontrovertible proof of means and opportunity. Do we have incontrovertible evidence of means and opportunity for Ukraine? I don't think so. And there are very good reasons why the countries involved wouldn't want an investigation if the attackers were russians too. I don't know who did the attacks btw, I just think it'd be really weird to be convinced it was Ukrainians when the russians acted exactly like they did it. In terms of evidence though, the problem with it is making the presumption any evidence we are presented with is neutral. In my opinion evidence is often shaped by power structures to maintain control and perpetuate certain ideologies. So while I accept evidence is crucial for making informed decisions, it is also just as important to critically examine the sources, context and potential bias of said evidence. When it comes to evidence most of it comes from our media. Chomsky co-authored a piece of work called "Manufacturing Consent" which explores the propoganda model of media and the various structures which exist within it. Key elements of this model are: Ownership: Media outlets are owned by large corporations that have vested interests in certain political and economic outcomes. Advertising: Media rely on advertising revenue, which can influence editorial content and the types of stories that are prioritized. Sourcing: News agencies depend on information from government and corporate sources, which can lead to biased reporting that favors these institutions. Flak: Media and individuals who challenge dominant narratives may face negative repercussions, discouraging dissenting viewpoints. Anti-Communism (or other prevailing ideologies): Dominant ideological frameworks can shape the presentation of news and evidence, marginalizing alternative perspectives. This is a good quote by him "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." Explanation: Chomsky argues that controlling the range of discourse is a powerful way to manipulate evidence and information. By limiting the scope of what is considered acceptable or legitimate debate, those in power can ensure that critical or revolutionary ideas are excluded from public discussion. This creates an illusion of free and open debate, while actually maintaining control over the narrative and evidence presented to the public. Yes I did use chatgpt to help me compose this. I enjoy the discussion and debate Mtrstudent and I hope my views don't offend you. I just try to explore this stuff with an open mind, that doesn't mean I'm right, but I'll at least try to explain how I come to these thoughts. Just like you explain how you reach your conclusions too. You're much more informed on what is currently going on with the warfare as well as what has already went on then myself. Like you said yourself, you're using the evidence which you can obtain to shape your opinion and I'm not trying to prove any of that wrong. Alot of my views are maybe more philosophical rather than evidence based. |
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Jun 23, 2024 11:16:05 GMT
You are totally correct. And what Farage and others are saying is not repeating Putin propaganda, but simply restating how Putin would be able to use any perceived encroachment as justification for selling war to his public, as well as holding Putin responsible for actions. This is hardly controversial. But maybe this is too fine a point for an average BBC viewer. The hyperventilation from many quarters over such summary, and the disengenuous headlines merely serve to suggest that people don't wish to move beyond the continued loss of lives as the only solution. Which is fine when it's not their lives. In fact you could argue that the headlines themselves serve Putin by suggesting that there is support for his propaganda, when this is not the case at all. A summary of how he would use certain things for propaganda is not tacit support for it. Also, it's not appeasement. The narrative that they would carry on marching west sounds like tabloid war rhetoric. Maybe with a complete capitulation, but this is not what we're talking about here. In what way would Putin have need to sell anything, be it a War or a " a Special Military Operation" to his "Public" Which member of his "Public", that is still alive, is going to dissent? The proposition is preposterous. Farage is merely an apologist for Putin, we can only speculate if his motivation is founded in naivety or something more nefarious . 'Merely an apologist'? Is this the way you explain away anyone that thinks there may be some culpability on both sides? Even if it's 80/20%. We may as well live in Russia if that is the case, because they suppress freedom of speech. Actually, Zelensky does the same. |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jun 23, 2024 12:31:37 GMT
In what way would Putin have need to sell anything, be it a War or a " a Special Military Operation" to his "Public" Which member of his "Public", that is still alive, is going to dissent? The proposition is preposterous. Farage is merely an apologist for Putin, we can only speculate if his motivation is founded in naivety or something more nefarious . 'Merely an apologist'? Is this the way you explain away anyone that thinks there may be some culpability on both sides? Even if it's 80/20%. We may as well live in Russia if that is the case, because they suppress freedom of speech. Actually, Zelensky does the same. No i call people Apologists if they put forward a defence of another with an entirely bogus argument Farage's role as a soothsayer in predicting war in Ukraine was because EU was extending its Membership to other Countries whose Citizens freely chose to do so. Are you suggesting Sovereign Countries, including Ukraine, should not be able to make decisions which its Citizens want because it may upset its neighbours? You are now putting forward a Strawman Argument which is simply not true. Farage's comments were widely reported at the time and now again as he is standing for Election and people want to understand his positions. People are perfectly free to make up their own minds if Farage's position has merit. So not at all like Russia as an alternative to a Government position would not be reported never mind freely discussed. |
|
