|
|
Post by staffordstokiemad1 on Oct 18, 2024 11:23:18 GMT
First videos starting to appear of alleged North Korean troops at one of Russias training grounds. Lots of reports of potentially 11,000 North Korean troops being sent to fight in Ukraine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Oct 18, 2024 11:23:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by steve66 on Oct 18, 2024 11:27:46 GMT
First videos starting to appear of alleged North Korean troops at one of Russias training grounds. Lots of reports of potentially 11,000 North Korean troops being sent to fight in Ukraine. If the cold doesn’t get them it’s more for the meat grinders.. |
|
|
|
Post by staffordstokiemad1 on Oct 18, 2024 11:30:54 GMT
First videos starting to appear of alleged North Korean troops at one of Russias training grounds. Lots of reports of potentially 11,000 North Korean troops being sent to fight in Ukraine. If the cold doesn’t get them it’s more for the meat grinders.. It’s a worrying development, the number may be 11,000 now but they could commit more and it will put even more pressure on the Ukrainian army. I also don’t think any western countries will respond quick enough and with enough force either, this is a massive escalation. |
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Oct 18, 2024 12:22:46 GMT
If the cold doesn’t get them it’s more for the meat grinders.. It’s a worrying development, the number may be 11,000 now but they could commit more and it will put even more pressure on the Ukrainian army. I also don’t think any western countries will respond quick enough and with enough force either, this is a massive escalation. It is a serious escalation and The West need to counter it with a few thousand Special Forces in UKR. The Yanks have Delta force and Seals and we Brits have quite a number of SAS/SBS and Paras and Marines bored to tears sitting around to chip in. 4000 of our SF should have no problem dealing with 11/12000 N. Koreans, especially in wintertime after cold weather training in Finland, which is brutal. Quid pro quo for the UKR and Russia can't complain if they really have brought in N. Koreans. What next? Chinese troops? Will this progress to a Black Ops war? OS. |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Oct 18, 2024 12:33:23 GMT
Nr 2 of the head news in Sweden today:
North Korea have sent 12000 soldiers to Ukraine.
Mark Rutte. Nato, can't confirm this.
Nr 1 is about Israel ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Oct 18, 2024 13:06:01 GMT
Ukraine isn't in NATO though yet, right?
So why should we be responding and sending troops on the ground (even though we've already had troops on the ground but that's a different story in itself)? I thought the whole reason behind getting Ukraine to fight with Nato weapons, rather than Nato troops using them, was because when Nato send troops on the ground it's effectively an escalation? But by supplying weapons and not fighting it gets around that.
Begrudgingly, if Nato were to send troops on the ground and also strike deep into Russia too then I think Russia should respond by striking deep into Nato territory in return. Because if we are ever going to live in a peaceful world then we cannot continue down this trajectory. Maybe the reason us westerns cheerlead and support war so much is because the vast majority of us have never had to feel the effects of war on our own shores. Sadly maybe this is what we need for our own people to wake up and start prioritising diplomatic peaceful solutions over indiscriminate bombing.
|
|
|
|
Post by staffordstokiemad1 on Oct 18, 2024 14:07:57 GMT
I think the minute we have physical evidence that North Koreans are activity fighting in Ukraine the west has to do something about it. If the west just turn a blind eye before you know it Ukraine could be swamped by North Korean soldiers in their thousands and that is a very dangerous situation for the whole of Europe.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve66 on Oct 18, 2024 14:12:41 GMT
Ukraine isn't in NATO though yet, right? So why should we be responding and sending troops on the ground (even though we've already had troops on the ground but that's a different story in itself)? I thought the whole reason behind getting Ukraine to fight with Nato weapons, rather than Nato troops using them, was because when Nato send troops on the ground it's effectively an escalation? But by supplying weapons and not fighting it gets around that. Begrudgingly, if Nato were to send troops on the ground and also strike deep into Russia too then I think Russia should respond by striking deep into Nato territory in return. Because if we are ever going to live in a peaceful world then we cannot continue down this trajectory. Maybe the reason us westerns cheerlead and support war so much is because the vast majority of us have never had to feel the effects of war on our own shores. Sadly maybe this is what we need for our own people to wake up and start prioritising diplomatic peaceful solutions over indiscriminate bombing. Agree with your comments however ukr cannot beat Russia on its own & the rest of the world should of been more proactive than it has been to date in sending arms & troops to destroy this dictatorship who is just another hitler, had rest of the world got involved on the grounds of humanity then in my mind this carnage would be over? |
|
|
|
Post by Mr_DaftBurger on Oct 18, 2024 14:14:31 GMT
First videos starting to appear of alleged North Korean troops at one of Russias training grounds. Lots of reports of potentially 11,000 North Korean troops being sent to fight in Ukraine. If the cold doesn’t get them it’s more for the meat grinders.. North Koreans are well used to the cold. Could they be troops from Siberia? |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Oct 18, 2024 14:51:29 GMT
Ukraine isn't in NATO though yet, right? So why should we be responding and sending troops on the ground (even though we've already had troops on the ground but that's a different story in itself)? I thought the whole reason behind getting Ukraine to fight with Nato weapons, rather than Nato troops using them, was because when Nato send troops on the ground it's effectively an escalation? But by supplying weapons and not fighting it gets around that. Begrudgingly, if Nato were to send troops on the ground and also strike deep into Russia too then I think Russia should respond by striking deep into Nato territory in return. Because if we are ever going to live in a peaceful world then we cannot continue down this trajectory. Maybe the reason us westerns cheerlead and support war so much is because the vast majority of us have never had to feel the effects of war on our own shores. Sadly maybe this is what we need for our own people to wake up and start prioritising diplomatic peaceful solutions over indiscriminate bombing. Agree with your comments however ukr cannot beat Russia on its own & the rest of the world should of been more proactive than it has been to date in sending arms & troops to destroy this dictatorship who is just another hitler, had rest of the world got involved on the grounds of humanity then in my mind this carnage would be over? The problem is Steve you and I obviously disagree when it comes to the motives behind this conflict so we probably feel differently. Like if there is any modern day leader to be compared to Hitler then surely its the one in the middle east who we are actively supporting? I think ultimately though peace will find a way like it always does. There's alot of lip service at the moment with the US election round the corner and I don't think we will truly know which trajectory these conflicts will go in until that concludes. |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Oct 18, 2024 15:39:49 GMT
There's a couple of questions we didn't resolve. 1) would you support fully arming Ukraine while asking for them to negotiate? 2) why are you sure Ukraine can't win? Which specific sources did you use for the info behind that? 1) Of course I'd arm Ukraine until a deal has been done. 2) Common sense mate. The war has been going for 10 fucking years and we are about as far away from an end as we've ever been. More to the point, what on earth are you seeing that makes you think an imminent Ukraine victory is in sight? 1) ok good then we agree. Just your support for trump confused me, because his plan is to blockade arms to try and kill so many Ukrainians that Putin can win. 2) I don't think imminent victory is likely. I think what we're seeing is the worst bit as Ukraine rides out a tsunami of soviet equipment while under-equipped. Russia has taken far heavier losses than Ukraine when they had massive fire and armour superiority. Just give fire superiority to Ukraine for the first time and let them grind down Russia's army. Of course something huge could change, like a drone tech breakthrough by one side or someone getting fully involved. Or Ukrainian casualties could be worse than suspected. But if we equip Ukraine then Ukraine is more likely to win. I think Ukrainians should make the decision though - they desperately want lasting peace and freedom and will grab the first opportunity they can to get it. Unlike Putin, who just once again explained he's not willing to negotiate and demands Ukraine abandon and hand over Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Oct 18, 2024 15:46:10 GMT
Ukraine isn't in NATO though yet, right? So why should we be responding and sending troops on the ground (even though we've already had troops on the ground but that's a different story in itself)? I thought the whole reason behind getting Ukraine to fight with Nato weapons, rather than Nato troops using them, was because when Nato send troops on the ground it's effectively an escalation? But by supplying weapons and not fighting it gets around that. Begrudgingly, if Nato were to send troops on the ground and also strike deep into Russia too then I think Russia should respond by striking deep into Nato territory in return. Because if we are ever going to live in a peaceful world then we cannot continue down this trajectory. Maybe the reason us westerns cheerlead and support war so much is because the vast majority of us have never had to feel the effects of war on our own shores. Sadly maybe this is what we need for our own people to wake up and start prioritising diplomatic peaceful solutions over indiscriminate bombing. No one here is cheerleading war as far as I can tell. You cannot have peace by surrendering to brutal imperialists who take every surrender as weakness and encouragement for the next invasion. Kowtowing to Russia didn't work in Moldova or Chechnya or Georgia or Ukraine in 2014. The only reason Ukraine is free and more of their people haven't been shot in the street or dragged to torture camps is that they stood up. I've read some stuff by strategic experts and it makes no sense to me that Russia would strike NATO if we let Ukraine use long range weapons. NATO has what they call "escalation dominance" and if Russia explicitly strikes NATO, then the overextended russian army and air force gets crushed and Putin loses quickly. So Putin will keep to his long game - sabotage and propaganda. |
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Oct 18, 2024 16:32:02 GMT
We should have rearmed Ukraine with nuclear weapons, we still should
|
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Oct 18, 2024 17:04:46 GMT
Jesus Putin is a complete joke and hypocrite talking today about Iran/Israel and the need for peace and compromises and a solution that satisfies both sides.
He’s a fuckin parody it’s like something out of Monthy Python
|
|
|
|
Post by staffordstokiemad1 on Oct 18, 2024 17:05:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Oct 18, 2024 17:10:01 GMT
Doubt the NK soldiers are armed well or highly trained and hopefully not motivated.
If true though West needs to ensure a response
|
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Oct 18, 2024 17:23:43 GMT
Doubt the NK soldiers are armed well or highly trained and hopefully not motivated. If true though West needs to ensure a response What can we do about it? 🤔 I hope Biden unleashes long range strikes after the election. That's the only thing that comes to mind as a reasonable response. |
|
|
|
Post by steve66 on Oct 18, 2024 17:28:45 GMT
Agree with your comments however ukr cannot beat Russia on its own & the rest of the world should of been more proactive than it has been to date in sending arms & troops to destroy this dictatorship who is just another hitler, had rest of the world got involved on the grounds of humanity then in my mind this carnage would be over? The problem is Steve you and I obviously disagree when it comes to the motives behind this conflict so we probably feel differently. Like if there is any modern day leader to be compared to Hitler then surely its the one in the middle east who we are actively supporting? I think ultimately though peace will find a way like it always does. There's alot of lip service at the moment with the US election round the corner and I don't think we will truly know which trajectory these conflicts will go in until that concludes. But you seem to think if nato goes into Russia it’s ok for Russia to strike back so what’s the difference, only thing we will agree on is the twat should not of invaded in first place! |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Oct 18, 2024 17:41:40 GMT
In the last few months Russia has been losing 3-4 infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) per tank. For the whole rest of the war it was 2:1.
What's going on?
My guess is they used up the well maintained tanks that were ready to go. Now the factories take longer to fix up the crappier ones they're getting from storage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Oct 18, 2024 19:05:28 GMT
Ukraine isn't in NATO though yet, right? So why should we be responding and sending troops on the ground (even though we've already had troops on the ground but that's a different story in itself)? I thought the whole reason behind getting Ukraine to fight with Nato weapons, rather than Nato troops using them, was because when Nato send troops on the ground it's effectively an escalation? But by supplying weapons and not fighting it gets around that. Begrudgingly, if Nato were to send troops on the ground and also strike deep into Russia too then I think Russia should respond by striking deep into Nato territory in return. Because if we are ever going to live in a peaceful world then we cannot continue down this trajectory. Maybe the reason us westerns cheerlead and support war so much is because the vast majority of us have never had to feel the effects of war on our own shores. Sadly maybe this is what we need for our own people to wake up and start prioritising diplomatic peaceful solutions over indiscriminate bombing. No one here is cheerleading war as far as I can tell. You cannot have peace by surrendering to brutal imperialists who take every surrender as weakness and encouragement for the next invasion. Kowtowing to Russia didn't work in Moldova or Chechnya or Georgia or Ukraine in 2014. The only reason Ukraine is free and more of their people haven't been shot in the street or dragged to torture camps is that they stood up. I've read some stuff by strategic experts and it makes no sense to me that Russia would strike NATO if we let Ukraine use long range weapons. NATO has what they call "escalation dominance" and if Russia explicitly strikes NATO, then the overextended russian army and air force gets crushed and Putin loses quickly. So Putin will keep to his long game - sabotage and propaganda. I think the way war is reported in our media that its often very dehumanising to be honest. Happy to expand on that if you want but don't want to derail unnecessarily. Your second paragraph I think is ironic given who is backing Ukraine: "You cannot have peace by surrendering to brutal imperialists who take every surrender as weakness and encouragement for the next invasion." Seen this article on BBC today - www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd0z8gg5v14oI found this particular bullet point rather interesting: Joint protection by the US and the EU of Ukraine's critical natural resources and joint use of their economic potential.I thought we were defending Ukraines soverignity due to Russian aggression. We have no right to their natural resources. This is imperialism. No Ukranian is getting to vote on this. No Ukranian has had the ability to vote for anything since 2019. Stood up? Every man between 18-60 has been forced to stay in the country and every man between 25-60 conscripted and mobilised. Forcing people to conscript and fight is being pulled up, not standing up. I think Putin probably thinks that given what's happened so far the Ukranian people seem pretty disposabal to Nato. I'm not sure there is any red line there which would force Ukraine/Nato into peace talks. Do you think there is anything which Putin could do to Ukraine to make them change course? I do think striking nato would be silly of course. But if Ukraine resort to long range missiles from 100s of miles away and escalations against Ukraine make no difference. He's bound to do something right? |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Oct 18, 2024 19:13:49 GMT
Do you think there is anything which Putin could do to Ukraine to make them change course? I do think striking nato would be silly of course. But if Ukraine resort to long range missiles from 100s of miles away and escalations against Ukraine make no difference. He's bound to do something right? Yes. Putin can fuck off out of Ukraine and then there will be peace and Russia will be safe. The only course change he's demanding is what you seem to be advocating (Ukraine submits to Russia) versus Ukraine is free to choose what it wants. If you want Ukraine to be free to do what it wants, Putin needs to fuck off out of Ukraine. Putin can't do anything more without getting his army wiped. He will do what he did about sanctions and soviet ammo and soviet armour and soviet artillery and soviet jets and NATO artillery and HIMARS and NATO armour and F-16s and Storm Shadows and ATACMS and strikes into russian territory. Every single time we were told "he's bound to do something" and he did fuck all. The only thing that happened is Ukrainian lives were saved. |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Oct 18, 2024 20:20:07 GMT
Do you think there is anything which Putin could do to Ukraine to make them change course? I do think striking nato would be silly of course. But if Ukraine resort to long range missiles from 100s of miles away and escalations against Ukraine make no difference. He's bound to do something right? Yes. Putin can fuck off out of Ukraine and then there will be peace and Russia will be safe. The only course change he's demanding is what you seem to be advocating (Ukraine submits to Russia) versus Ukraine is free to choose what it wants. If you want Ukraine to be free to do what it wants, Putin needs to fuck off out of Ukraine. Putin can't do anything more without getting his army wiped. He will do what he did about sanctions and soviet ammo and soviet armour and soviet artillery and soviet jets and NATO artillery and HIMARS and NATO armour and F-16s and Storm Shadows and ATACMS and strikes into russian territory. Every single time we were told "he's bound to do something" and he did fuck all. The only thing that happened is Ukrainian lives were saved. OK and then what happens to the people in Crimea and Donbas? What happens to the banned political parties? The imprisoned journalists and politicians? What happens to Ukraines natural resources? Do the west still get to use them for economic purposes? What about if the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic don't support the government? Like the euromaidan protesters didn't support Viktor Yanukovych. If they take over local government buildings will Nato support them? Or do they only support coups against democratically elected governments when it's someone who supports their regime? I understand that our media often try to make conflicts simple and dumbed down. Hezzbolah were formed cause they hate Jews and want to eliminate Israel. Same for hamas. Ukraine war is just because of Russian aggression and nothing more. But if we truly want to debate these complex topics and give them the discussion they deserve then we can't just condense history down and simplify it into bite size pieces without reading the full recipe. Your second paragraph again is wrong and I'll once again quote another post of mine in this thread which shows the preliminary deal agreed between Ukraine and Russia in Instanbul. And most importantly that treaty also required a national vote too. Something which Zelenskys plans seem to omit. Putin's demands for a ceasefire are that Ukraine withdraw from Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, and guarantee no attempt to join NATO. Then they will allow negotiations. E.g. source. If Ukraine hands over all its defensive lines and millions of people. So you're in charge of Ukraine, do you agree to that? This was the initial treaty which Ukraine and Russia came to in Instanbul - faridaily.substack.com/p/ukraines-10-point-planA key part is also this: Proposal 7: The treaty provisionally applies from the date it is signed by Ukraine and all or most guarantor-states. The treaty enters force after (1) Ukraine’s permanently neutral status is approved in a nationwide referendumI'm not sure if there is any referendum or public say in Ukraines current plans. More ukranian lives would have been saved had peace been sought sooner. What's your opinion on the west economically benefiting of ukraines natural resources from this? Is that imperialist? |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Oct 18, 2024 20:51:58 GMT
More ukranian lives would have been saved had peace been sought sooner. What's your opinion on the west economically benefiting of ukraines natural resources from this? Is that imperialist? As far as I can tell, there have been no confirmed peace offers that included Ukraine's survival and Russia's withdrawal. None. Russia refused Ukraine's massive concessions. Remember this is russian propaganda. Russian propaganda that had you refusing to accept the reality of the massive and open murder of innocents in Bucha because there was too much evidence or something like that. When Russia lined up innocents and shot them. On video. With witnesses. Confirmed by independent UN investigation. With corpses visible on satellite days before Russia said they were there. When I literally spoke to one of the survivors and he told me what happened. I really think we shouldn't just believe Russian propaganda. The West shouldn't get Ukraine's resources, they're Ukraine's. Donbas and Crimea are for ukraine to deal with following their constitution. Russian colonisers do not get citizenship unless they follow the normal naturalisation process. |
|
|
|
Post by emretezzy on Oct 19, 2024 5:53:23 GMT
Doubt the NK soldiers are armed well or highly trained and hopefully not motivated. If true though West needs to ensure a response What can we do about it? 🤔 I hope Biden unleashes long range strikes after the election. That's the only thing that comes to mind as a reasonable response. Expedite Nato membership but with certain geographical key-points. Kyiv takes a few thousand Nato troops on approval but aren't allowed to go past the city walls until the war is over. |
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Oct 19, 2024 5:59:49 GMT
No one here is cheerleading war as far as I can tell. You cannot have peace by surrendering to brutal imperialists who take every surrender as weakness and encouragement for the next invasion. Kowtowing to Russia didn't work in Moldova or Chechnya or Georgia or Ukraine in 2014. The only reason Ukraine is free and more of their people haven't been shot in the street or dragged to torture camps is that they stood up. I've read some stuff by strategic experts and it makes no sense to me that Russia would strike NATO if we let Ukraine use long range weapons. NATO has what they call "escalation dominance" and if Russia explicitly strikes NATO, then the overextended russian army and air force gets crushed and Putin loses quickly. So Putin will keep to his long game - sabotage and propaganda. I think the way war is reported in our media that its often very dehumanising to be honest. Happy to expand on that if you want but don't want to derail unnecessarily. Your second paragraph I think is ironic given who is backing Ukraine: "You cannot have peace by surrendering to brutal imperialists who take every surrender as weakness and encouragement for the next invasion." Seen this article on BBC today - www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd0z8gg5v14oI found this particular bullet point rather interesting: Joint protection by the US and the EU of Ukraine's critical natural resources and joint use of their economic potential.I thought we were defending Ukraines soverignity due to Russian aggression. We have no right to their natural resources. This is imperialism. No Ukranian is getting to vote on this. No Ukranian has had the ability to vote for anything since 2019. Stood up? Every man between 18-60 has been forced to stay in the country and every man between 25-60 conscripted and mobilised. Forcing people to conscript and fight is being pulled up, not standing up. I think Putin probably thinks that given what's happened so far the Ukranian people seem pretty disposabal to Nato. I'm not sure there is any red line there which would force Ukraine/Nato into peace talks. Do you think there is anything which Putin could do to Ukraine to make them change course? I do think striking nato would be silly of course. But if Ukraine resort to long range missiles from 100s of miles away and escalations against Ukraine make no difference. He's bound to do something right? When did Russians last have free and fair elections |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Oct 19, 2024 7:03:55 GMT
I think the way war is reported in our media that its often very dehumanising to be honest. Happy to expand on that if you want but don't want to derail unnecessarily. Your second paragraph I think is ironic given who is backing Ukraine: "You cannot have peace by surrendering to brutal imperialists who take every surrender as weakness and encouragement for the next invasion." This is imperialism. No Ukranian is getting to vote on this. No Ukranian has had the ability to vote for anything since 2019. Stood up? Every man between 18-60 has been forced to stay in the country and every man between 25-60 conscripted and mobilised. Forcing people to conscript and fight is being pulled up, not standing up. I think Putin probably thinks that given what's happened so far the Ukranian people seem pretty disposabal to Nato. I'm not sure there is any red line there which would force Ukraine/Nato into peace talks. Do you think there is anything which Putin could do to Ukraine to make them change course? I do think striking nato would be silly of course. But if Ukraine resort to long range missiles from 100s of miles away and escalations against Ukraine make no difference. He's bound to do something right? When did Russians last have free and fair elections Last or ever?? |
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Oct 19, 2024 7:30:14 GMT
When did Russians last have free and fair elections Last or ever?? Good point |
|
|
|
Post by Gabrielzakuaniandjuliet on Oct 19, 2024 11:19:44 GMT
Do you think there is anything which Putin could do to Ukraine to make them change course? I do think striking nato would be silly of course. But if Ukraine resort to long range missiles from 100s of miles away and escalations against Ukraine make no difference. He's bound to do something right? Yes. Putin can fuck off out of Ukraine and then there will be peace and Russia will be safe. The only course change he's demanding is what you seem to be advocating (Ukraine submits to Russia) versus Ukraine is free to choose what it wants. If you want Ukraine to be free to do what it wants, Putin needs to fuck off out of Ukraine. Putin can't do anything more without getting his army wiped. He will do what he did about sanctions and soviet ammo and soviet armour and soviet artillery and soviet jets and NATO artillery and HIMARS and NATO armour and F-16s and Storm Shadows and ATACMS and strikes into russian territory. Every single time we were told "he's bound to do something" and he did fuck all. The only thing that happened is Ukrainian lives were saved. This thing about red lines is kinda why the conflict started in the first place, with nato expansion. 'We'll just go a bit further east. they won't do anything.' I can't believe people want to roll this dice with the possibility of nuclear war. If America was in a war, for example, how many long range missile strikes would they tolerate on Washington or new york before wiping someone off the face of the earth? If Hitler had a nuclear button in the bunker,to use another example, he would almost definitely have pressed it right? Thank God he didn't. Russia does have it. It's an interesting view that Putin's regime is simultaneously too evil to negotiate with but not evil enough to take Kiev off the map in the event of a total defeat? This is why I don't understand the actual logistics of what Ukraine 'winning' looks like. Is or should regime change in Russia be one of the goals? |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Oct 19, 2024 15:32:28 GMT
More ukranian lives would have been saved had peace been sought sooner. What's your opinion on the west economically benefiting of ukraines natural resources from this? Is that imperialist? 1. As far as I can tell, there have been no confirmed peace offers that included Ukraine's survival and Russia's withdrawal. None. Russia refused Ukraine's massive concessions. 2. Remember this is russian propaganda. Russian propaganda that had you 3. refusing to accept the reality of the massive and open murder of innocents in Bucha because there was too much evidence or something like that. When Russia lined up innocents and shot them. On video. With witnesses. Confirmed by independent UN investigation. With corpses visible on satellite days before Russia said they were there. When I literally spoke to one of the survivors and he told me what happened. I really think we shouldn't just believe Russian propaganda. 4. The West shouldn't get Ukraine's resources, they're Ukraine's. Donbas and Crimea are for ukraine to deal with following their constitution. Russian colonisers do not get citizenship unless they follow the normal naturalisation process. 1. Well there very much were peace talks which included Ukraine's survival and are even referenced on the wikipedia page for Russia/Ukraine peace talks. You can read about them here - archive.ph/lSQPr#selection-1891.0-1898.02. This is your response to any challenge which doesn't fit your ideology. Here's a scenario: Let's say the UK commits a bad crime on foreign soil. The UK do not want their citizens to know this as it will impact public opinion. If this comes out it is "propoganda". The same goes for Russia and most countries. Go on wikileaks for instance and you can find 1000s of documents showing crimes which would be called propoganda had they been reported at the time. Here's an example of you falling for propoganda because you're bias is always to assume Russia bad Us good in each situation: Tracking ships near Nord Stream explosion sites. Says it "appears highly probable that there were two instances in 2022 prior to the Nord Stream sabotage where Russian vessels came in close proximity to the site of the sabotage before being chased from the area by Danish and Swedish naval vessels." He's able to ID the first case as the Russian frigate Yaroslav Mudry on 14 March 2022. The next time was 22 September, maybe the next post will work out the ship(s). archive.is/8LKeLGood article in the wall street journal in relation to Nord Stream. They seem to suggest that it was Ukranians with the assistance of some Germans who destroyed it. Will be interesting to see how Germany reacts given the financial impact its had on their economy. No doubt there'll be little to no reaction. Guardian and sky also seem to now be reporting it too. Whether the account is true or not who knows. One thing I think most of us can agree on is that the likelihood that Russia did it gets slimmer by the day. These new claims make it seem more likely ukrainians were involved. I still don't get why there isn't more coverage of the russian military engineering ship that took a sub to the attack sites just days before the blasts. The pipes weren't carrying gas but the explosions spooked the markets and spiked gas prices even further. It help russia so they had motive too. Sure some of the stuff I may come across will be bias too or even propoganda and that's fine. I actively take an approach to try and listen to multiple sides and perspectives and do my own due diligence and research. You however appear to be of the impression that your sources are always right and anything which may contradict that view point is propoganda. Which russian supporting sources aren't propoganda? If you don't have any then how can you trust your sources on reporting what they do when they have a pro western bias? Would you trust pro russian supporters to report on western activity alone? 3. Yes I do challenge the Bucha massacre and I've given a detailed post listing things I query and challenge in relation to it. I actually think I have made multiple posts on it, something which you feel is a "gotcha" to keep bringing up to discredit me? I take no shame at all in again actively researching different angles because I know the bbc are going to be bias just like RT is going to be bias. I don't think at any point I send with certainty x, y or z happened - I simply kept an open mind and pointed towards other sources and evidence challenge the western interpretation. You seem to be certain because of a satellite owned by Blackrock? Fair enough. I don't have the same confidence or trust myself to be absolutely certain I'm right and you're just listening to propaganda. Who knows maybe it'll be another Bucha or maybe it'll be another Nord-Stream 2. 4. So how are they going to keep these resources then post war for their own benefit? What do you mean by "for Ukraine to deal with"? How do you expect this to be resolved given it was an issue for a decade prior to the invasion? Surely it needs to be solved as part of a peace deal? So Russia has to stop supporting the regions which don't support the Ukranian government. And then the US and EU has to be allowed to profit economically from all of Ukraines natural resources and then we have peace. "You cannot have peace by surrendering to brutal imperialists who take every surrender as weakness and encouragement for the next invasion." Foreign military bases in foreign countries: Iran - 0 China - 1 Russia - 21 in 9 countries USA - 750 in 80 countries |
|
