« First « Previous Comments 1,103 - 1,142 of 4,183 Next » Last » Search these comments
But you probably didn't notice that US and NATO supplied howitzers have been bombing civilian targets in Donestsk for the past week or so.
SILENCE. That's because the Western mass media is ignoring it.
He then accused the BBC of not uncovering the truth of what had been happening to civilians in separatist-held areas of eastern Ukraine, "when civilians were being bombed by Kyiv's troops for eight years".
I stressed that over the course of six years, the BBC had many times contacted the leadership in the separatist-run areas asking for permission to go and see what was happening. We were refused entry every single time.
Russia has accused Ukraine of genocide. However, in 2021, eight civilians were killed in the rebel-held areas, according to self-proclaimed pro-Russian "officials", and seven the year before. While every death was a tragedy, I said, that did not constitute a genocide.
I suggested that if genocide really had taken place, then the Luhansk and Donetsk separatists would have been interested in us going there. Why were we not let in, I asked.
"I don't know," said Mr Lavrov.
Ceffer says
Russians are preserving infrastructure and providing humanitarian corridors,
CGI! CGI!!! CGI!!!!
can you explain the joke?
Mr Podolyak's suggestion that 100 to 200 Ukrainian soldiers are dying each day is higher than previous estimates. On Thursday, Ukraine's Defence Minister, Oleksii Reznikov, said Ukraine was losing 100 soldiers a day, and 500 more were injured.
The differing casualty figures are a sign of how difficult it is to get precise information from the battlefield.
Far from condemning this behavior, or insisting that Kiev hits the brakes on the fascist behavior, the West continues to embrace the Ukrainian regime as the Current Thing.
Weapons and money continue to flow into the country, and high-ranking western officials, including famous celebrities, continue to align themselves with the troubled government there.
U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Hollywood celebrity Ben Stiller and U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland have visited Ukraine, which we are told is in a day to day fight for its very survival. None were wearing protective gear in an apparent war zone.
U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Hollywood celebrity Ben Stiller and U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland
Four months into Russia’s Ukraine offensive, President Vladimir Putin conducted his second purge of its high command. Gen. Sergei Vladimirovich Surovkin was moved from the top job in Russia’s air and missile forces to the leadership of the Ukraine command after the sacking of Gen. Aleksander Dubrinikov.
https://dossier.substack.com/p/welcome-to-ukraine-celeb-visits-banned
Some oil rigs have been liberated from the liberators: http://www.hisutton.com/Burning-Russian-Oil-Rig-Detected.html
This substack is one of the most stupid takes on Ukraine I have read. Banning a pro-Russian party during war with Russia seems like a correct thing to do.
Just when you learned to prononce the weird-sounding name of another great commander leading the wildly successful Speshual Military Operashion....
Four months into Russia’s Ukraine offensive, President Vladimir Putin conducted his second purge of its high command. Gen. Sergei Vladimirovich Surovkin was moved from the top job in Russia’s air and missile forces to the leadership of the Ukraine command after the sacking of Gen. Aleksander Dubrinikov.
Ceffer says
Russians are preserving infrastructure and providing humanitarian corridors,
Patrick says
https://dossier.substack.com/p/welcome-to-ukraine-celeb-visits-banned
This substack is one of the most stupid takes on Ukraine I have read. Banning a pro-Russian party during war with Russia seems like a correct thing to do. etc etc etc
Why would you have to ban a pro-Russian party in Ukraine, if the Ukrainians, in a majority, are in favor of the Ukrainian war effort against Russia?
DC is sending an old school 'Nazi chaser' to examine human rights violations, presumably by the Russians. LOL! I wonder how he is going to pull that off surrounded by Nazis.
richwicks says
Why would you have to ban a pro-Russian party in Ukraine, if the Ukrainians, in a majority, are in favor of the Ukrainian war effort against Russia?
Isn't it fun to say things that pretend to be logical but aren't in any way of form?
I'll give you a hint: countries that banned the Nazi party during WW2 didn't do it because majority in those countries supported Germany. You can scrape up the remaining grey cells to answer your own misguided question.
can you explain the joke?
You don't have to censor or ban anything, if they are wrong.
@Ceffer I see you've been dumpster diving again. Just so you know: the snapshot that you attached quotes Mizintsev. Google him (or duckduckgo). He's the piece of shit who bombed the theater in Mariupol. You know, the one that was double-purposed as a shelter. He's the piece of shit who's done the same to the maternity hospital in there. He's the piece of shit who first made his bones by committing atrocities in Syria (i.e. Aleppo) But what can be more reputable than Hague material who now goes out of his way to shift the blame, amiright?
Why do you automatically trust what the United States government says when they lie to you so often?
We'll start to know what happened in this stupid fucking war after the war is over, and not before.
richwicks says
Why do you automatically trust what the United States government says when they lie to you so often?
I don't automatically trust what US government says. I kinda told you that quite a few times. Poor memory? Or multiple actors with poorly managed communication behind one handle? That would also explain constant requests for backquotes.
richwicks says
We'll start to know what happened in this stupid fucking war after the war is over, and not before.
We DO know what's happening in this stupid fucking war.
Unless of course you get your data from Gonzalo Lira and such.
On large scale, that is. Little things may be hidden by the fog of war, but bird's-eye view has been clear for a while.
I don't care what people claim, I'm pointing out what you do. Everything you say with regard to the Russian/Ukraine conflict, and I mean absolutely everything you say, entirely aligns with the US "narrative". Everything, without exception.
You had the temerity to deny that Victoria Nuland was picking out the next leader of Ukraine in her intercepted phone call with Geoffrey Pyatt.
I was dumbfounded by that...
While once viewed as a realistic outcome, by now it should be obvious that this is impossible. Just as Ukraine lacks the ability to liberate all its pre-2014 territory, it also lacks the ability to liberate the recently conquered territory in the Donbas or along the Azov coast. Unlike in the north of Ukraine, these territories are central to Russian interests in Ukraine and, as such, Russia simply will not withdraw from them as it withdrew from Kyiv earlier in the war. Nor will Ukrainian forces – themselves, it should be noted, suffering terrible attrition all along the battle front and growing weaker with each passing day – be strong enough to compel them to do so. No, like the previous two scenarios, this one is simply an impossibility.
And that leaves only one other conceivable outcome: a fragmented and partly dismembered Ukraine, neither fully part of the West nor entirely within the Russian sphere of influence. A Ukraine fragmented in that the whole of the Donbas and perhaps other territories will be left beyond Kyiv’s control; partly dismembered in that Crimea will remain part of Russia (at least in Russian eyes); and not fully part of the West in that it will not be free to join NATO or even to have a meaningful partnership with the EU. Simply put, this outcome is not only not impossible, it’s not even improbable.
And when this final scenario comes to pass, who will have won the war in Ukraine?
Well, it won’t be Ukraine. While such an outcome will satisfy the basic existential goals of Kyiv, it will be a far cry from the more maximalist ambitions expressed both before and after Feb. 24. No, when this scenario inevitably comes to pass, it will clearly be a defeat for Kyiv.
...
All of which suggests that, at the end of the day, it might be necessary to tweak Holmes’s aphorism just a bit. At least when it comes to thinking about the possible outcomes of the war in Ukraine, perhaps it ought to read something more like: “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable unpalatable, must be the truth.”
richwicks says
You had the temerity to deny that Victoria Nuland was picking out the next leader of Ukraine in her intercepted phone call with Geoffrey Pyatt.
Bullshit. You lie. Again. I never said such a thing. Aren't you tired of lying?
Did the United States instigate a coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014 to install Arseniy Yatseniuk and remove Viktor Yanukovych? Yes or no?
Second:
We've talked about this MULTIPLE TIMES.
« First « Previous Comments 1,103 - 1,142 of 4,183 Next » Last » Search these comments
https://twitter.com/HinchaPenta/status/1496700652084473857?s=20&t=T1inEM5Hv6ahmrL4nzNirQ&source=patrick.net