Ukraine Crisis

[way 2 go]

Kinda is

Revealing Ukraine

Documentary film by Igor Lopatonok, produced by Oliver Stone. Continuation of "Ukraine On Fire"

rumble.com

 

[Hoping]

Kinda is

When did Ukraine again get subjected to Russian rule?
If Ukraine is part of Russia, why is Russia invading it?

 

[Gary K]

You have conveniently forgotten that it was the Russians that started this war.
Why all the pro-Russian blarney?

So, you seem to think truth is pro one side or the other rather than just the historical record of past events. Past events set up the scenario for today's war.

 

[Gary K]

When did Ukraine again get subjected to Russian rule?
If Ukraine is part of Russia, why is Russia invading it?

You also seem ignorant of what the US has done in Ukraine over the last decade or so. The US built BASL-3 bio weapons labs in Ukraine. In other words the US put offensive weapons right on the Russian door step.

Are you old enough to remember the Cuban missile crises of the 1960's? What did the US do in response to the Soviets wanting to put nuclear weapons just a few miles from us?

If we can act the way we did then does not Russia have the same right to defend its borders? Or do you consider Russian's to be sub human and have no right to defend themselves from our aggression against them?

 

[Idolater]

You also seem ignorant of what the US has done in Ukraine over the last decade or so. The US built BASL-3 bio weapons labs in Ukraine. In other words the US put offensive weapons right on the Russian door step.

Provide either a New York Times or Wall Street Journal source for the above, or the Financial Times. Otherwise fake news.

Are you old enough to remember the Cuban missile crises of the 1960's? What did the US do in response to the Soviets wanting to put nuclear weapons just a few miles from us?

When those idiots tried to pull that stunt we had to consider making Moscow a crater.

If we can act the way we did then does not Russia have the same right to defend its borders? Or do you consider Russian's to be sub human and have no right to defend themselves from our aggression against them?

They don't have ANY right to invade Ukraine.

 

[ok doser]

When did Ukraine again get subjected to Russian rule?
If Ukraine is part of Russia, why is Russia invading it?

Consider that the situation between Ukraine and Russia is similar to that between the United States and Great Britain in 1812

 

[ok doser]

Provide either a New York Times or Wall Street Journal source for the above, or the Financial Times. Otherwise fake news.

When those idiots tried to pull that stunt we had to consider making Moscow a crater.

They don't have ANY right to invade Ukraine.

Consider that the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the return to an identity as Russia began a civil war that continues to this day

 

[Stripe]

The EU is thinking about boosting defense spending.

 

[Gary K]

Provide either a New York Times or Wall Street Journal source for the above, or the Financial Times. Otherwise fake news.

When those idiots tried to pull that stunt we had to consider making Moscow a crater.

They don't have ANY right to invade Ukraine.

LOL. Oh, yeah, your gold standard of news that lied about the Holodomor for a half century. No fake news there.

How about video from CSPAN?

How about the WHO? and Reuters? Are they a big part of what you determine is fake news?

EXCLUSIVE WHO says it advised Ukraine to destroy pathogens in health labs to prevent disease spread

The World Health Organization advised Ukraine to destroy high-threat pathogens housed in the country's public health laboratories to prevent "any potential spills" that would spread disease among the population, the agency told Reuters.

www.reuters.com

So, you consider Russians as subhuman with no right to defend themselves. I'm not a racist even though you are.

 

[Idolater]

Consider that the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the return to an identity as Russia began a civil war that continues to this day

I've considered everything from all angles. The rules have changed, with nukes. Making craters is not something mankind could do before the H-bombs. We tried already the experiment where we treat countries and territories as possessing an inherent right to sovereignty which basically means everybody gets to do whatever they want and no one has any authority to impose. This global geo-political system or lack of a system or just situation, is what we have already tried, and even though it appears on its face to be a bad idea we have still continued the experiment for like 70 years. This is all, again to repeat and remind you, in the world with crater-making H-bombs.

Let's say you disagree that the rules have changed, let's say you believe the 'old' model still works. After all, WWIII still hasn't happened. Nobody has ever used H-bomb tech against people. Maybe it will continue forever, without any change to the geo-political system or lack of a system or just situation.

OK. I respect you and your view. I disagree with it.

Maybe you think that 'banning' nukes is the right solution. 'Gun control' 'writ large'. OK I disagree.

Maybe you think that nukes and over 187 sovereign nations can mix together without ever resulting in people being transformed into craters. I just disagree. It hasn't happened, true and thankfully, but it's I think unreasonable to not take proactive measures to winnow 187 sovereign states down to just 1, and then there won't be any more enemies, and there won't be any more threat of one sovereign state making craters in another sovereign state.

 

[Idolater]

The EU is thinking about boosting defense spending.

President Trump explicitly tried to get them to pony up more during his administration. On its face, it was just about balancing costs to maintain NATO readiness, but it was technically about the EU boosting defense spending.

 

[Idolater]

LOL. Oh, yeah, your gold standard of news that lied about the Holodomor for a half century. No fake news there.

Was that one part of the now three-part 'gold standard', or was it all three? New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times.

Plus of course remember that all of these companies know how to retract and correct mistakes after the fact. Do any of your preferred "sources"? Any.

No that's too easy. Show me two of your preferred sources who have demonstrated that they will 'own up' to mistakes and publish retractions and corrections.

How about video from CSPAN?

It's usually just footage. News is actually 'filtered' through an ideology, which is why you need both the NYT and WSJ (in America) to find the truth, anything that the NYT & WSJ agree on is very strongly unlikely to be fake, because it's non-partisan.

How about the WHO? and Reuters? Are they a big part of what you determine is fake news?

NYT, WSJ and Financial Times. WHO isn't even a news business. And Reuters is more partisan than Associated Press, but still, the NYT and WSJ and FT will vet Reuters and AP before they publish any of their material.

So, you consider Russians as subhuman with no right to defend themselves.

No one has a right to violate anyone else's human rights. That's not self defense.

I'm not a racist even though you are.

I literally descend from Russians.

 

[Gary K]

Was that one part of the now three-part 'gold standard', or was it all three? New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times.

Plus of course remember that all of these companies know how to retract and correct mistakes after the fact. Do any of your preferred "sources"? Any.

No that's too easy. Show me two of your preferred sources who have demonstrated that they will 'own up' to mistakes and publish retractions and corrections.

It's usually just footage. News is actually 'filtered' through an ideology, which is why you need both the NYT and WSJ (in America) to find the truth, anything that the NYT & WSJ agree on is very strongly unlikely to be fake, because it's non-partisan.

NYT, WSJ and Financial Times. WHO isn't even a news business. And Reuters is more partisan than Associated Press, but still, the NYT and WSJ and FT will vet Reuters and AP before they publish any of their material.

No one has a right to violate anyone else's human rights. That's not self defense.

I literally descend from Russians.

You just make me laugh.

The video taped admission by Nuland that Ukraine has bio weapons is fake news according to you. And the WHO's admission that the Ukraine has bio weapons by telling them to destroy the dangerous pathogens isn't proof the bio weapons labs exist.

Yeah the WHO accepts the labs as fact. So does the under secretary of state for the Biden admin. And to you that's not evidence they exist. You want the most controlled mocking bird media orgs to publish what they will not publish. You're another AB, anna, User Name, expose4ever, etc.... You're just plain old dishonest.

 

[Idolater]

You just make me laugh.

The video taped admission by Nuland that Ukraine has bio weapons is fake news according to you. And the WHO's admission that the Ukraine has bio weapons by telling them to destroy the dangerous pathogens isn't proof the bio weapons labs exist.

Yeah the WHO accepts the labs as fact. So does the under secretary of state for the Biden admin. And to you that's not evidence they exist. You want the most controlled mocking bird media orgs to publish what they will not publish. You're another AB, anna, User Name, expose4ever, etc....

You are inured. We don't care about bio-weapons we care about H-bombs. We care about invading armies violating the basic human rights of civilians, something we can do nothing about even though the invading army is invading based on a pretext. They had all the time in the world to announce that they were going to invade because Ukraine had WMD, they saw our playbook during our invasion of Iraq in 2003, and they didn't telegraph it as the justification at all. They're liberators, according to them, not defending themselves.

You're just plain old dishonest.

I'm not dishonest you censored anarchist. Take your anarchistic and immoral ideology and shove it right into a garbage can.

 

[User Name]

Rep. Madison Cawthorn calls Zelensky a 'thug,' says Ukrainian government is 'incredibly evil'

Let the Republicans try to score in the midterm elections with that kind of messaging when ~90% of the country is pro-Ukraine and anti-Putin.

More about the fraud Madison Cawthorn:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1502492558768943106

 

[Idolater]

More about the fraud Madison Cawthorn:

He's a kid. Our Constitution has survived tons of kids over the centuries, we'll survive him.

 

[Hoping]

So, you seem to think truth is pro one side or the other rather than just the historical record of past events. Past events set up the scenario for today's war.

If it is truth, it can only be one side or the other.
As the Ukrainians kicked out the pro-Russian government in 2014 (or something), why are you now siding against their defense of themselves?
You can't live in the Czarist past.

 

[Hoping]

You also seem ignorant of what the US has done in Ukraine over the last decade or so. The US built BASL-3 bio weapons labs in Ukraine. In other words the US put offensive weapons right on the Russian door step.

Would you prefer we built them in Kansas, if they do exist?

Are you old enough to remember the Cuban missile crises of the 1960's? What did the US do in response to the Soviets wanting to put nuclear weapons just a few miles from us?

The US response was to remove our missiles from Turkey.

If we can act the way we did then does not Russia have the same right to defend its borders? Or do you consider Russian's to be sub human and have no right to defend themselves from our aggression against them?

I just wonder why the Russians never announced that was their reason for their invasion of a peaceful country.
And if chemical weapons really are there, why are the Ukrainians not using them against the Russians?

You are defending an aggressor state.

 

[Hoping]

Consider that the situation between Ukraine and Russia is similar to that between the United States and Great Britain in 1812

That is a perfect comparison.
Our nation set itself free from an overbearing oppressor, and when the oppressor returned for "round two", we beat then again.
As a Christian, I hope it is over soon.

 

[User Name]

I just wonder why the Russians never announced that was their reason for their invasion of a peaceful country.
And if chemical weapons really are there, why are the Ukrainians not using them against the Russians?

You are defending an aggressor state.

The Russians denied that they were invading Ukraine, right up to the day they invaded Ukraine. They lied about what they did, and now they are lying about why they did it.

Pretty wild to watch Republicans spout Russian and Chinese propaganda on this site.