The Ukraine thingy


Off-Topic Discussions

1,801 to 1,850 of 2,002 << first < prev | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | next > last >>

Speaking of dogs,here in Crazy Ivan Land we staged a little revolution and fed the Dark One to the dogs
How's that for anarchy?


Look at Putin's stoicism as he is mauled by those vicious beasts! Such courage, I'll tell ya ;-)


DM Locke wrote:
Look at Putin's stoicism as he is mauled by those vicious beasts! Such courage, I'll tell ya ;-)

That's how manly man should go down.

WITH STYLE!!


JohnLocke wrote:


Angsty - well, he just seems to like trolling.

Irreverent maybe, arrogant possibly and, passionate definitely. So if it's the definition of "trolling", I claim it. But as you're from a country that was never able to think by itself I can understand you find my way of being... disturbing.

Gaberlunzie wrote:


Between Angstspawn and Vlad, I think we have a full set of the various kinds of lawful evil.

I'd rather say pro-Russian versus pro-France, definitely loyal to our respective countries. Evil?? I'd love to live in a world where Vlad or I would represent evil...

Vlad Koboroff wrote:


... Angsty,though.He looks like a nice guy,who watches too much propaganda. For the last 20 years.

Which propaganda are you speaking about? The one telling Soviet Union is 99% gulag political prisonners and 1% savage gulag keepers? Or, would you dare call propaganda a song by Sting questioning "if Russians love their children too"?

You're right I was born and raised in a time, in a place, that makes me partial, oriented, biased... I know it, which still makes me more open-minded than most naives assuming the ready-to-think ideas they have in mind are their own (not speaking about you Vlad).
By the way Vlad, stop writing I'm "a nice guy", you're ruining a reputation it took me decades to build.


Angstspawn wrote:


Which propaganda are you speaking about?
Angstspawn wrote:


It's funny to see that Russians forgot they lost the Cold War so pitifully they had not enough of money to guaranty supplies of toilet paper

For example,you seem to think is a)somebody except working class actually lost Cold War and b)post-soviet republics'problems are somehow linked to it,when in reality neither is true.


Oh, don't worry, I'm pretty sure Vlad is alone in his assessment of your "niceness". I still don't think you're evil, angsty - you're nowhere near interesting enough for that.


For the record, I am a Lawful Good goblin paladin.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I usually hate dogs and horses, but...

[Clenched fist salute]

Loukanikos, the Greek anarchist dog photo gallery

BEST. DOG. EVER.

A dog like that could make Mayor or even Governor!

Check out the photo at the end of the article!

EDIT: Also, those Greeks don't mess around!


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

For the record, I am a Lawful Good goblin paladin.

This almost killed my wife.

Besides,in russian language we have a saying that describes a person that is really good in something:
"[Person]has eat a dog over it."


Eyes Only

Spoiler!:
This is shout-out to pretty good early 21st century TV series Dark Angel,where under said name existed voice of the resistance.I would not believe EVERYTHING they say,but worth reading.


Aaaand we have a new map!
So,i'd like to talk about Mariupol.Some may ask"what,another city with a name no-one knows how to pronounce?".Yes.
But this relatively little city accounts for SIX PERCENT of ukrainian GDP,and now,with Crimea gone,is one of the last big trade ports that Ukraine have,other being Odessa.
So,liberation of the city will be worth any cost to people's republics.
Not only in long-term,but...you see,there is little unrecognized country named Abkhazia,which has really stupid amount of captured equipment from .08 war,and they are probably willing to sell it.Or even lease it!
And it's really,really close.Just one day...of sea travel.


Remember utter panic in western MSM a few days ago when Dark One called rebels"Novorossian Militia"?Here's Russian Foreign Office calling them the same.
Dark One is just one man,but these guys?They actually represent Russia.
NOW it's time to start panicking.

But,not all is lost to loyalists,at the very least offensive bought some time.This time was used to organize four new brigades,based on long-serving conscripts,with dedicated artillery and armor assets assigned to each brigade.
These brigades are more or less optimized for urban warfare and represent last chance of loyalists for anything even resembling victory.
Loyalist counteroffensive will begin in something like three weeks,if nothing changes.
Stay tuned!
Also,loot.


I almost admire how consistently this regime lies.

How often can these weaklings cry wolf before the MSM just starts to ignore them? They tried to wipe out ethnic Russians in the eastern reaches of the country and now they're being routed, their unwilling conscripts no longer wishing to fight some proxy war for Washington.

I said it before, and I'll say it again. If Russia invades you, you'll know. Ask Georgia what they got for attacking Russian forces.

"Iraq has WMDs. It is not something we think, it is something we know. Iraq has itself admitted that it has had mustard gas, nerve gas, anthrax, but Saddam won't disclose. He won't tell us where and how these weapons have been destroyed. We know this from the UN inspectors, so there is no doubt in my mind." - Anders Fogh Rasmussen, 2003. Now this guy is running NATO? How can the western powers reward fools who are so consistently wrong, if not outright liars?


Ah, this is late and off-topic, but I can't resist posting it as a little "F U" to the mainstream media and their unquestioning supporters. How the MSM would cover the brutal crackdown in Ferguson if it happened in another country.


JohnLocke wrote:

I almost admire how consistently this regime lies.

How often can these weaklings cry wolf before the MSM just starts to ignore them? They tried to wipe out ethnic Russians in the eastern reaches of the country and now they're being routed, their unwilling conscripts no longer wishing to fight some proxy war for Washington.

I said it before, and I'll say it again. If Russia invades you, you'll know. Ask Georgia what they got for attacking Russian forces.

Yes, if Russia invades openly, everyone will know.

That of course makes it impossible that Russia will act more covertly.


thejeff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:

I almost admire how consistently this regime lies.

How often can these weaklings cry wolf before the MSM just starts to ignore them? They tried to wipe out ethnic Russians in the eastern reaches of the country and now they're being routed, their unwilling conscripts no longer wishing to fight some proxy war for Washington.

I said it before, and I'll say it again. If Russia invades you, you'll know. Ask Georgia what they got for attacking Russian forces.

Yes, if Russia invades openly, everyone will know.

That of course makes it impossible that Russia will act more covertly.

Yeah, that's been your line for a while now. We've plenty of evidence of American meddling in Ukraine - billions spent on NGO's devoted to overthrowing the government, choosing the new regime (check out Nuland's audio tape for proof), aggressive economic warfare against Russia...

But as for Russian intervention - proof, please. If there was proof of covert military support, wouldn't the U.S. be spraining itself to show it to the world? All we have are Porkyshenko's shrill accusations and the MSM quoting known liars (Rassmussen, et al). But the lack of proof being brought to bear is deafening.

Jeff, I'm guessing you're American. Doesn't this seem like a road your government has trod many times before? Aren't you the slightest bit suspicious of their claims by now?


Ukraine, Europe and the US want war, not negotiations.

Nice to see that Nazis of all sorts can get along. Germany must be so proud!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JohnLocke wrote:
thejeff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:

I almost admire how consistently this regime lies.

How often can these weaklings cry wolf before the MSM just starts to ignore them? They tried to wipe out ethnic Russians in the eastern reaches of the country and now they're being routed, their unwilling conscripts no longer wishing to fight some proxy war for Washington.

I said it before, and I'll say it again. If Russia invades you, you'll know. Ask Georgia what they got for attacking Russian forces.

Yes, if Russia invades openly, everyone will know.

That of course makes it impossible that Russia will act more covertly.

Yeah, that's been your line for a while now. We've plenty of evidence of American meddling in Ukraine - billions spent on NGO's devoted to overthrowing the government, choosing the new regime (check out Nuland's audio tape for proof), aggressive economic warfare against Russia...

But as for Russian intervention - proof, please. If there was proof of covert military support, wouldn't the U.S. be spraining itself to show it to the world? All we have are Porkyshenko's shrill accusations and the MSM quoting known liars (Rassmussen, et al). But the lack of proof being brought to bear is deafening.

Jeff, I'm guessing you're American. Doesn't this seem like a road your government has trod many times before? Aren't you the slightest bit suspicious of their claims by now?

It's always the pivot to "But America is evil".

Sure. The US meddled in Ukraine. I'm suspicious of damn near everything they do. But I also don't swallow Russia's line without thinking either.

Paratroopers got lost and wandered across the border? Give me a break.

But regardless of who's lying, which is probably everyone, your argument that Russia can't be covertly aiding the separatists because "If Russia invaded you'd know" is simply nonsense.


JohnLocke wrote:

Ah, this is late and off-topic, but I can't resist posting it as a little "F U" to the mainstream media and their unquestioning supporters. How the MSM would cover the brutal crackdown in Ferguson if it happened in another country.

And I do love this one, though it probably fits better in the Ferguson thread.


thejeff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
thejeff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:

I almost admire how consistently this regime lies.

How often can these weaklings cry wolf before the MSM just starts to ignore them? They tried to wipe out ethnic Russians in the eastern reaches of the country and now they're being routed, their unwilling conscripts no longer wishing to fight some proxy war for Washington.

I said it before, and I'll say it again. If Russia invades you, you'll know. Ask Georgia what they got for attacking Russian forces.

Yes, if Russia invades openly, everyone will know.

That of course makes it impossible that Russia will act more covertly.

Yeah, that's been your line for a while now. We've plenty of evidence of American meddling in Ukraine - billions spent on NGO's devoted to overthrowing the government, choosing the new regime (check out Nuland's audio tape for proof), aggressive economic warfare against Russia...

But as for Russian intervention - proof, please. If there was proof of covert military support, wouldn't the U.S. be spraining itself to show it to the world? All we have are Porkyshenko's shrill accusations and the MSM quoting known liars (Rassmussen, et al). But the lack of proof being brought to bear is deafening.

Jeff, I'm guessing you're American. Doesn't this seem like a road your government has trod many times before? Aren't you the slightest bit suspicious of their claims by now?

It's always the pivot to "But America is evil".

Sure. The US meddled in Ukraine. I'm suspicious of damn near everything they do. But I also don't swallow Russia's line without thinking either.

Paratroopers got lost and wandered across the border? Give me a break.

But regardless of who's lying, which is probably everyone, your argument that Russia can't be covertly aiding the separatists because "If Russia invaded you'd know" is simply nonsense.

I've actually said I believe Russia is providing aid - I just can't prove it. So you've either a short memory or a desire to frame my comments for your own purposes, which you've criticized others for in the past. Add that to your prevailing argument style of attempting to create false equivalence and one begins to wonder if you aren't simply reacting against what you consider anti-American criticism.

Russian troops and tanks fighting alongside rebels in Ukraine? Russian artillery strikes from across the border? Give me a break. And some evidence.


Even i'm actually pretty sure that russia is providing aid.
And i don't mean just humanitarian aid from donations(including yours truly.Yes,it makes me sponsor of terrorism at least in one country),i mean at the very least ammunition supplies.
But then,no evidence means this is not happening)
And,of course,there is absolutely no point invading,even covertly,NOW.
Rebels take care of everything pretty good.


JohnLocke wrote:

I've actually said I believe Russia is providing aid - I just can't prove it. So you've either a short memory or a desire to frame my comments for your own purposes, which you've criticized others for in the past. Add that to your prevailing argument style of attempting to create false equivalence and one begins to wonder if you aren't simply reacting against what you consider anti-American criticism.

Russian troops and tanks fighting alongside rebels in Ukraine? Russian artillery strikes from across the border? Give me a break. And some evidence.

I suspect not even the sight of Russian tanks driven by Russian soldiers waving Russian flags driving through the centre of Kiev would be enough proof of Russian involvement for some of you.


Gallo wrote:
I suspect not even the sight of Russian tanks driven by Russian soldiers waving Russian flags driving through the centre of Kiev would be enough proof of Russian involvement for some of you.

There are no russian tanks in the war zone now,there are soviet tanks,and Oplot MBTs.

What's the difference between russian and ukrainian soldier,visually?
Russian flag costs a few dollarz.
So,yes,it will not be enough for me.
Ballistic missile strike against key installations before assault will convince me,though.


Gallo wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:

I've actually said I believe Russia is providing aid - I just can't prove it. So you've either a short memory or a desire to frame my comments for your own purposes, which you've criticized others for in the past. Add that to your prevailing argument style of attempting to create false equivalence and one begins to wonder if you aren't simply reacting against what you consider anti-American criticism.

Russian troops and tanks fighting alongside rebels in Ukraine? Russian artillery strikes from across the border? Give me a break. And some evidence.

I suspect not even the sight of Russian tanks driven by Russian soldiers waving Russian flags driving through the centre of Kiev would be enough proof of Russian involvement for some of you.

Are you claiming that "some of us" are overlooking evidence that exists right now? Or was that just a cheeky comment, alleging a lack of critical thought on the part of some of the commentators here?

I like to think I'm open minded and a realist; so any evidence you think we need to see is something I'd appreciate having brought to my attention.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Gallo wrote:
I suspect not even the sight of Russian tanks driven by Russian soldiers waving Russian flags driving through the centre of Kiev would be enough proof of Russian involvement for some of you.

There are no russian tanks in the war zone now,there are soviet tanks,and Oplot MBTs.

What's the difference between russian and ukrainian soldier,visually?
Russian flag costs a few dollarz.
So,yes,it will not be enough for me.
Ballistic missile strike against key installations before assault will convince me,though.
How about the Russian Ministry of Defense? And Putin himself?
Quote:
The Russian Defense Ministry, in a curt statement on the incident on Tuesday, said nothing about Russian soldiers being killed or wounded in Ukraine, but admitted that a group of paratroopers had been captured on the wrong side of the border. Asked about their fate on Tuesday night, Putin suggested that they had simply gotten lost and veered into Ukraine by accident. “What I heard is that they were patrolling the border and might have ended up on Ukrainian territory,” Putin said with a shrug. He expressed hope that “there wouldn’t be any problem” with getting them back home, but offered no promises or plans to do so.

Unless you really believe they just wandered across the border by accident.

Regardless, they were there. And most likely, where there's one unit operating, there are more.

OTOH, maybe they really did just get lost. Maybe Ukraine shouldn't be worried about Russia invading. They'll just all wander off in the wrong direction. Invade some other country by accident.


So, the ten Russians captured by Ukrainian forces are evidence of an invasion, hmm?

Ukraine says these guys were fighting with rebel forces when captured. Reports I've read indicate these guys surrendered without resistance and made no threatening moves whatsoever - hardly indicative of being part of an invasion force, hmm? To me, that says these guys were indeed where they weren't supposed to be, and surrendered so as not to cause more trouble.

Russia has a very good army, but even they wouldn't be able to get away without casualties. Some could not be recovered from the battlefield safely - I think it's fair to say that if Ukraine had ANY dead Russian soldiers we'd be seeing them displayed as evidence. You say one unit is evidence of more - but we haven't seen that, have we? Just these ten guys (who have been handed back already, just in case you didn't know).

So these guys, far from being part of an invasion force, may have been:
- drunk, stupid, of-course and without a GLONASS handset;
- military advisors
- decided to desert and join up with the resistance - that plan changed when they had guns jammed in their faces;
- ten VERY GOOD soldiers whom Putin assigned, personally, to the conquest of Ukraine. They failed. Shoulda sent more men, commies!


JohnLocke wrote:

So, the ten Russians captured by Ukrainian forces are evidence of an invasion, hmm?

Ukraine says these guys were fighting with rebel forces when captured. Reports I've read indicate these guys surrendered without resistance and made no threatening moves whatsoever - hardly indicative of being part of an invasion force, hmm? To me, that says these guys were indeed where they weren't supposed to be, and surrendered so as not to cause more trouble.

Russia has a very good army, but even they wouldn't be able to get away without casualties. Some could not be recovered from the battlefield safely - I think it's fair to say that if Ukraine had ANY dead Russian soldiers we'd be seeing them displayed as evidence. You say one unit is evidence of more - but we haven't seen that, have we? Just these ten guys (who have been handed back already, just in case you didn't know).

So these guys, far from being part of an invasion force, may have been:
- drunk, stupid, of-course and without a GLONASS handset;
- military advisors
- decided to desert and join up with the resistance - that plan changed when they had guns jammed in their faces;
- ten VERY GOOD soldiers whom Putin assigned, personally, to the conquest of Ukraine. They failed. Shoulda sent more men, commies!

Yes obviously the capture of 10 Russian soldiers in Ukraine proves that they were the only ones there. Only captured or killed and positively identified Russians are proof of anything and then only proof that those particular troops were there, and they aren't there anymore, so it still doesn't mean anything. Very convenient argument.

The article I linked also talks about casualties, but it is of course, just western propaganda and can be completely ignored.

Military advisers is probably the closest term, since that's commonly used to cover anything from a few guys actually giving advice to thousands of actual boots on the ground. Again, I don't think Russia is openly invading. I think there's good evidence, if not ironclad proof, that they're covertly supporting the rebels, including with actual troops in relatively small numbers.


It's just the usual BS: reports of "secret funerals" at Russian bases, unnamed villagers claiming that the rebel troops were actually Russian, and vapid NATO figureheads alleging evidence that they can't show us. You don't think scores of dead Russian servicemen would make the news?

Look, what value are a few Russian troops, when facing an army of 50000+ on the Ukrainian side? You're alleging a "stealth invasion" - a ridiculous and imbecilic idea in itself - but the numbers and the evidence don't add up. If the US - with all it's sophisticated surveillance apparatus - isn't able to provide evidence of supply convoys, radio chatter, strategic movement of Russian regiments and divisions, then what evidence is there? You've got us looking for ghosts. NATO claims there's a huge buildup on the Russian border - with no satellite evidence, no unit names, nothing. Time (and you) are claiming a stealth invasion, but once again, not even cellphone photos to back you up.

You're being snide with your comments, as well, which I understand; without evidence, one must resort to shrill accusations and dark allegations. You mock "western propaganda" but you're falling for it hook, line and sinker.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm the one being snide? You keep trying to blow it up into "stealth invasion", when military advisers is probably closer. Just the kind of military advisers that actually take part in the fighting. Paratroopers, special forces and the like. Not tank divisions. What value are a few real troops when they're working with the separatist irregulars? Quite a lot, judging by similar situations in history. At least the powers that keep doing exactly that seem to think so.


From what I've seen and read - including from our very own Comrade Vlad - the rebel fighters are doing more than just fine. They're experienced (plenty of Afghan and Chechen vets), motivated (nothing like the threat of having your people murdered by nazis to motivate you to pick up a rifle) and well-equipped (from their Russian backers, I'm sure of that).

Now, I'm sure you'd like to claim they've made the progress they have because they have Russian forces, disguised, hidden in amongst them, doing the real work. That's where we differ. Aside from advisors and intel, I think the "rebels" are doing the real work and are winning. And now that they're winning - driving Kiev's forces back en mass - the accusations of a Russian invasion are being pulled out and repeated, over and again, by a fat oligarch and his western backers.

And the burden of proof is upon you. And by any measure you've got nothing to show. We've got more pictures of ghosts than we do of Russian forces in Ukraine.

And of course, not wanting to make you angry, I won't even bring up the legions of American "advisors" on the Ukrainian/neo-nazi side.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JohnLocke wrote:
Gallo wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:

I've actually said I believe Russia is providing aid - I just can't prove it. So you've either a short memory or a desire to frame my comments for your own purposes, which you've criticized others for in the past. Add that to your prevailing argument style of attempting to create false equivalence and one begins to wonder if you aren't simply reacting against what you consider anti-American criticism.

Russian troops and tanks fighting alongside rebels in Ukraine? Russian artillery strikes from across the border? Give me a break. And some evidence.

I suspect not even the sight of Russian tanks driven by Russian soldiers waving Russian flags driving through the centre of Kiev would be enough proof of Russian involvement for some of you.

Are you claiming that "some of us" are overlooking evidence that exists right now? Or was that just a cheeky comment, alleging a lack of critical thought on the part of some of the commentators here?

I like to think I'm open minded and a realist; so any evidence you think we need to see is something I'd appreciate having brought to my attention.

Heaven forbid that some people in this thread are showing a lack of critical thought. There is plenty of evidence, you just choose to ignore it and cite your own evidence to support your position. Apparently when certain media supports your case then they are reliable, but if they don't they are Western stooges of the supposed Nazi Ukrainian regime.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Gallo wrote:
I suspect not even the sight of Russian tanks driven by Russian soldiers waving Russian flags driving through the centre of Kiev would be enough proof of Russian involvement for some of you.

There are no russian tanks in the war zone now,there are soviet tanks,and Oplot MBTs.

What's the difference between russian and ukrainian soldier,visually?
Russian flag costs a few dollarz.
So,yes,it will not be enough for me.
Ballistic missile strike against key installations before assault will convince me,though.

My irony aside, your second last sentence pretty succinctly sums up why it is impossible to have a reasoned discussion on this issue.


Gallo wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
Gallo wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:

I've actually said I believe Russia is providing aid - I just can't prove it. So you've either a short memory or a desire to frame my comments for your own purposes, which you've criticized others for in the past. Add that to your prevailing argument style of attempting to create false equivalence and one begins to wonder if you aren't simply reacting against what you consider anti-American criticism.

Russian troops and tanks fighting alongside rebels in Ukraine? Russian artillery strikes from across the border? Give me a break. And some evidence.

I suspect not even the sight of Russian tanks driven by Russian soldiers waving Russian flags driving through the centre of Kiev would be enough proof of Russian involvement for some of you.

Are you claiming that "some of us" are overlooking evidence that exists right now? Or was that just a cheeky comment, alleging a lack of critical thought on the part of some of the commentators here?

I like to think I'm open minded and a realist; so any evidence you think we need to see is something I'd appreciate having brought to my attention.

Heaven forbid that some people in this thread are showing a lack of critical thought. There is plenty of evidence, you just choose to ignore it and cite your own evidence to support your position. Apparently when certain media supports your case then they are reliable, but if they don't they are Western stooges of the supposed Nazi Ukrainian regime.

Then do share with us this incontrovertible evidence the msm has given and I have ignored. Certainly I have no good reason to distrust your mainstream media sources - they've never tried to cheerlead us into war with lies and fabrications before, have they?


JohnLocke wrote:
Gallo wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
Gallo wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:

I've actually said I believe Russia is providing aid - I just can't prove it. So you've either a short memory or a desire to frame my comments for your own purposes, which you've criticized others for in the past. Add that to your prevailing argument style of attempting to create false equivalence and one begins to wonder if you aren't simply reacting against what you consider anti-American criticism.

Russian troops and tanks fighting alongside rebels in Ukraine? Russian artillery strikes from across the border? Give me a break. And some evidence.

I suspect not even the sight of Russian tanks driven by Russian soldiers waving Russian flags driving through the centre of Kiev would be enough proof of Russian involvement for some of you.

Are you claiming that "some of us" are overlooking evidence that exists right now? Or was that just a cheeky comment, alleging a lack of critical thought on the part of some of the commentators here?

I like to think I'm open minded and a realist; so any evidence you think we need to see is something I'd appreciate having brought to my attention.

Heaven forbid that some people in this thread are showing a lack of critical thought. There is plenty of evidence, you just choose to ignore it and cite your own evidence to support your position. Apparently when certain media supports your case then they are reliable, but if they don't they are Western stooges of the supposed Nazi Ukrainian regime.
Then do share with us this incontrovertible evidence the msm has given and I have ignored. Certainly I have no good reason to distrust your mainstream media sources - they've never tried to cheerlead us into war with lies and fabrications before, have they?

I have never disputed that the MSM are not always impartial or accurate. But compared to some of the sources some posters have used in this thread I know which I would find more reliable. As for evidence, I think there have been enough posts linking to various sources to suggest there is more than a little truth in reports that Russia is more involved in the fighting in the Ukraine than you and a few others would have us believe. Given the evidence I have seen I think it is beyond contestation that Russia is intervening in the Ukraine.

PS. You are doing a Vlad by asking for "incontrovertible" evidence. No one is demanding incontrovertible evidence from your side, yet suddenly those who disagree with you are expected to display a higher standard…...


For starters, no-one on "your side" is asking for incontrovertible proof because they know there isn't any. And that lack is what kills your narrative cold.

I did a search on a Canadian "news" magazine's website re: Putin and it came up with this:

Link here

Look at the titles of the articles, the pictures used. Read the articles and all you'll find are emotional appeals to stop "evil" and "murder" and spend more on military pursuits. No hard facts, no pictures of the Russian military in action, no interrupted radio chatter, zilch.

Look, I'm asking you to THINK. How can any reasonable dialogue be held if s~!@ like this is what's feeding the average person's mind? Is it feeding yours? Is this where your opinion is being formed? Not Maclean's specifically of course (God, I hope not...) but one of the dozens of other media outlets putting out the same crap over and again, hoping it will stick?

These people - the western governments and their tame media - are trying to direct you into war with Russia. Think about that, about how insane that is. Put aside your hatred and your news stories telling you how weak Russia is and think about that. Look how quick everyone was to accuse Russia and the rebels of shooting down MH 17. Now - silence. No black box recordings released, no radar logs, nothing. How many invasions have been alleged? How many thousands of troops does Russia have staged at the border? Incontrovertible proof is required because the stakes are very high. War with Russia would be serious business, perhaps the end of our civilization.

They're all the same lies, told by the same people. I've already agreed that Russia must be providing support and intel - and no-one has been able to prove more. You sure haven't. As for pulling a Vlad - I'm honoured. He's provided news reports and information of far greater relevance than anything you've put forward.


Other than the actual Russian troops captured in the Ukraine, but you just wave that aside.


thejeff wrote:
Other than the actual Russian troops captured in the Ukraine, but you just wave that aside.

Actual ukrainian troops were captured in Russia.HUNDREDS.It's really no big deal,except MSM were told that it is.

In other news,very stupid things have happened.
You see,if there is one party that's now NOT interested in ceasefire,that would be rebels.At the very least they need to finish what remains of loyalist forces in the pockets and take Mariupol.
Guess what?
They were not a party in this negotiations.

JohnLocke wrote:
How many thousands of troops does Russia have staged at the border?

I'd say about enough to counter any stupid moves from these volunteer batallions,national guard,or rebels,for that matter.

There is civil war across the border,of course you will cover it.
Or VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN.

JohnLocke wrote:
no radar logs

Oh,but there was.Russian.And civilian,not military.So basically we KNOW who shot down MH17,and spoiler,it wasn't rebels.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JohnLocke wrote:
For starters, no-one on "your side" is asking for incontrovertible proof because they know there isn't any. And that lack is what kills your narrative cold.

So you keep saying despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. Putin and co aren't stupid. They aren't going to be overt in their support. At least not yet. Bit by bit, deniable, unprovable. When evidence does point towards clear involvement we get things like "oh, silly them, they accidentally crossed the border". It's the same playbook that plenty of countries, the US included, have used over the years. If Russia wasn't supporting the separatists their cause would have shrivelled up and faded away not long after it surfaced.

For many years I closely followed East Timor and the Indonesian annexation. Similar tactics were used by the Indonesians - "we're not involved", "it's just patriots fighting against those communists who took over power in East Timor" (not that they were communists), to "we only have volunteers there" up to "our troops were invited in by the rightful leaders of the country" and so on. Despite evidence to the contrary (and a fair amount of turning a blind eye by the west). Back in 1975 there wasn't anywhere near the same degree of coverage of the issue compared to what there is of the Ukraine - yet the truth of Indonesian involvement got out easily enough - Indonesian protestations to the contrary and Western indifference and/or connivance notwithstanding. But with the amount of coverage of the Ukraine from the MSM, amateur bloggers, citizen journalists, UN reports, aid groups, even utterances by groups of mothers of Russian servicemen and so on, the overall picture is not hard to gauge - even if the specific details are less clear.

JohnLocke wrote:

I did a search on a Canadian "news" magazine's website re: Putin and it came up with this:

Link here

Look at the titles of the articles, the pictures used. Read the articles and all you'll find are emotional appeals to stop "evil" and "murder" and spend more on military pursuits. No hard facts, no pictures of the Russian military in action, no interrupted radio chatter, zilch.

Poor Canadian MSM. Apparently they don't have a newsfeed coming out of CSE.

JohnLocke wrote:
Look, I'm asking you to THINK. How can any reasonable dialogue be held if s%&! like this is what's feeding the average person's mind? Is it feeding yours? Is this where your opinion is being formed? Not Maclean's specifically of course (God, I hope not...) but one of the dozens of other media outlets putting out the same crap over and again, hoping it will stick?

What is it with capitals? Is it supposed to MAKE ME ALL OF A SUDDEN COMPLETELY CHANGE MY MIND? Hmm, apparently not. Nice try though.

Compared to some of the crap that people like Vlad are quoting then it's as much a question of who wins a race to the bottom as anything else.

JohnLocke wrote:
These people - the western governments and their tame media - are trying to direct you into war with Russia. Think about that, about how insane that is. Put aside your hatred and your news stories telling you how weak Russia is and think about that. Look how quick everyone was to accuse Russia and the rebels of shooting down MH 17. Now - silence. No black box recordings released, no radar logs, nothing. How many invasions have been alleged? How many thousands of troops does Russia have staged at the border? Incontrovertible proof is required because the stakes are very high. War with Russia would be serious business, perhaps the end of our civilization.

I don't think there is much chance of me getting into a war with Russia. I completely demobilised my military capabilities years ago when I left the army. My country's current PM, well he's another matter. But I guess he figures playing the big man from 10,000 miles away will make him look good in the eyes of the 50.5% of the population stupid enough to vote for him and his bunch of lying, class warfare warrior, neo-con halfwits. See, I can be left wing and still lean towards supporting the Ukraine over the separatists and Russia. What a crazy world we live in.

JohnLocke wrote:
They're all the same lies, told by the same people. I've already agreed that Russia must be providing support and intel - and no-one has been able to prove more. You sure haven't. As for pulling a Vlad - I'm honoured. He's provided news reports and information of far greater relevance than anything you've put forward.

I'm not here to match Vlad news report for news report. I just like pulling him up for his oft dodgy sources, inconsistency, contradictions and, most of all, his palpable longing for the war to turn into full blown conflict.


I'm pretty sure i am consistent.
In,some may say,very annoying way.
Also,in a full blown conflict,as evidenced by .08 war,civilians are not suffering that much,and more of infrastructure remains intact.
So yes,war is awesome,go hawks!


Gallo wrote:
What is it with capitals? Is it supposed to MAKE ME ALL OF A SUDDEN COMPLETELY CHANGE MY MIND? Hmm, apparently not. Nice try though.

Dear Comrade Locke,

In case you don't know, you can italicize by putting [i]blah blah blah[/i} except that last } should be a ]

Similarly, one can bold a portion of a sentence by putting "b"s where there are "i"s above. I'm not sure if you can underline using these codes, I've never tried.

Yours in struggle,
Doodlebug Anklebiter,
Poet Laureate of the People's Republic of Galt


So, you support a western-backed coup which put into power an array of neo-nazis and oligarchs? Sure, you sound like a real neo-con hater, Gallo. Is it okay if I use your username? Or am I trying to be hard and make a point if I do? You're very touchy about such subjects. And it's good you support the Kiev government and their tame fascists in their attempt to wipe out the ethnic Russians - nothing like an old-fashioned try at genocide after a foreign-backed coup, right? You sound very fair and balanced, you being left wing and all.

You say Vlad is longing for this to turn into a full scale war - are you sure you don't mean your pals in Kiev? The rebel forces now have the upper hand, and still they desire to negotiate - what does that tell you? What have Putin's repeated calls for dialogue told you?

And no links to all the "evidence" you purport to have. Post some links re: the legions of grieving Russian mothers, just as an example. Please note I've seen the story published by the independent.co.uk website; I found it funny that it quoted the Novaya Gazeta as a source for its story. Guess who owns both? Good ol' Alexander Lebedev, avowed foe of Putin and western toady. You're going to have to be more convincing, Gallo ol' buddy! Ooops, there I go using your username in vain again! Darn me to heck!


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Gallo wrote:
What is it with capitals? Is it supposed to MAKE ME ALL OF A SUDDEN COMPLETELY CHANGE MY MIND? Hmm, apparently not. Nice try though.

Dear Comrade Locke,

In case you don't know, you can italicize by putting [i]blah blah blah[/i} except that last } should be a ]

Similarly, one can bold a portion of a sentence by putting "b"s where there are "i"s above. I'm not sure if you can underline using these codes, I've never tried.

Yours in struggle,
Doodlebug Anklebiter,
Poet Laureate of the People's Republic of Galt

Duly noted, comrade. I use a variety of text codes in the long-running PbP I have going on these very boards. Thanks, though....

Wait a second ... a goblin is correcting my form on these boards? Bloody hell, how far I've fallen!


JohnLocke wrote:


You say Vlad is longing for this to turn into a full scale war

I am!*

*Three months ago,before like ten thousand deaths and destruction of substantial amount of Donbass infrastructure,Georgian script a.k.a. peace talks within a week.

Also,here,in Crazy Ivan Land,we also had heard shots of said information attacks about lotsa dead paratroopers.
Difference is,i'm a russian-speaker.
So it was really easy to track attack to it's source.
It's foreign-funded society called"Mothers of Veterans"(Of Peterburg in some sources,which is really,really stupid,because these mythic paratroopers were from Pskov,and THESE ARE DIFFERENT CITIES!).
Guess who funds it for the last twenty years?(any coincidence with Chechen War
is no coincidence at all).
It's good to know that yanks learned something from that Vietfail.


What's your take on Alexander Lebedev and his "media empire", Vlad?


JohnLocke wrote:
What's your take on Alexander Lebedev and his "media empire", Vlad?

Well,i would not call it media empire,for starters.His primary assets are two banks,and...wait for it....15% stocks of Aeroflot!

But then,the man owns two british newspapers,and we all know on what side GB are.My guess is that he was asked,very politely,to launch the attack.Or else.
Update:
Things are actually more interesting.He gradually sold all his stocks in Aeroflot during the last year or so,so two banks and Novaya Gazeta are more or less all of his assets in Russia.
Make of that what you will.


Locke,

I'm flagging your post. Chill out, there is no need to attack people like this.

Regards,
Ruemere


ruemere wrote:

Locke,

I'm flagging your post. Chill out, there is no need to attack people like this.

Regards,
Ruemere

My brutal attack on anklebiter for being a goblin? I can see how that would be offensive. Mea culpa.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
What's your take on Alexander Lebedev and his "media empire", Vlad?

Well,i would not call it media empire,for starters.His primary assets are two banks,and...wait for it....15% stocks of Aeroflot!

But then,the man owns two british newspapers,and we all know on what side GB are.My guess is that he was asked,very politely,to launch the attack.Or else.
Update:
Things are actually more interesting.He gradually sold all his stocks in Aeroflot during the last year or so,so two banks and Novaya Gazeta are more or less all of his assets in Russia.
Make of that what you will.

He's pretty clearly biased against Putin's regime. That's not inherently a bad thing, but his choice of western companions - and acting as a neocon mouthpiece - make him more than merely suspect in my eyes. Maybe Putin's crackdown on "oligarchs" hit this guy in the pocketbook? Listening to western media sources howl when a scumbag like Khodorkovsky was jailed leads one to suspect there are closer ties to our corporate masters and these oligarchs than meets the eye.

It's also funny how we call them "oligarchs" in Russia but we don't have a similar term for our corporate masters. Robber barons?


An interesting opinion piece re: the price of bringing Ukraine into the western fold.

Who is telling "the big lie" about the Ukraine situation?


I'm actually trying to understand motivation of our resident frenchie.
You have to be blind,deaf,and possibly lobotomized not to understand that true target of this whole show is not Ukraine,and not even Russia.
It's EU.And French,as one of leaders will be hit pretty hard in one way or another.
Mad dollarz for breaking the contract AFTER supplying russian with needed technology,anyone?.
But then,France is rich,it can take it.
About 10 members of EU can't.
And chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.

1,801 to 1,850 of 2,002 << first < prev | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / The Ukraine thingy All Messageboards