Hilarious because, at one level it’s true. Russia was very upset that Ukraine was drifting westward. Why should that be something we should avoid? Lativa, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary (I could go on) are quite happy to be free of the Russian yoke. Your perspective denies the Ukrainians agency and that’s why it’s stupid.
I’m constantly amazed - but perhaps I shouldn’t be - that “contributors” responding to an analysis of media dishonesty and manipulation come right on in here to regurgitate the propaganda. Your article is well argued and is supported by evidence 👏. Thank you.
It's because they don't have the balls to actually write posts, which involves actual research, and if you are any good, carefully fact checking before putting it out there for scrutiny. Of course nobody is infallible and you can always poke holes in any essay. It's easy, so rather than truly engage, these people Instead ramble on in the comments section, going off on tangents, using strawbman arguments etc., pretending to sound smart without actually addressing assertions with counter data. It's the laziest form of discourse and its rampant.
The Guardian is a corporate rag, therefore completely worthless, as are all other Western corporate/government mouthpieces. I turned my back on all such evil propaganda in 1990--it was the best decision I ever made.
1) If you are going to claim that a state not doing everything Russia tells them is 'provoking war' then I guess no war is ever unprovoked. This renders your interpretation of the word meaningless, because it applies to every situation. So we are back to using the actual meaning of the word which is that Russia engaged in war without commensurate provocation.
2) It's bold to claim that we've been sold a lie about the Maidan...and then put forward a counterfactual with absolutely no supporting evidence. Maidan was an entirely externally funded, far-right led, well armed insurrection and the massacre was (a unbelievably clumsy and obvious) 'inside job'? Bold claim. Any evidence? No. I'm shocked.
3) I wouldn't equate Russia invading Ukraine in 2014 with US support for the country. Or did the US actually send troops? In equivalent numbers? That invaded another nation?
4) I see you are relying on quoting big percentages for casualties between the 2014 invasion and the second invasion of 2022. Why is that? Why not post the actual number of casualties? Is it because traffic accidents accounted for more over the same period?
5) I love the idea that the US actually wanted the invasion because they knew how pathetically weak Russia really is. If that were true though, why would they release the intelligence they had about the Russian build up. Proving that you know about the hilariously incompetent 'surprise attack' is a deterent...because, you know, it's not going to be a surprise anymore. If the US wanted Russia to attack, they would've said nothing and just quietly and properly armed the Ukrainians. That watching Russia's invasion was like watching a clown running through a minefield was nothing to do with it being a carefully laid trap, and everything to do with fundamental Russian inadequacy.
6) In your own words "Jhonson" didn't block anything. He simply pointed out that Russia was so deeply incompetent that, despite all their disadvantages, Ukraine could probably fight back pretty successfully. Ukraine chose not to sign. You know, because they are a sovereign nation (the world outside of Russia's sphere of influence actually has those, you should look into it).
7) Perhaps read the actual poll, rather than cherrypick quotes from an article written by a journalist, who read a Reuters summary of another paper's coverage of the poll itself? I appreciate that, without cherrypicking, you have nothing but a couple of rent-a-quotes from the usual suspects to 'disguise' Russia's tired 'talking points' but it's just so obviously lazy.
I mean, I get it, you've got a lot of these to bang out under various pseudonyms and Russia clearly isn't big into 'able-to-tie-your-own-shoelaces' style competence...but this is just as pathetic as Russia's military and you'll want to show that you are better than those on the frontlines...because that's probably where your next 'promotion' will place you otherwise.
So, Trump stated that Ukraine started the war. Any way you twist that, it’s untrue. He’s working for Putin now. Putin wants America out of NATO so he can go into Poland and the Balkans without American interference. Trump wants to align with Putin to be as rich and powerful. They’re both criminals and psychopaths.
Great work! Slamming the Guardian ought to become a sport! They are despicable.
Another of your love-spreading messages.
I'm so blissed out now, I'm going to save this evening's Ecstasy dose for another time.
🤣😂🤣😂
excellent
Hilarious because, at one level it’s true. Russia was very upset that Ukraine was drifting westward. Why should that be something we should avoid? Lativa, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary (I could go on) are quite happy to be free of the Russian yoke. Your perspective denies the Ukrainians agency and that’s why it’s stupid.
I’m constantly amazed - but perhaps I shouldn’t be - that “contributors” responding to an analysis of media dishonesty and manipulation come right on in here to regurgitate the propaganda. Your article is well argued and is supported by evidence 👏. Thank you.
It's because they don't have the balls to actually write posts, which involves actual research, and if you are any good, carefully fact checking before putting it out there for scrutiny. Of course nobody is infallible and you can always poke holes in any essay. It's easy, so rather than truly engage, these people Instead ramble on in the comments section, going off on tangents, using strawbman arguments etc., pretending to sound smart without actually addressing assertions with counter data. It's the laziest form of discourse and its rampant.
It's a shame we're incapable as a civilization to get to a place where being honest and telling the truth is normal.
Great article 👍🏼
The Guardian is a corporate rag, therefore completely worthless, as are all other Western corporate/government mouthpieces. I turned my back on all such evil propaganda in 1990--it was the best decision I ever made.
It is very convenient for the anti-Russia cabal to say unprovoked, and never mention the midan dirty work.
1) If you are going to claim that a state not doing everything Russia tells them is 'provoking war' then I guess no war is ever unprovoked. This renders your interpretation of the word meaningless, because it applies to every situation. So we are back to using the actual meaning of the word which is that Russia engaged in war without commensurate provocation.
2) It's bold to claim that we've been sold a lie about the Maidan...and then put forward a counterfactual with absolutely no supporting evidence. Maidan was an entirely externally funded, far-right led, well armed insurrection and the massacre was (a unbelievably clumsy and obvious) 'inside job'? Bold claim. Any evidence? No. I'm shocked.
3) I wouldn't equate Russia invading Ukraine in 2014 with US support for the country. Or did the US actually send troops? In equivalent numbers? That invaded another nation?
4) I see you are relying on quoting big percentages for casualties between the 2014 invasion and the second invasion of 2022. Why is that? Why not post the actual number of casualties? Is it because traffic accidents accounted for more over the same period?
5) I love the idea that the US actually wanted the invasion because they knew how pathetically weak Russia really is. If that were true though, why would they release the intelligence they had about the Russian build up. Proving that you know about the hilariously incompetent 'surprise attack' is a deterent...because, you know, it's not going to be a surprise anymore. If the US wanted Russia to attack, they would've said nothing and just quietly and properly armed the Ukrainians. That watching Russia's invasion was like watching a clown running through a minefield was nothing to do with it being a carefully laid trap, and everything to do with fundamental Russian inadequacy.
6) In your own words "Jhonson" didn't block anything. He simply pointed out that Russia was so deeply incompetent that, despite all their disadvantages, Ukraine could probably fight back pretty successfully. Ukraine chose not to sign. You know, because they are a sovereign nation (the world outside of Russia's sphere of influence actually has those, you should look into it).
7) Perhaps read the actual poll, rather than cherrypick quotes from an article written by a journalist, who read a Reuters summary of another paper's coverage of the poll itself? I appreciate that, without cherrypicking, you have nothing but a couple of rent-a-quotes from the usual suspects to 'disguise' Russia's tired 'talking points' but it's just so obviously lazy.
I mean, I get it, you've got a lot of these to bang out under various pseudonyms and Russia clearly isn't big into 'able-to-tie-your-own-shoelaces' style competence...but this is just as pathetic as Russia's military and you'll want to show that you are better than those on the frontlines...because that's probably where your next 'promotion' will place you otherwise.
So, Trump stated that Ukraine started the war. Any way you twist that, it’s untrue. He’s working for Putin now. Putin wants America out of NATO so he can go into Poland and the Balkans without American interference. Trump wants to align with Putin to be as rich and powerful. They’re both criminals and psychopaths.
Excellent job softening Putin’s talking points. He badly needs it, because he’s clueless.
Lovely formatting for your kremlin-pushed half-truths, partial truths, out of context quotes, and fabrications.