Russia's Invasion of Ukraine (Official Thread)

[Hood Critic]

Regarding the underlined, so have I (in relation to not caring about neither Russia nor Ukraine) and so do I (in relation to American interests). Russia being our only adversary, I don’t agree with. That’s another discussion though.

It’s funny. I’ve never been to Russia, have no desire to visit, and have zero Russian interests. By your logic, I’d be Pro-Russian just for ingesting information and interpreting it as I see fit. I’d be a Russian agent just for stating that Russia is succeeding in their campaign after what I’ve witnessed with my own senses.


I’ve stated numerous times before on this board that the propaganda works both ways. If you expect me to only watch CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News (corporate Western media in general), and then take their broadcasts as absolute truth and at face value, you are mistaken. If you assume that I believe and trust every source that may show Russia in a positive light, you are also mistaken.

THE TRUTH IS THE fukkING TRUTH, no matter the source. It is my job to determine the truth with what I am provided and ingest to the best of my ability. You can fall in line with the rest of the sheep, but not me. If you operate that way after all of the atrocities and propaganda that America and European nations have produced for centuries, then that’s your decision.

The Western media had people truly believing that there was a fukking “Ghost of Kiev” and was broadcasting video game videos like it was actual footage from the conflict.

A lot of wild assumptions here:

- I never said Russia was our only adversary, I said our #1.
- I made no assertions about you being Pro-Russian personally, only that you seem to be incapable of spotting Pro-Russian propaganda while routinely claiming ALL news coming out of media to be such.
- Russia is not succeeding in their campaign. We don't need journalist to tell us this, their own admissions that they're downplaying confirm it while being over 2 months into a conflict they expected to wrap up in a matter of weeks.
- Yes propaganda does work both ways, so does basic reporting - its all has an inherent bias. Where you separate the two is in the things you know to be indisputable.
- Congratulations, you don't consume mainstream media. That's not a badge worth wearing since the overwhelming majority of the uninformed don't either.
- "Ghost of Kyiv" is a troll trigger for some reason. Western media, like it has been prone to do a lot in recent times, ran with a story with heavy social media traction that turned out to be a myth started by the Ukrainians to boost morale. That's sh*tty journalism but most of those same outlets have attempted to correct those reports using direct confirmed reports of it being a myth from Ukrainian military officials. That at least is an attempt at decent journalism.

 

[TallMan_J]

"Russia's economy and the Ruble have bounced back stronger than ever"



meanwhile...

I dislike most opinion pieces, but…

 

[Orbital-Fetus]

Zelensky ain’t shyt, Putin ain’t shyt, Biden ain’t shyt. I’m skeptical about all of all. That’s where I stand. The truth may be somewhere in the middle. That’s what I try to determine.

maybe you aint shyt?

 

[TallMan_J]

Bruh, this nikka @TallMan_J went for the thread record of bullshyt Kremlin aligned talking points in a post. He should really be on one of those state-sponsored Moscow shows:

"Russia has plenty of resources. The resources that are required to sustain life. They’ll be alright."

"Yes, The West is shook. And for good reason."

"The Ukrainian military and Ukraine are flooded with open Nazis."

"Zelensky is a puppet President that was installed by the U.S. and NATO. He is CORRUPT as fukk."

"Russia is not slaughtering innocent Ukrainians with no regard. That’s bullshyt Western propaganda that you and others blindly repeat."

source: Russia's Invasion of Ukraine (Official Thread)


Y'all should not engage any further with that clown.

Nah. I’m here now. Unless I’m banned from the thread, I’ll be regularly posting. Someone has to balance out this pro-Ukrainian/NATO Eurocac dikk sucking echo chamber. Opposing viewpoints are necessary for constructive dialogue.


We have to bring some of you back down to Earth and reality.

 

[TallMan_J]

maybe you aint shyt?

I ain’t. I’m just an ordinary breh that does extraordinary things.


Neither are you.

 

[keithj]

 

[keithj]

+

Pro-Kremlin publishing house catches fire in Moscow, videos show

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I'm still waiting for someone to post the treaty everyone keeps talking about


@Rhakim

They could be talking the promises not to expand NATO. There was no treaty or formal agreement signed, just some verbal claims made in private, and they broke down almost immediately when Russia collapsed much further than it initially appeared it was going to and now fully-independent countries like Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuanian desperately begged to be let back into NATO under fears that Russia would attempt to invade and retake control when they regained strength.

They could also be talking about the Minsk Agreement, with was a 2014 cease-fire between Ukraine and the Russia-backed Donbas separatists. That agreement was repeatedly violated by both sides almost immediately, violated most seriously by the pro-Russian forces in the battle of Donetsk Airport, and was always tenuous because Putin repeatedly claimed he wasn't bound by the agreement.

Or they're talking about Minsk II, which was a 2015 attempt at a cease-fire that was never really implemented in the first place and fell apart for the same reasons Minsk I did.


No matter which of the three they're talking about its disingenuous as fukk, because the "don't expand NATO" shyt was never a treaty and has been ignored for 30 years, while the Minsk accords were only necessary in the first place because Russia was throwing its forces into eastern Ukraine and Russia has already violated them almost continuously.

 

[88m3]

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

Evacuees From Mariupol’s Steel Plant Tell of Horrors and Survival

 

[88m3]

They could be talking the promises not to expand NATO. There was no treaty or formal agreement signed, just some verbal claims made in private, and they broke down almost immediately when Russia collapsed much further than it initially appeared it was going to and now fully-independent countries like Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuanian desperately begged to be let back into NATO under fears that Russia would attempt to invade and retake control when they regained strength.

They could also be talking about the Minsk Agreement, with was a 2014 cease-fire between Ukraine and the Russia-backed Donbas separatists. That agreement was repeatedly violated by both sides almost immediately, violated most seriously by the pro-Russian forces in the battle of Donetsk Airport, and was always tenuous because Putin repeatedly claimed he wasn't bound by the agreement.

Or they're talking about Minsk II, which was a 2015 attempt at a cease-fire that was never really implemented in the first place and fell apart for the same reasons Minsk I did.


No matter which of the three they're talking about its disingenuous as fukk, because the "don't expand NATO" shyt was never a treaty and has been ignored for 30 years, while the Minsk accords were only necessary in the first place because Russia was throwing its forces into eastern Ukraine and Russia has already violated them almost continuously.

Well now here is the thing they're always particularly vague about which treaty they're referring to which I find very unhelpful.

I think that usually they're alluding to the one about where NATO promised to never expand but if that were the case why wouldn't they would just share the treaty? Isn't that odd?

I'm sure that if the people saying it were to share the treaty that it would really help solidify their argument. Why wouldn't Lavrov come on television and have shown this treaty/agreement to show the treachery of the NATO? The Russians even have a copy of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact so why wouldn't they have this treaty to share?


I agree that brining up the Minsk agreements wouldn't make any sense because Russia violated treaties with Ukraine and international law by invading Ukraine and annexing Crimea in the first place.


Yeah, I think you're probably right about them just being disingenuous as none of the examples I've seen justify Russia's actions.

 

[88m3]

@ill

 

[Carl Tethers]

@ill

 

[theworldismine13]

 

[Anerdyblackguy]