Russia - worrying?

[Roch]

Iraq..weapons of mass destruction..Ukraine genocide against ethnic Russians..Lavrov says Ukraine has not been invaded. So many lies to swallow.

I expect that the Russians have used the needle between Ukrainians and ethnic Russians (in the east) as a pretext to invade. Part of me wants to believe that Ukraine did indeed grossly mistreat these ethnic Russians. However, if this were true, I wonder why they would take the risk of enraging the bear next door that is Russia. It doesn't seem to make sense. I do strongly suspect that the US and it's puppet the UK have covertly been involved in stirring things up to some extent. The whole Skripal debacle itself seems contrived. It's as if there is a bear bating backstory, out of view, with the bear obviously representing Russia. A cynic may be forgiven for wondering whether the whole context is one which is designed to entice / provoke / ensnare Russia in to taking action for which the US / UK is well prepared for. Then again, I have to also consider that Putin's Russia itself is probably a rotten egg

[David1819]

Iraq..weapons of mass destruction..Ukraine genocide against ethnic Russians..Lavrov says Ukraine has not been invaded. So many lies to swallow.

Don't forget this one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_biolabs_conspiracy_theory

[David1819]

I expect that the Russians have used the needle between Ukrainians and ethnic Russians (in the east) as a pretext to invade. Part of me wants to believe that Ukraine did indeed grossly mistreat these ethnic Russians. However, if this were true, I wonder why they would take the risk of enraging the bear next door that is Russia. It doesn't seem to make sense. I do strongly suspect that the US and it's puppet the UK have covertly been involved in stirring things up to some extent. The whole Skripal debacle itself seems contrived. It's as if there is a bear bating backstory, out of view, with the bear obviously representing Russia. A cynic may be forgiven for wondering whether the whole context is one which is designed to entice / provoke / ensnare Russia in to taking action for which the US / UK is well prepared for. Then again, I have to also consider that Putin's Russia itself is probably a rotten egg

👽

[David1819]

https://www.kyivpost.com/eastern-europe/kremlin-to-family-members-of-moskva-cruiser-crew-ship-sank-by-accident-no-war-compensation.html

Disgusting

[gringo]

    Lindsey Graham with the vile John McCain, Poroshenko and Ukie troops. Watch this, from 2016. There is no question of NATO aggression against Russia using Ukraine as a proxy.
    It is pretty clear that this confrontation would have started in 2017 if Hillary Clinton had been elected.

https://twitter.com/timand2037/status/1521748399543967744

Transcribed below are Graham's and McCain's words

Lindsey Graham; "I admire the fact that you fight for your homeland. Your fight is our fight, 2017 will be the year of offence. All of us (gestures towards himself, John McCain and other US senators/congressmen) will go back to Washington and we will push the case against Russia. Enough of Russian aggression, it is time for them to pay a heavier price. Our fight is not with Russian people but with Putin. Our promise to you is to take your calls to Washington, inform the American people of your bravery and make the case against Putin to the world."

John warmongering McCain; "I believe you will win, I am convinced you will win and we will do everything we can to provide you with what you need to win. We have succeeded not because of equipment but because of your courage. So, I thank you and the world is watching, and the world is watching because we cannot allow Vladimir Putin to succeed here, because if he succeeds here, he will succeed in other countries."

    US/UK/NATO have been planning this for a long time. Those who claim to not see NATO aggression are making a choice. It is self evident that NATO are and have been the most aggressive presence on the planet for at least 30 years now, and very easily arguably, for much longer.

    So 2017 would have been the year of offence. Long planned by US/NATO. NATO/US tell us about their planned aggression and there are still fuckwits who deny NATO aggression.

[gringo]

     Poroshenko, then President, after the coup in 2014 and before the meeting in 2016 in the above post with US senators;

https://twitter.com/WarKamikaze/status/1519866610231689217

Transcribed for you below,
President Poroshenko, calling for a cleansing in Donbass. "We will have work, they will not. We will have pensions, they will not. Our children go to schools and nurseries, yours will hide in basements."

    The Ukrainian govt. have never hidden their intent to ethnically cleanse the Eastern and Ethnic Russian areas. They admit a policy of planned genocide. You can readily find an absolute abundance of evidence showing the intent and crimes of the post 2014 Maidan coup Ukie govt. How is it possible to require further evidence of their intent and crimes?

[David1819]

Evidence is growing that Russian soldiers are using rape as a weapon of war in Ukraine. In areas retaken by Ukrainian forces, civilians are giving horrifying accounts of sexual violence and murder.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ukdoah/nsfl_evidence_is_growing_that_russian_soldiers/

[Roch]

Interesting posts Gringo. It's the side of the story we are not being given. The context.

[David1819]

Interesting posts Gringo. It's the side of the story we are not being given. The context.

Useful idiots will be useful idiots.

[David1819]

    Lindsey Graham with the vile John McCain, Poroshenko and Ukie troops. Watch this, from 2016. There is no question of NATO aggression against Russia using Ukraine as a proxy.
    It is pretty clear that this confrontation would have started in 2017 if Hillary Clinton had been elected.

https://twitter.com/timand2037/status/1521748399543967744

Transcribed below are Graham's and McCain's words

Lindsey Graham; "I admire the fact that you fight for your homeland. Your fight is our fight, 2017 will be the year of offence. All of us (gestures towards himself, John McCain and other US senators/congressmen) will go back to Washington and we will push the case against Russia. Enough of Russian aggression, it is time for them to pay a heavier price. Our fight is not with Russian people but with Putin. Our promise to you is to take your calls to Washington, inform the American people of your bravery and make the case against Putin to the world."

John warmongering McCain; "I believe you will win, I am convinced you will win and we will do everything we can to provide you with what you need to win. We have succeeded not because of equipment but because of your courage. So, I thank you and the world is watching, and the world is watching because we cannot allow Vladimir Putin to succeed here, because if he succeeds here, he will succeed in other countries."

    US/UK/NATO have been planning this for a long time. Those who claim to not see NATO aggression are making a choice. It is self evident that NATO are and have been the most aggressive presence on the planet for at least 30 years now, and very easily arguably, for much longer.

    So 2017 would have been the year of offence. Long planned by US/NATO. NATO/US tell us about their planned aggression and there are still fuckwits who deny NATO aggression.

Here we go again.

[gringo]

Interesting posts Gringo. It's the side of the story we are not being given. The context.

   I think most people sense that there is a hidden story, Roch, that we are, as you say, "not being given." This is the crucial thing. We are "not being given" the context and background. So we should no longer rely on those who are supposedly tasked with "giving us the story" and should be proactively seeking reliable sources of information ourselves. We only have ourselves to blame for being unaware. We live in the information age and even in the age of censorship, we can easily find reliable sources.
    Look in the archives of sites and read their reporting on world events over the years. Given the benefit of hindsight we can easily measure their credibility. Seek information from credible honest and unbiased sources and you will find "the side of the story we are not being given".
   
   

[gringo]

Interesting posts Gringo. It's the side of the story we are not being given. The context.

    For more information on the side we are not being given, Roch.
     For informed and very wide discussion about geopolitics generally there is no better site than Moon of Alabama. It is run by Bernhard Horstmann, but is more a "discussion site" than a blog. Issues that are hugely important and very relevant but strangely missing from our media are discussed at length and in depth. 
     For military analysis, especially of the situation now, Andrei Martyanov is highly recommended. Again, it is easy to check for yourself if his day to day postings and youtube videos (he is funny) are consistent, accurate and more importantly, do they stand the test of scrutiny days, weeks, months later as more becomes revealed? The answer is yes, by the way Roch. Martyanov is undisputedly an expert on modern warfare and his military analysis, second to none. His blog is called Reminiscence of the Future.

[gringo]

     Here is a link to Andrei Martyanov's blog;

http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/

     And here is one to Moon of Alabama;

https://www.moonofalabama.org/

    if you want to see the "side not given" and much more context.

[David1819]

Useful idiots will be useful idiots.

[gringo]

    Copied and pasted below, a comment from MOA quoting directly Dmitry Polyansky at the UN and Reuters. Calling out Reuters distorted and selective reporting of the words of Natalia Usmanova a civilian evacuee rescued from Mariupol;

"Reuters has heavily censored and distorted testimonies by a woman evacuated from Mariupol in order to adjust her words to its own claims about the city’s shellings by the Russian army, Dmitry Polyansky said at an informal Arria Formula meeting of the UN Security Council, devoted to crimes by the Ukrainian military.
"The Reuters story creates an impression that the woman, Natalya Usmanova, is scared by Russian strikes and apparently hates Russia for what it has done to Ukraine," Polyansky said. He stressed that at the same time Reuters preferred to keep quiet about what the woman said loudly and clearly on Russian television.
Polyansky showed this video of Usmanova saying something Reuters did not dare quote in its story. The woman evacuee literally said:
"I do not wish to return to Ukraine. Honestly. My family’s vote was unanimous. Even if we ever decide to return, we will return only to Mariupol, to the Donetsk People’s Republic. And not to Ukraine," Usmanova said.

Yet, a Reuters spokesperson said the news organization stood by its reporting: "We are still seeking to verify key aspects of Natalia Usmanova's account. We are committed to reporting on the conflict on Ukraine in an impartial and independent way."
"It is deplorable that Western journalists in most cases participate in censorship and conceal undesirable information from their readerships and audiences," Polyansky concluded."

     The side we are not being given again, Roch.