patrick.net

richwicks says

I don't care what people claim, I'm pointing out what you do. Everything you say with regard to the Russian/Ukraine conflict, and I mean absolutely everything you say, entirely aligns with the US "narrative". Everything, without exception.

You know where else my opinion happens to align with "the narrative", at least for the most part? Off the bat: 1) Laws of physics. 2) Classification of Hitler as a historical figure 3) Pol Pot and his effect on Cambodia. I didn't rely on US sources to study those subjects either (I didn't even have access to US sources when I studied those subjects). Likewise, I didn't need to rely on US sources to understand the Russian war against Ukraine. But guess what? Good news! Apparently, US narrative is not always wrong.

You claim that you are an engineer. You then MUST have at least basic understanding of inductive reasoning and what's required to make it valid. You MUST understand that you can't jump from particular to general without some serious ground work. Yet you don't seem to grasp the concept. Interesting.

richwicks says

You had the temerity to deny that Victoria Nuland was picking out the next leader of Ukraine in her intercepted phone call with Geoffrey Pyatt.

Bullshit. You lie. Again. I never said such a thing. I never denied that Victoria Nuland was picking out the next leader of Ukraine. Aren't you tired of lying?

However, I did deny that "US did a coup" (your words, not mine). More precisely, I said that there's no evidence to that but there's circumstantial evidence to the opposite. That's different. I also gave my reasons, and asked you a question which destroys your narrative. You dodged it back then and keep dodging it. I can repeat it here: knowing that the revolution was already going on for some months (another thing on which I had to educate you), and knowing that Nuland's line was compromised, how come there are no recordings of US actually preparing the revolution (that would be doing the coup)? Takeaway from the leaked conversation was that US is injecting itself into the situation which had already unveiled. Not that US created the situation. You must understand that Russian produced worst of the worst of those recordings. How come that's the worst that they produced?

I also pointed out this propaganda technique: pick out a fact and turn it into something that it's not, yet sounds similar. This allows to build a narrative which is not based on reality, but appears as if it is. You use this technique a lot.

richwicks says

I was dumbfounded by that...

Slow-witted are surrounded by wonders. It's their blessing, and a constant source of entertainment.

Interesting piece, including how French Reporters were treated by their own Media Outlets during the Donbas war:
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-russo-ukraine-war-through-the-lens-of-the-media-myths-and-truth-part-i/

The likely outcome:

While once viewed as a realistic outcome, by now it should be obvious that this is impossible. Just as Ukraine lacks the ability to liberate all its pre-2014 territory, it also lacks the ability to liberate the recently conquered territory in the Donbas or along the Azov coast. Unlike in the north of Ukraine, these territories are central to Russian interests in Ukraine and, as such, Russia simply will not withdraw from them as it withdrew from Kyiv earlier in the war. Nor will Ukrainian forces – themselves, it should be noted, suffering terrible attrition all along the battle front and growing weaker with each passing day – be strong enough to compel them to do so. No, like the previous two scenarios, this one is simply an impossibility.

And that leaves only one other conceivable outcome: a fragmented and partly dismembered Ukraine, neither fully part of the West nor entirely within the Russian sphere of influence. A Ukraine fragmented in that the whole of the Donbas and perhaps other territories will be left beyond Kyiv’s control; partly dismembered in that Crimea will remain part of Russia (at least in Russian eyes); and not fully part of the West in that it will not be free to join NATO or even to have a meaningful partnership with the EU. Simply put, this outcome is not only not impossible, it’s not even improbable.

And when this final scenario comes to pass, who will have won the war in Ukraine?

Well, it won’t be Ukraine. While such an outcome will satisfy the basic existential goals of Kyiv, it will be a far cry from the more maximalist ambitions expressed both before and after Feb. 24. No, when this scenario inevitably comes to pass, it will clearly be a defeat for Kyiv.
...
All of which suggests that, at the end of the day, it might be necessary to tweak Holmes’s aphorism just a bit. At least when it comes to thinking about the possible outcomes of the war in Ukraine, perhaps it ought to read something more like: “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable unpalatable, must be the truth.”

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/3509458-the-unpalatable-truth-in-ukraine/

mostly reader says

richwicks says

You had the temerity to deny that Victoria Nuland was picking out the next leader of Ukraine in her intercepted phone call with Geoffrey Pyatt.

Bullshit. You lie. Again. I never said such a thing. Aren't you tired of lying?

First:

I want an answer from you to a simple question:

Did the United States instigate a coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014 to install Arseniy Yatseniuk and remove Viktor Yanukovych? Yes or no?

Let's make certain we are in agreement of what your opinion is.

Second:

We've talked about this MULTIPLE TIMES.

https://patrick.net/post/1343769/2022-02-24-greeted-like-liberators-ukraine?start=747#comment-1833967
https://patrick.net/post/1343769/2022-02-24-greeted-like-liberators-ukraine?start=799#comment-1835192
https://patrick.net/post/1345280?start=26#comment-1844159

I can find many more if you ask. Those took me a couple minutes to find. This subject has come up with your at least a dozen times, to the point I just considered you legitimate insane, legitimately. I'm not just saying "oh you're crazy" - if you actually believe the US didn't overthrow Ukraine I think you're mentally ill. I don't believe you're mentally ill though.

Many people have expressed their opinion you're a troll. A troll would be the most benign viewpoint I could give you.

You are the only person where I skim what you write, because I don't believe you have any integrity or honesty. You will deny what you previously said. It's like talking to a white house official - it's pointless when they are perfectly willing to lie. That's what you are to me. A completely dishonest person, with zero integrity that is absolutely shameless. That's your strength, a complete lack of integrity or any sort of shame.

There's some people that claim Satanism is real, and spells can be cast over the population where you can lead them in any direction through misdirection and lying. It really seems like the White House believes that, do you? You seem to.

richwicks says

Did the United States instigate a coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014 to install Arseniy Yatseniuk and remove Viktor Yanukovych? Yes or no?

I don't know. Probably not. Someone who operates with the same information as I do, yet says with confidence that it was, is a likely propagandist. That means you. Are we clear on that?

You, yet again, ignored the inconvenient question.

richwicks says

Second:

We've talked about this MULTIPLE TIMES.

Every single link that you produced supports my statement about what was said and what wasn't. Not yours. Why do you bother? Quit while you are behind.

mostly reader says

richwicks says

Did the United States instigate a coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014 to install Arseniy Yatseniuk and remove Viktor Yanukovych? Yes or no?

I don't know. Probably not.

You don't know? Are you fucking serious? "Probably not"?

richwicks says

Did the United States instigate a coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014 to install Arseniy Yatseniuk and remove Viktor Yanukovych? Yes or no?

That's your fucking answer? "Probably not"?

You're not "clear" on it?

How so? How did Victoria Nuland in a taped phone called with Geoffrey Pyatt, where they discussed who the next leader of Ukraine would be, who Victoria Nuland named, and who became the next "leader" of Ukraine - not clearly demonstrate that the US installed the leader of Ukraine after Viktor Yanukovich was driven from power?

What's so difficult here?

This is a pretty ridiculous fence to sit on.

Here's the full transcript, AGAIN which was posted on youtube here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSxaa-67yGM#t=89

On Feb 4, 2014. Viktor Yanukovych, the ousted ELECTED leader of Ukraine fled on Feb 22, 2014 - 2 weeks, and 4 days before the audio was leaked to the public. Underlined and bold is mine to point it out.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

Voice thought to be Pyatt's: I think we're in play. The Klitschko [Vitaly Klitschko, one of three main opposition leaders] piece is obviously the complicated electron here. Especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister and you've seen some of my notes on the troubles in the marriage right now so we're trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this stuff. But I think your argument to him, which you'll need to make, I think that's the next phone call you want to set up, is exactly the one you made to Yats [Arseniy Yatseniuk, another opposition leader]. And I'm glad you sort of put him on the spot on where he fits in this scenario. And I'm very glad that he said what he said in response.

Jonathan Marcus: The US says that it is working with all sides in the crisis to reach a peaceful solution, noting that "ultimately it is up to the Ukrainian people to decide their future". However this transcript suggests that the US has very clear ideas about what the outcome should be and is striving to achieve these goals. Russian spokesmen have insisted that the US is meddling in Ukraine's affairs - no more than Moscow, the cynic might say - but Washington clearly has its own game-plan. The clear purpose in leaking this conversation is to embarrass Washington and for audiences susceptible to Moscow's message to portray the US as interfering in Ukraine's domestic affairs.
Nuland: Good. I don't think Klitsch should go into the government. I don't think it's necessary, I don't think it's a good idea.

Pyatt: Yeah. I guess... in terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I'm just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok [Oleh Tyahnybok, the other opposition leader] and his guys and I'm sure that's part of what [President Viktor] Yanukovych is calculating on all this.

Nuland: [Breaks in] I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's the... what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in... he's going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it's just not going to work.

Pyatt: Yeah, no, I think that's right. OK. Good. Do you want us to set up a call with him as the next step?

Nuland: My understanding from that call - but you tell me - was that the big three were going into their own meeting and that Yats was going to offer in that context a... three-plus-one conversation or three-plus-two with you. Is that not how you understood it?

Pyatt: No. I think... I mean that's what he proposed but I think, just knowing the dynamic that's been with them where Klitschko has been the top dog, he's going to take a while to show up for whatever meeting they've got and he's probably talking to his guys at this point, so I think you reaching out directly to him helps with the personality management among the three and it gives you also a chance to move fast on all this stuff and put us behind it before they all sit down and he explains why he doesn't like it.

Nuland: OK, good. I'm happy. Why don't you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before or after.

Pyatt: OK, will do. Thanks.

Nuland: OK... one more wrinkle for you Geoff. [A click can be heard] I can't remember if I told you this, or if I only told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman [United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs] this morning, he had a new name for the UN guy Robert Serry did I write you that this morning?

Jonathan Marcus: An intriguing insight into the foreign policy process with work going on at a number of levels: Various officials attempting to marshal the Ukrainian opposition; efforts to get the UN to play an active role in bolstering a deal; and (as you can see below) the big guns waiting in the wings - US Vice-President Joe Biden clearly being lined up to give private words of encouragement at the appropriate moment.
Pyatt: Yeah I saw that.

Nuland: OK. He's now gotten both Serry and [UN Secretary General] Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and, you know, Fuck the EU.

Jonathan Marcus: Not for the first time in an international crisis, the US expresses frustration at the EU's efforts. Washington and Brussels have not been completely in step during the Ukraine crisis. The EU is divided and to some extent hesitant about picking a fight with Moscow. It certainly cannot win a short-term battle for Ukraine's affections with Moscow - it just does not have the cash inducements available. The EU has sought to play a longer game; banking on its attraction over time. But the US clearly is determined to take a much more activist role.
Pyatt: No, exactly. And I think we've got to do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude, that the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it. And again the fact that this is out there right now, I'm still trying to figure out in my mind why Yanukovych (garbled) that. In the meantime there's a Party of Regions faction meeting going on right now and I'm sure there's a lively argument going on in that group at this point. But anyway we could land jelly side up on this one if we move fast. So let me work on Klitschko and if you can just keep... we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. The other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.

Nuland: So on that piece Geoff, when I wrote the note [US vice-president's national security adviser Jake] Sullivan's come back to me VFR [direct to me], saying you need [US Vice-President Joe] Biden and I said probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the deets [details] to stick. So Biden's willing.

Pyatt: OK. Great. Thanks.

Jonathan Marcus: Overall this is a damaging episode between Washington and Moscow. Nobody really emerges with any credit. The US is clearly much more involved in trying to broker a deal in Ukraine than it publicly lets on. There is some embarrassment too for the Americans given the ease with which their communications were hacked. But is the interception and leaking of communications really the way Russia wants to conduct its foreign policy ? Goodness - after Wikileaks, Edward Snowden and the like could the Russian government be joining the radical apostles of open government? I doubt it. Though given some of the comments from Vladimir Putin's adviser on Ukraine Sergei Glazyev - for example his interview with the Kommersant-Ukraine newspaper the other day - you don't need your own listening station to be clear about Russia's intentions. Russia he said "must interfere in Ukraine" and the authorities there should use force against the demonstrators.

Here's another question

Do you believe that if Ukraine didn't have a "revolution" in 2014, that Eastern and Western Ukraine wouldn't have ended up in a conflict?

mostly reader says

richwicks says

Second:

We've talked about this MULTIPLE TIMES.

Every single link that you produced supports my statement about what was said and what wasn't. Not yours

Here's ONE link and a quote from it:

richwicks says

mostly reader says
And yet you run away from a simple question: now that we know that her line was compromised,

I know who and what NuLand and Kagan are, I've followed her for years. She's a corrupt criminal monster.

In any case, I don't care to spend time convincing you of, what is to me and many others, blatantly obvious.

Of course the US overthrew Ukraine. Nuland has been verbally attacking Russia for near a decade. The coup followed the same basic features of Ajax and PBSuccess. Take over media, foment astroturf unrest, demonize the leader, try to get them to react, fake the reaction if necessary.

Do you deny the US overthrew Ukraine in 2014?

I'm certain they were working on this for months, if not years, that's how the RUSSIANS knew to tap Victoria Nuland's phone to catch the cunt in the act. You're like those weenies that bitch and moan about Julian Assange for telling you the truth. I don't care if Lucifer himself tapped Nuland's call, it was a legitimate conversation, it happened.

I don't think you're stupid, I don't believe anybody can be this stupid. Why do you deny the US overthrew Ukraine? We have information that puts them them DEAD TO RIGHTS, but you sit on the fence, you pretend not to know.

This is like some engineer in Silly Con Valley telling me "the vaccines are safe and effective although my son just died of sudden cardiac arrest, but it would have been much worse if he didn't get the booster".

When Russia lies, it doesn't effect me. When my nation lies it costs my nation billions of dollars and gets my countrymen killed.

You know what this war means between Ukraine and Russia? Nothing. It's not our fucking concern, EXCEPT our fucking asshole government overthrew Ukraine in 2014. Our government keeps doing STUPID SHIT that we need to deal with. Putin isn't our enemy, they are in Washington DC, Langley Virginia, and Silicon Valley. They are the stupid assholes fucking up this nation.

Gasoline will be $10 a gallon by the end of the year, "it's the Putin Price hike" though, right?

The Neocons need to be strung up by the ankles because they are the greatest threat to this nation. Not "Putler". Everybody is Hitler that the Neocon fucktards want to spend a few trillion dollars on removing and asshole twats mindlessly rally around it, because they're retarded and easily manipulated.

mostly reader says

However, I did deny that "US did a coup"

And this is why I don't take you seriously. This is literally the most obvious plain coup d'état in world history. This is the most obvious blatant example, ever, in history. Nothing else comes remotely close.

Even if Victoria Nuland said "OK, this is how we're going to finish this coup" you'd deny it. Now it's really difficult for me to believe you actually think this. I consider you a crazy person or a propagandist. A troll is too good for you.

I'm left with 3 possibilities:

1) you're literally insane and believe anything the US government claims
2) you're a propagandist working on behalf of the US federal government or a "PR" agency
3) you're a troll

There's no instance in those selections in which your supposed opinion is worth considering as being a genuine conclusion you have drawn. We have Victoria dead to rights. If you can't see it, I don't think it's because you're blind or stupid. I just don't trust anything you say. I think you're an active liar, and it's purposeless, it doesn't matter what Americans believe - what happens happens, in the interim, it's just money laundering. That's what the war is about from the American perspective. They want it to go on as long as possible, just like Afghanistan. They don't care about how many people die.

The United States can, and very well may, dump a trillion or more into Ukraine. That's not going to change the course of the war. What might is if US military are dumped into the area, and then it stops being a proxy war, and is WWIII. That poses a great threat of being nuclear, and there's already rumors that US military personnel are in Ukraine. Americans, from what I've learned from them, will be silent sheep, but I don't think Europeans will, although all their leaders are paid off. If this goes to full scale war, Europe will get the first strike and it's not hard to find the remnants of WWII there. The EU may collapse, and I don't know if that's such a bad thing. I mean, their governments are fucking assholes and aren't democratic anyhow.

Russia is a resource treasure. If Europe gave a fuck about Europeans, they'd dump their alliance with the United States and align with Russia. Same thing with the United States, if the asshole traitors that run the US cared about Americans, they'd dump their alliance with Europe and align themselves with Russia. If this war escalates enough, either the US or Europe will crack, and it will likely be Europe, because US leader assholes can never admit their tremendous fuckups, they only reward them with promotion as they fall upward. Nobody making "a mistake" in the US gets fired, ever, no matter how gigantic the fuckup is. Incompetence is rewarded.

richwicks says

Here's another question

Not so fast.

1) I caught you lying.
You claimed that I denied that Victoria Nuland was picking out the next leader of Ukraine in her intercepted phone call with Geoffrey Pyatt. I never did such thing. My quotes that YOU YOURSELF SUBMITTED don't show it either. (are you so stupid that you can't parse simple sentences? sheesh) On the contrary: accepting that she did is a part of my rebuttal of your propaganda about the "coup".

2) Then, I answered your first question, and explained my reasons.

To that, you've reacted with a virtual equivalent of St. Vitus dance, mixed with a stuttering repetition mode. Major cognitive dissonance.

"Here's another question" my ass. You've dodged mine. Again. Learn to answer them before you ask further.

Copy/pasting same thing doesn't add merit to anything that you say. It does the opposite. Your point is being challenged, you have no response, so you instead parrot your compromised point over and over rather than defend it.

richwicks says

I'm left with 3 possibilities:

There's another possibility. That you are a blabbering idiot engaged in crude, low-level propaganda. Regretfully, you won't see that option. It's there but you won't see it. If you did it wouldn't be there. (<- enjoy solving this paradox)

richwicks says

What's that a picture of?

Grozny, circa 2000, courtesy of Russia which according to you is completely different from USSR. Belgrade or for that matter any city in Serbia was never bombed to that extent after WW2.

.

richwicks says

Did the United States instigate a coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014 to install Arseniy Yatseniuk and remove Viktor Yanukovych? Yes or no?

No.

Putin has fired the first salvo in his bid to take over Ukraine and restore his belowed USSR, to which aspiration he confessed last week during his TV apperance in St Petersburg.

Here how it all started:

In November 2013, Yanukovych was due to travel to Vilinius, Lithuania, for a summit with the EU where he was widely expected to sign an agreement that would have set out a framework for Ukraine’s relationship with the European bloc, including preferential terms of trade. The agreement would have set Ukraine on a clear path for eventual EU membership. He had signing this agreement as a campaign promise in 2010 presidential election. The runner-up did too, BTW, so signing the EU association agreement was widely popular.

But the agreement and Ukraine’s move closer to Europe angered Putin, who engaged in a campaign of economic pressure against Ukraine: cutting off energy supplies to the country and blocking almost all imports from Ukraine, which, BTW, was against guarantees Russia signed in Budapest Memorandum. This resulted in a 25% reduction in Ukrainian exports and pushed the country’s economy into recession. The Kremlin publicly threatened to drive Ukraine into default on its sovereign debt if it went ahead with the EU trade deal.

On Nov. 21, Yanukovych succumbed to this pressure and suddenly reversed course, saying he would not sign the EU alignment agreement, although he still favored eventual Ukrainian membership in the EU. Instead, he would accept a package of Russian financial assistance to meet the country’s debt obligations ($15B IIRC).

Yanukovych was trying his best to please both Putin, and the voters, majority of whom wanted to join the EU. The renewed 25 year Russian navy lease in Crimea in trade for lower natural gas prices= was a Charlie Foxtrot. Putin sells “favored” nations natural gas at a lower rate, and when that “favored” nation does anything that doesn’t benefit Russian interests, Putin has that “favored” nations gas bill, adjusted to retail and Putin back bills the different from the discounted rate and retail. Then Putin claims that the “fallen out of favor” nation, is screwing Russia over.. In this particular incident, Putin straight up leveraged Yanukovych- this is unassailable, even for a room temperature IQ person can comprehend this.

When the news of him reneging on his campaign promise got out and students of Kyivs colleges gathered next to the Statue of Independence to protest they were brutally beaten by the the riot police. Next day their parents were out demanding the Minister of Internal Affairs who controls the police to be sacked. They were beaten too. Yanukovich was clearly listening to Putin who advised him to never back down (as he and Kuchma did in 2004 when rigged elections were reversed after many days of protests), so instead of simply sacking the top cop, he escalated and then escalated some more until a million people were occupying the central square and adjacent streets. Now they demanded Yanukovich's resignation. The leaders of the protest met with him and agreed to have an off-cycle election in 2015, but the fuck apparently had other plans, so he escalated again which lead to 100 people being shot in one day (Feb 19, IIRC). The attempt to bring military in was unsuccessful as most of commanders have refused outright and some troops where blocked in their barracks or on the highways. So, fearing being held responsible for the whole covfefe, on Feb 22 the fucker fled and Parliament voted to install an acting President (in accordance with the constitutional procedure) and set an off-cycle presidential election for May of that year. BTW, Russia started the operation to annex Crimea two days before that - on Feb 20, 2014, so any claims it was some kind of "act of defence of their military base" is 100% pure bullshit.

None of this meets any definition of coup more then Kennedy's assasination, because except for one fuck vacating his seat all the rest of the govenment branches remained intact and functioning in accordance with the constitution. That's the beauty of the separation of powers. It does meet the definition of war of aggression and conquest on the Russia's part, though. And it all started with Putin being butthurt about Ukraine joining the EU and thus slipping away from his re-creation of the USSR, not from Nuland giving out sandwiches on the streets, as some amoebas tend to believe.

Oil refinery in Novoshahtinsk, Rostov Oblast (NOT Ukraine) liberated by a drone:

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1539512743333613569?s=20&t=X51cwd9sW64bup4DIrHyyQ

February/March: "Russia is losing so many tanks/APCs to shoulder-fired anti-tank weapons because they are not sending their best and most protected now, holding them for the later knock-out punch"
June: https://twitter.com/BecauseBitcoin/status/1539625999884816384

Fun fact: T-62 can be taken out by fucking RPG-7, no need to spend costly Javs/NLAWs on them

mostly reader says

richwicks says

Here's another question

Not so fast.

1) I caught you lying.
You claimed that I denied that Victoria Nuland was picking out the next leader of Ukraine in her intercepted phone call with Geoffrey Pyatt.

1) Victoria Nuland was picking the next leader of Ukraine at least 2 weeks and 4 days before the elected leader was removed. You agree with that
2) You deny the US engaged in a coup, despite the fact that Victoria Nuland was picking the next leader of Ukraine at least 2 weeks and 4 days before the elected leader was removed.

You can't see this contradiction in your scrambled egg "thinking". I can't really communicate with somebody with your, frankly amazing, level of cognitive dissonance.

richwicks says

You can't see this contradiction

Yawn. The ONLY way to pretend that there is contradiction is to lie by omission. That is, to ignore everything else that happened in months and years prior and to ignore some valid questions. That's what you are effectively doing, lying by omission.

Eric Holder goes into much greater detail than I would care to with someone like you - https://patrick.net/comment?comment_id=1853281

mostly reader says

richwicks says

You don't have to censor or ban anything, if they are wrong.

This, right there. This is bunch of crap and you know it. Because PROPAGANDA WORKS!

It works to make people believe in an outcome that doesn't come to pass.

Propaganda can be used to get the naive and gullible to fight a war or to support a particular cause of action.

There's not much use in propaganda in a PROXY war. We get constant propaganda about how Ukraine is going to beat Russia. I know people who believe it, you for example. Whether you or I believe this, will not change the outcome. We're on the sidelines.

There was propaganda for Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya - HEAVY propaganda. What did it do other than embarrass the stupid retards that believed it? Well, it did one other thing, it allowed the criminal sociopaths that profited off from these wars to walk away without consequence.

If you think the United States government cares about humanitarian rights or democracy, that's amazing after 20 years of them repeating this same bit over and over and over again. If the propaganda ever matches the reality, that will be a real surprise. I'd be shocked if Ukraine won this war, but I'm open to the possibility of it happening but our propaganda system has a pretty clear track record of leading people to a false belief in the eventual outcome.

mostly reader says

Good news! Apparently, US narrative is not always wrong.

We'll see in time. It would break a 20 year losing streak.

mostly reader says

richwicks says

You can't see this contradiction

Yawn.

Look, if what is blatantly painfully obvious to me is perplexing and obtuse to you, we can't really have a conversation can we?

Time will play out.

I'm not kidding when I say I don't believe anybody can really sincerely have the thinking and beliefs you claim to have. I can't believe in this conversation that you're being honest, I can't believe you're not actively lying.

If you are honestly believe that Victoria Nuland was picking the next leader of Ukraine BUT the US wasn't instigating a coup, you have a mentality I cannot access or comprehend. This is like saying "vaccinated people are 10 times more likely to die of heart disease, but the vaccine didn't cause it".

You engage in levels of denial that I could never engage in, even as a child.

Time will play out. When this stupid fucking war that the US created by overthrowing the Ukrainian government and installing a puppet asshole leadership in an attempt to weaken the Russian state ends and there's a clear outcome, then I'll remind you of this whole fruitless conversation I've had with whom I consider a propagandist, or a true moron.

Bd6r says

richwicks says

What's that a picture of?

Grozny, circa 2000, courtesy of Russia which according to you is completely different from USSR.

Why is it on on black and white film using silver halides? That was the technology that was being used in the 1940's. I used to work for RCA. Black and white photography died out before I was born, in 1971.

The Chechen war (conflict?) happened shortly after the USSR collapsed. Again, the assholes in charge then were still mostly communist fucktards that got to their position by being loyal communists, not by being competent. The USSR collapsed because it demanded before competence, obedience. It's the same reason the US is going to collapse. Moral people just opt out.

richwicks says

happened shortly after the USSR collapsed.

False. 2nd Chechen war started when Putin was in charge first as Prime minister then as President. 1999 was 8 yrs after USSR collapsed. I think you simply can not accept that Putin is a genocidal maniac who killed people by hundreds of thousands.

@richwicks

You failed to counter my points and instead just keep babbling, attributing those points to "beliefs". Learn the difference. I'm being factual, and my question (the one that you keep dodging) is based on easily available information. "Beliefs" is your prerogative, and quite limiting at that. This time around those beliefs lead you to join the ranks of proper scum.

richwicks says

We'll see in time. It would break a 20 year losing streak.

If you want to prove the official US narrative about gravity wrong, I can recommend a bridge or two. Something not too high, because every village needs an idiot.

mostly reader says

Something not too high

It is pointless to argue with willful blindness and abject lack of knowledge about post Soviet space, like thinking that Crimea is 90 pct Russian ethnicity, Sevastopol is Russian only port on Black sea, that Budapest memorandum should be ignored or does not exist, that Russia can do whatever is in its interests while rest of the world cant, no Russian invvement in 2014 attacks, + wrong predictions such as Russia will not attack Ukraine

Bd6r says

richwicks says

happened shortly after the USSR collapsed.

False. 2nd Chechen war started when Putin was in charge

The Chechen war started in 1994 and I don't believe that's a picture taken in the 1990's.

Bd6r says

I think you simply can not accept that Putin is a genocidal maniac who killed people by hundreds of thousands.

I don't care if he is. I have had 2 presidents that were both genocidal maniacs that killed people by the millions.

Putin is not a problem for me. This asshole is a problem for me:



That's the threat to our way of life, our freedom, and sovereignty. Putin is Russian's problem.

Why should I care about another nation's leader? Putin is not destroying the United States, the assholes running the United States are destroying the United States. We have DOMESTIC enemies, not foreign ones.

mostly reader says

You failed to counter my points and instead just keep babbling, a

I don't read your "counter points".

I have concluded that your thinking is not worth considering. I base this on your acceptance that Victoria Nuland was picking the next leader of Ukraine 2 weeks and 4 days before Viktor Yanukovych was ousted, but you deny there was a coup by the United States. I'm at a loss of words, literally, to try to describe this supposed disconnect in logic. I do not believe anybody can accept the US chose the next leader of Ukraine more than 2 weeks before the "revolution" (which you do) yet deny the United States had nothing to do with this destruction of the government to install the new leader, that they picked. I can't believe anybody can have this level of cognitive dissonance.

I don't care about your, hypothetical "thinking", at this point. I do not believe that your statements are honest. Trolls work for free, propagandists don't - but neither care about reality. If you are a propagandist, what does misinforming and lying people do to improve our society? You listen, don't you - until something comes up. Explain to me the utility of convincing the public of a lie.

If everybody was certain that Ukraine was in the right, and that Ukraine would win the war, in the United States - how does that change anything?

I'm concerned when my government and it's media puppets lie to me, that's all.

“Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms “ -Groucho Marx

richwicks says

The Chechen war started in 1994 and I don't believe that's a picture taken in the 1990's.

When did the second Chechen war start?
And yes, this is a picture of Grozny circa 2000, which you can not believe because of your ideological bend.

Bd6r says

, like thinking that Crimea is 90 pct Russian ethnicity,

Pre-Stalin it wasn't. Reversing Stalin's moves would mean ejecting Russians from a lot of places, and should be done.

zzyzzx says

Pre-Stalin it wasn't. Reversing Stalin's moves would mean ejecting Russians from a lot of places, and should be done.

Even now it is ca. 60 to 70 pct Russian only, so fairy tales about 90 pct voting for annexation by Russia in 2014 are clearly just fairy tales spread by RT Today and some Patnetters.

richwicks says

I don't read your "counter points".

Indeed. You either don't read or read and don't understand. Yet you attempt to respond to them.
But to be clear, those points are not there to persuade you (I know a lost cause when I see one). They are there to expose you as a babbling idiot/propaganda stooge.

Bd6r says

When did the second Chechen war start?
And yes, this is a picture of Grozny circa 2000, which you can not believe because of your ideological bend.

Sure, that's a picture of Grozny circa 2000 if somebody used something like this:



to photograph it.

Bd6r says

It is pointless to argue with willful blindness and abject lack of knowledge about post Soviet space

Indeed. I think that in this instance it's not just lack of knowledge though.

Trolling farms from you-know-where don't really attempt to push certain ideology. Some may think that they are "pro-Trump", or the opposite, but it's a wrong frame altogether. Their main objective in the west is to compromise the fabric of society and to consume mental resources on a large scale. "Keep them busy being mad about something, pit them against one another". For that, being faithful to a specific ideology is unimportant. Even harmful. So they would have one hand supporting BLM, another hand supporting KKK, and third hand just being equally pissed at everyone (there are indeed way more hands). As long as they stir shit.

Which is why I would expect it that quite a few of the BLM or KKK operatives are sponsored from oversees, and I'm very curious about the role of China and Russia in the recent events (something that I may never know).

Now, I don't know the role of the persona in question. It may be just a passionate useful idiot (this is a reasonably small forum after all). But the profile fits: lots of passion, lack of substance, "everyone is an internal enemy", support of Russian aggression in Ukraine (that's one thing common in all the categories because the stakes are so high), long quotes, attempts at visual persuasion (images). Plus, the time spent on all of that - makes you wonder if the person has a real job.

To each his own. But you are right about futility of arguing with him. Whatever I post in response is community service, sort of.

mostly reader says

Trolling farms from you-know-where don't really attempt to push certain ideology. Some may think that they are "pro-Trump", or the opposite, but it's a wrong frame altogether. Their main objective in the west is to compromise the fabric of society and to consume mental resources on a large scale. "Keep them busy being mad about something, pit them against one another".

They are just click bait. Nothing more. This picture was "part of a plan" of "Russian Collusion" to over-turn the US election in favor of Donald Trump in 2016:



And if you think I'm kidding, I'm not. It's funny. The idea is to get you to follow the the add to see more jokes and advertisements along with it. That was the "troll". It was pictures like these that Klit-ton was fuming about that stole the election from her. We're in fucking totally clown world.

richwicks says

, that's a picture of Grozny circa 2000 if somebody used something like this:

Indeed. People never use filters on their cameras to achieve visual effects they want.
And for those who have been banned from yandex here is a link: https://yandex.ru/images/touch/search?text=destroyed+grozny&source=tabbar

It is picture about 18 in this search

But of course this all is not true as st putin can not have bombed a city into oblivion and killed 20 pct of Chechens

mostly reader says

richwicks says

I don't read your "counter points".

Indeed. You either don't read or read and don't understand.

No, I don't read what you write.

Your thinking and logic is so worthless, I no longer consider anything you write worth considering. I'll respond to you, but I will never consider anything you write worth considering ever again.

Reading what you write may actually influence me to disregard similar opinions and information I find from other other sources. From my perspective, you're a madman, either constructed or completely organic, I don't know, I don't care.

richwicks says

No, I don't read what you write.

Yet you attempt to respond. It's all about space consumption, isn't it? The "mostly writer" style. When your arguments are toothless, bury the issue under piles of crap.

mostly reader says

Yet you attempt to respond.

At this point, I just sort of egg you on.

In a few years we'll see the result of the Russian / Ukrainian war. It's possible my prediction is wrong, but I think unlikely. At that time either I will be saying "told you so" or you will be telling me "I told you so".

But you have no intelligent information to give me. You're a belligerent, vile human being that jealously and worthlessly guards how you form what I think at this point is laughably called "your thoughts".

I don't think anything you say is worth deep consideration at this point. You have just recently said you cannot connect Victoria Nuland picking the next leader of Ukraine to a US coup. This is so mindbogglingly stupid, I can't trust any of your logic. On one hand, you might be honest in saying this is your genuine thinking - in this case, I consider this idiocy, on another hand if you're lying, this means you're not truthful. Regardless, nothing you said should be incorporated into my thinking.

richwicks says

You have just recently said you cannot connect Victoria Nuland picking the next leader of Ukraine to a US coup.

Aren't you tired of lying?
That's not what I said (again). I said (more like implied) that connection is not there in light of other factors. I also explained what those other factors are. Other contributors went into much greater detail on that too (you apparently don't read them either)
You are a virtual equivalent of a mentally challenged child, really. Even as a propagandist you stopped being effective once exposed. Now you resort to your last line of offense - tantrums.

mostly reader says

richwicks says

You have just recently said you cannot connect Victoria Nuland picking the next leader of Ukraine to a US coup.

Aren't you tired of lying?

Haha.

https://patrick.net/post/1343769/2022-02-24-greeted-like-liberators-ukraine?start=1123#comment-1853387

I also stopped beating my wife.

The reason I talk to people is to get different perspectives and insights into thinking. You offer none. You'll say one thing and then deny it literally a day later. You don't have any genuine thinking.

richwicks says

I also stopped beating my wife.

There's an element of surprise here, but it's not the beating part.

You do realize that your link supports my statement and destroy yours, don't you? Oh, wait. You just confessed that you don't read me, so you probably don't realize that. OK, keep them coming.

richwicks says

You'll say one thing and then deny it literally a day later.

Nope, you don't get tired of lying.
Prove it. I don't edit my statements past reasonable time. Which you should know, since as it turned out you likely keep scans of them (good, that should keep you busy) So far your links show the opposite.

mostly reader says

You do realize that your link supports my statement and destroy yours, don't you?

No, I do not.

richwicks says

mostly reader says

You do realize that your link supports my statement and destroy yours, don't you?

No, I do not.

I love it when two oppositional defiants go head to head.

Ceffer says

richwicks says

mostly reader says

You do realize that your link supports my statement and destroy yours, don't you?

No, I do not.

I love it when two oppositional defiants go head to head.

What does that mean?

I just don't think "mostly reader" is rational, for whatever reason. It doesn't matter if they are delusional or dishonest, same result -> ignore stated thinking or conclusion. Probably should ignore him altogether, but I have a strict rule of not ignoring anybody.

richwicks says

I just don't think

You could stop right there.

Of course you don't: thinking is not in job description of a propagandist. Job of a propagandist is more along the line of lying, misrepresenting, twisting facts, and pushing agenda. Basically, all the things that you do.