by Patrick ➕follow (61) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 30 - 69 of 219 Next » Last » Search these comments
Again, see that tremendous reduction in death from all wars since America became a superpower and became World Cop. Sure America has "meddled" far outside it's borders, but the net ledger is positive. Not only in massive reduction of death from all wars, but also the tremendous reduction in extreme poverty world wide.
https://technofog.substack.com/p/ukraine-maternity-hospital-shelling?s=r&source=patrick.net
Not clear what happened there. Ukraine has a big motive to prevaricate.
The war ends as soon as Ukraine agrees not to join NATO, quits bombing Donbass, and gives up Crimea.It doesn't bother you that your points been debunked time after time. It almost like playing wack-a-mole: smack it on the nose, it disappears, and then reappears in a different hole.
richwicks saysThe war ends as soon as Ukraine agrees not to join NATO, quits bombing Donbass, and gives up Crimea.It doesn't bother you that your points been debunked time after time. It almost like playing wack-a-mole: smack it on the nose, it disappears, and then reappears in a different hole.
richwicks saysThe war ends as soon as Ukraine agrees not to join NATO, quits bombing Donbass, and gives up Crimea.It doesn't bother you that your points been debunked time after time.
https://technofog.substack.com/p/ukraine-maternity-hospital-shelling?s=r&source=patrick.netRussia already reacted. Regretfully, they haven't even internally synchronized their narrative. "Russia 1" and Solovyov (state-approved TV persona) gave conflicting messages: one said that it was Ukraine that bombed it, the other said that it was Russia but it was occupied by militant UkroNazis.
Not clear what happened there. Ukraine has a big motive to prevaricate.
Oh? Post a link to one of my points being debunked please. I don't remember this happening.I debunked NATO argument multiple times here. Are you saying that you've never seen it? Now you have.
I believe you to be a dishonest, dishonorable person but everybody should draw their own conclusions and not just adopt them from other people.
That's not what he's saying. What he's saying:
1. NATO. NATO had >8 year to enroll Ukraine. It didn't happen. I call BS
2. Bombing Donbass. It was Russia that started hybrid war in Donbass. He runs his mouth on and on about Ukraine bombing Donbass and not a peep about Donbass bombing Ukraine. When he talks about Ukraine bombing Donbass, he applies none of the critical filters regarding video (or other) materials that he applies to the other side.
3. Gives up Crimea. It already did. At least "for all practical purposes". Ukraine had no leverage to get Crimea back,
1. NATO. NATO had >8 year to enroll Ukraine. It didn't happen. I call BS
Then have Ukraine agree not to join NATOWhy? NATO already demonstrated that it's not interested. Answer: because it's a BS demand.
Stop the conflict in Donbass, and take away Russia's complaint about it.
Then put it into writing in a treaty and strip Russia of yet another complain and reason for this stupid conflict.Russia annexed Crimea. Ukraine had no practical ways to get it back. Yet Putin starts war because Ukraine doesn't sign a treaty. Riight.
richwicks saysOh? Post a link to one of my points being debunked please. I don't remember this happening.I debunked NATO argument multiple times here.
Well post links. You only have 262 posts.Oh fuck. You don't even read what's been written directly to you. Here: https://patrick.net//post/1344006&#comment-1825559 Search for "obviously"
richwicks saysWell post links. You only have 262 posts.Oh fuck. You don't even read what's been written directly to you. Here: https://patrick.net//post/1344006&#comment-1825559 Search for "obviously"
And this post debonks "the NATO argument" how?It. Asserts. That. NATO. Is. Not. Interested. This shouldn't even be contested. With Russia already having NATO countries at it's borders, it's an obvious pretext. Sign it just to reconfirm that it's a pretext? After Budapest Memorandum, any agreement signed with Russia may as well be signed on toilet paper. Because that will be it's final use.
richwicks saysAnd this post debonks "the NATO argument" how?It. Asserts. That. NATO. Is. Not. Interested. This shouldn't even be contested.
And so, you just employed that wack-a-mole technique.
1. NATO. NATO had >8 year to enroll Ukraine. It didn't happen. I call BS
2. Bombing Donbass. It was Russia that started hybrid war in Donbass. He runs his mouth on and on about Ukraine bombing Donbass and not a peep about Donbass bombing Ukraine. When he talks about Ukraine bombing Donbass, he applies none of the critical filters regarding video (or other) materials that he applies to the other side
3. Gives up Crimea. It already did. At least "for all practical purposes". Ukraine had no leverage to get Crimea back, and knew it. Ironically, Putin turned that script around. Now I can see a scenario in which Ukraine may get Crimea back.
Because strategically, Russia is finished. Regardless of the outcome of this war.
Intro: most real-life situations have a large number of variables and moving parts. It's not always clear how they fit multi-dimentional world into a coherent picture based on incomplete and ambiguous data. Slight mis-interpretation of data points - a little bit to the right here, a little bit upwards there, skip this data point because it doesn't fit, stretch another one because it supports - and you get one pictures. Change the direction in which you move the points - and you get a different picture, which may also be consistent, yet be in conflict with the first one. That's what this technique does, it paints the picture by slight manipulation of data points. Lying by omission is quite popular with this approach
What poppycock.You didn't even read it, did you? Read it. Compare timelines. Not just one point, the entire timeline.
> AmericanKulak
It's simple:
- Do you deny that Russia started hybrid war in Donbass?
- Do you consider Russia to be a trustworthy partner who would abide by a signed treaty?
- Are you aware of the proclaimed goals of the Russian invasion?
- Do you deny that Russia started hybrid war in Donbass?Yes or no?
Yes, Russia has abided by many treaties in the past.LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!! You can't make this up.
Yes, Russia has abided by many treaties in the past. SALT and the anti-ABM treaty. You'll recall that trying to dance around those treaties with SDI and "Anti-Iranian" Missile Shields was done by the USA.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!! You can't make this up.
Which Treaties has Russia broken?Russia. Broke. Budapest Memorandum. I hope you are not going to say "it's a Memorandum, which makes it ok"
Budapest Memorandum
richwicks saysWhat poppycock.You didn't even read it, did you? Read it. Compare timelines. Not just one point, the entire timeline.
I explained why your "CIA coup" assertion is dishonest.
At George of the 2020 Color Revolution elites played on us. The martyr of the movement… fuck this government
I have compared timelines. The audio call was made public 3 weeks before Yanukovych was deposed.So, you have ignored the emphasis - that the uprising started MONTHS prior. You also missed my point in capitals. You still wouldn't touch it. It destroys you.
At George of the 2020 Color Revolution elites played on us. The martyr of the movement… fuck this government
Yeah, that's right. This guy is a hero saint:
mostly reader saysI addressed the Noland/Yanukovytch comment in a post more fitting for this thread. https://patrick.net/post/1344073&40#comment-1826473 But duly noted that you 1) compare "dangling of EU Carrots and US aid" to first hybrid war and then invasion 2) assert nonetheless that Russia is a trustworthy partner.Budapest Memorandum
Violated in 2004 and 2014 by the US and UK when they fomented coups, thus failing to:
Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.
The dangling of EU Carrots and US aid for 'correct' domestic and foreign policies:
Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine to influence their politics.
We have "Toria" Nuland on tape discussing who should replace Yankovytch before he was overthrown.
So, you have ignored the emphasis -
Now if Nuland wasn't such a stupid fucking whore, she would have denied the conversation, that would have been plausible at least. But she didn't.OMG. Is that enlightenment coming through? Nah, doubt it.
richwicks saysNow if Nuland wasn't such a stupid fucking whore, she would have denied the conversation, that would have been plausible at least. But she didn't.OMG. Is that enlightenment coming through? Nah, doubt it.
Indeed. She should've foreseen into what kind of message the propaganda machine will turn this conversation. She didn't, that whore, and (I can only assume) didn't make much of it.
But how is that timeline check going? Have you already discovered that Maidan started in 2013?
It's irrelevant. It doesn't matter what happened prior.It's super relevant. It destroys your narrative. Which you would've known if you read and comprehended my post.
richwicks saysIt's irrelevant. It doesn't matter what happened prior.It's super relevant. Which you would've known if you read and comprehended my post.
You really should change your handle to "mostly writer".
I addressed the Noland/Yanukovytch comment in a post more fitting for this thread. https://patrick.net/post/1344073&40#comment-1826473 But duly noted that you 1) compare "dangling of EU Carrots and US aid" to first hybrid war and then invasion 2) assert nonetheless that Russia is a trustworthy partner.
The only point I've been making repeatedly is that Victoria Nuland was openly choosing the next leader of Ukraine before the position for leader of Ukraine was open.Of course she was. And that's a truth. And I further explained how you turned it into a lie. Omission here, omission there.. it looks like you know the drill.
« First « Previous Comments 30 - 69 of 219 Next » Last » Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,257,503 comments by 15,004 users - Ceffer, Misc online now