patrick.net

> mell

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, 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.

Putin never wanted Donbass, as in "making it part of Russia". He wanted it to be a part of Ukraine, in the role of a festering splinter. That's what the hybrid was of the last 8 years was about.

Current demands are attempts to buy time and political leverage.

P.S. I already mentioned: richwick's points run in sync with those of Russian propaganda, in terms of the timeline. From "they won't attack" to "I don't understand why Ukrainians are sacrificing their lives" to "Russia just wants to be safe". Russian talking points are parroted with uncanny synchronization. This change in tune also indicate (to me) that their plan A didn't quite work out.

mostly reader says

richwicks says

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.

Oh? Post a link to one of my points being debunked please. I don't remember this happening.

It's easy to post a link. You can do it like this:

https://www.patrick.net/post/1343825?160#comment-1824248

It's a lot easier to say that something is debonked (well to lie about it being debonked in truth) than to actually debunk it. I think everybody is pretty familiar with this type of bullshit.

What bothers me, but only a little, is I think you're absolutely full of shit, and have been more and more clear about this the more I interact with you. I'm being as direct as possible right now. You are full of shit. You're lying. I believe you to be a dishonest, dishonorable person but everybody should draw their own conclusions and not just adopt them from other people.

Patrick says

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.

Russia 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.

richwicks says

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.
richwicks says

I believe you to be a dishonest, dishonorable person but everybody should draw their own conclusions and not just adopt them from other people.

Of course you do. Getting your butt kicked has that affect of wishful mental retribution.

mostly reader says

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

Then have Ukraine agree not to join NATO and take away from Russia one of their demands, which you believe will never be met anyhow.

mostly reader says

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.

Stop the conflict in Donbass, and take away Russia's complaint about it. This is like the Israeli / Palestinian conflict in that retaliation is very selectively reported. End the conflict entirely and reduce it to police action rather than military action. Treat violent people as what they really are - not militias, but as criminals. That's what they are.

mostly reader says

3. Gives up Crimea. It already did. At least "for all practical purposes". Ukraine had no leverage to get Crimea back,

Then put it into writing in a treaty and strip Russia of yet another complaint and reason for this stupid conflict.

Russia will almost certainly achieve all their aims, so the people dying in this conflict, are only dying for propaganda purposes. It's clear to me that the US wants to restart the Cold War.

https://tass.com/politics/963868?source=patrick.net

Have you forgot about the United States seizing Russian property? I haven't. This stupid bullshit has been going on for a very long time. What purpose does this serve? It's just to aggravate Russia, it doesn't actually change anything. Assholes run my nation. They're just assholes and these assholes have driving up gasoline prices to $7 a gallon where I live. I'm tired of the assholes. Why aren't you?

mostly reader says

1. NATO. NATO had >8 year to enroll Ukraine. It didn't happen. I call BS

On that point - if Ukraine was to join NATO, Russia best invade before it does. Also during that 8 year time line Ukraine changed its Constitution removing a clause of strict neutrality and replacing it with verbiage that would allow it to join Western alliances. Just 3 weeks before Putin invaded, VP Kamala was in Europe making speeches encouraging Ukraine to join NATO.

richwicks says

Then have Ukraine agree not to join NATO

Why? NATO already demonstrated that it's not interested. Answer: because it's a BS demand.

richwicks says

Stop the conflict in Donbass, and take away Russia's complaint about it.

IT WAS RUSSIA THAT STARTED CONFLICT IN DONBASS AND ONLY RUSSIA COULD STOP IT
IT WAS RUSSIA THAT STARTED CONFLICT IN DONBASS AND ONLY RUSSIA COULD STOP IT
...
IT WAS RUSSIA THAT STARTED CONFLICT IN DONBASS AND ONLY RUSSIA COULD STOP IT

Repeat this until you reach enlightment.

richwicks says

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.

What else Ukraine can do to appease Putin? Blow him? Sounds reasonable.

Meanwhile, I found one pearl of your efforts. This thread is the perfect place to dissect and analyze your MO. Wait for it...

mostly reader says

richwicks says

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.

Well post links. You only have 262 posts.

https://www.patrick.net/user/mostly%20reader

You make claims you've debonked, show me where you have. Post links.

Russia has official complaints - they could be bullshit, just like the US often lies about why they go to war and make dishonest demands which are met and ignored anyhow. The demands of Russia are almost certain to be met, so what is the purpose of dragging out the war? If Russia is making false demands, like the US ALWAYS does, meet the demands and if the war continues regardless, it shows Russia to be full of shit, like the US was full of shit about Syria, Libya, and Iraq.

richwicks says

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"

mostly reader says

richwicks says

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"

And this post debonks "the NATO argument" how?

Ukraine can simply say, in writing "we have no intention of joining NATO for at least X number of years". But they refuse to do that.

The United States has a meat puppet as a pretend president. Zelenskyy is the same thing. If Zelenskyy wasn't a puppet, and was instead an actual leader, he's just agree to all of Russia's demands, and strip Russia of every single excuse they have for the invasion, and save a bunch of lives.

But he doesn't care, doesn't matter if he does. He's a puppet. He's just a fucking pile of meat with a CIA hand stuffed up his asshole, making his mouth move. They want death and destruction - good propaganda. The big fear our CIA goon squad has, is maybe the war would end if Ukraine agreed. Can't have that, that would lessen the propaganda.

That's that kind of rancid shit that runs this nation, and runs Ukraine.

richwicks says

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.

And so, you just employed that wack-a-mole technique.

All that's needed is a letter from the NATO secretary or France and Germany to say "No NATO membership for Ukraine" plus a pledge not to join.

Ukraine HAD a Neutrality Pledge in their Constitution from Independence to prior to the 2014 Coup.

mostly reader says

richwicks says

And this post debonks "the NATO argument" how?

It. Asserts. That. NATO. Is. Not. Interested. This shouldn't even be contested.

Then put it in a fucking treaty and strip Russia of an excuse to go to war. Why do they refuse to do this very reasonable thing?

The reality of the situation is that Ukraine's puppet leadership, the NATO puppet leadership, and the US puppet leadership want people to die. They want to drag out this conflict as long as they possibly can. That's why they won't sign that agreement. People are prevented from leaving Ukraine, citizens are being encouraged to make molotov cocktails and get killed. Zelenskyy is doing everything he can to ensure the maximum number of civilians are killed.

The US has goddamned biological labs in Ukraine. Why? Why are there UNITED STATES biological labs in Ukraine, on the border of Russia?

We have domestic enemies, not foreign ones. That's why. They are bloodthirsty murderers. They were running a child rape ring through Epstein. They just love to be fucking evil. I'm sure the fucking psychopaths right now are doing lines of coke and fucking hookers dreaming of WWIII. They'd like nothing better.

mostly reader says

And so, you just employed that wack-a-mole technique.

Your assertions are meaningless, they are just your statements, your beliefs. Why won't Ukraine and NATO make a public statement with a signed document? Because they want as many people to die as possible, because as Eisenhower warned us, the MIC runs not just this country, but Europe too.


original link


It's these fuckers causing this.

This would be a 101 on how to detect one of the propaganda techniques.

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.

Now, case in point: https://patrick.net/post/1343769&#comment-1826046 It's about that infamous intercepted conversation between Nuland and Pyatt, and conclusion by our resident "Russia-good-US-bad" trumpet:

> The US overthrew Ukraine in a coup. Nuland is indicating who the next leader of Ukraine will be, a month before the "revolution". There's no way she could have done this if the revolution was a revolution - it was a coup. The United States picked the next leader, and you're being intentionally naive and ignorant if you believe they had no sway in who the next leaders would be.

He points out that the conversation happened a month before the Maidan revolution. Which is indeed correct.

Here's what he doesn't mention:
- That unrest in Ukraine and demonstrations on Maidan started in 2013
- That by the time of this conversation, the political landscape of the opposition has already shaped out
- That (likely) Russian puppet Yanukovitch was already a political corpse

Here's what I gather on the surface of this conversation: the wheels were in motion, and US saw an opportunity in this new development. We inserted ourselves into this picture. Some may say that we shouldn't have, and I won't argue. That's not a discussion that I'd be having.

However, that's not his assertion. The assertion is about US overthrowing Ukraine, which is simply not in evidence. Not based on that chat.

You may suggest that it still doesn't look good. I agree with that. You may also suggest that our involvement started much earlier. That would be speculation by association, but I still wouldn't argue, except for one thing.

Here it is.

We now know that Nuland's line was compromised. WHERE THE FUCK ARE HER CONVERSATIONs THAT WOULD FIT THE TIMELINE OF THE BEGINNING OF THE UPRISING?? Where are the conversations which would incriminate us in starting the whole thing? Something going back to November 2013, or even prior? (edit: to be clear, Maidan started in Nov. 2013, not 2014)

Russia invited this question by de-facto disclosing that her phone was bugged.

None. Nada. Zilch. Apparently, this is the best that they had. THIS IS THE BEST THEY HAD! They couldn't produce a conversation which lead to Maidan in 2013. They couldn't produce a convesation which would explain how all those mentioned players - Yatsenyuk, Klitchko, others - got to the top of the movement. They only produced the conversation which discussed how we wanted to play/shuffle the cards in the landscape which already was there.

Which doesn't stop some unscrupulous minds from throwing around the "US revolt" theory left and right, where it fits and where it doesn't. Because "speculation by association".

Moral? Pay attention to small details, that's where most of manipulation happens. Pay even more attention to what they don't say. Because lying by omission may be quite powerful.

One way to turn truth into a lie.

mostly reader says

1. NATO. NATO had >8 year to enroll Ukraine. It didn't happen. I call BS

Until Russia gets a signed letter, it's a continuing threat. NATO members have conducted exercises in Ukraine just last year:
COSSACK MACE
https://foreignbrief.com/daily-news/ukraine-british-joint-military-exercise-cossack-mace-2021-concludes-today/?source=patrick.net
TRIDENT:
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/ukraine-holds-military-drills-with-us-forces-nato-allies-2021-09-20/

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

Donbas left because of a Coup of an Elected Government - not just the President, but members of Parliament were hounded out by a mob. Guess which region had their MPs and Presidential choice removed? They decided it was time to "Stop the Steal" by leaving.

There was other fuckery, like Donbas-area police, military, and civil officers being sacked, unpaid, or locked out of national and regional offices illegally and without any process after the 2014 Coup.

mostly reader says

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.

Official recognition/Surrendering Claims is a Big Deal. It means there is no excuse for Ukraine to start something OR, if it joins a foreign alliance, it can't claim it's OFFICIAL territory is being occupied, so it's defensive to call on friends to help take it back. Which it can legally do at any time without the formal "Quit Claim" (or in EUIV: "Revoke Claim")

Because strategically, Russia is finished. Regardless of the outcome of this war.

No offense, but this is an ignorant remark. No country the size in landmass and culture like Russia is 'finished'.

What I'm seeing is a long planned response, including reminding people that the USSR was mostly self-sufficient and including new alliances with Chinese Finance and Industry.

Europe and the US is too dependent on CHYna to sanction it meaningfully. That's why you've seen the US try to threaten India. But of course, Modi would say "If you're going to sanction me for not sanctioning, all you do is help China and show how unfair you are - where are these same sanctions on CHYna for not sanctioning?"

> 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?

mostly reader says

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.

The truth is easy to ascertain because there's no contradictions in truth.

Lies are complicated, which is why you have to write a paragraph to explain why people shouldn't trust their lying ears. I have a little more faith in the reasoning of people, and I don't try to confuse that reasoning or question it.

Victoria Nuland was recorded a month before the CIA coup d'etat of Ukraine and in that recording she is openly discussing who the next "leader" of Ukraine would be - or the apparent leader. The CIA runs Ukraine just like they run the United States.

This:



is not our president. He's a meat puppet of the CIA - but this, obviously is.

richwicks says

What 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.

mostly reader says

> 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?

Russia responded to a Coup on a neighboring country that overthrew a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED government, including non-pro-Western Parliament Members, not just the President.

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.

Yes, the goals are for a Neutral Ukraine and recognition of Crimea. As well as the Donbas, but that might be a point the Russians might give up in return for monitored Elections in Ukraine

Remember, Ukraine was Neutral by Constitutional Clause until the Coup of 2014, which resulted in a purge of Eastern Ukrainian MPs (and other officials) as well as the Majority-winning President.

AmericanKulak says

- Do you deny that Russia started hybrid war in Donbass?

Yes or no?

AmericanKulak says

Yes, Russia has abided by many treaties in the past.

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!! You can't make this up.
Righting it down.

"He cheated on me so many times. And I so many times was faithful to him!"

mostly reader says

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.

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.
mostly reader says

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!! You can't make this up.

Ad hom.

Which Treaties has Russia broken? Note: Legally withdrawing from a treaty != not obeying it.

Here is a treaty we talked of leaving:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWrsggtpv7E
That wasn't a violation, that was and announcement legally withdrawing from it.

We didn't violate the treaty, we left it. Big difference.
The burden is on YOU to find the total number of treaties that Russia is signed onto, and which ones they clearly violated, and what the percentage or ratio was.

AmericanKulak says

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"

The one and the only. They backstabbed the country which they pledged to protect,.

mostly reader says

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.

mostly reader says

richwicks says

What poppycock.

You didn't even read it, did you? Read it. Compare timelines. Not just one point, the entire timeline.

I have compared timelines. The audio call was made public 3 weeks before Yanukovych was deposed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2XNN0Yt6D8&source=patrick.net

That was posted on February 7, 2014

Yanukovych was removed from office on February 22, 2014

See how easy the truth is? That's why I prefer it. It's much easier to understand than a lie.

I don't think you're worth listening to, and frankly given the quality of conversation I've had on this site over the course of the last few years, I'm doubtful you have much of an impact here. I honestly don't think you're worth much consideration.

mostly reader says

I explained why your "CIA coup" assertion is dishonest.

Well, you attempted to lie about it. That's fine.

I'm well beyond the anger of having dupes and propagandists being around. They are NEVER going away. I fully accept that. I can't even get the littlest bit upset with them. Like disease, it's never going away.

At George of the 2020 Color Revolution elites played on us. The martyr of the movement… fuck this government

Fortwaynemobile says

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:



And this is a white supremacist:



But it's all changed! We're getting COMPLETELY ACCURATE information about Ukraine now. They wouldn't lie about a war would they?


original link


Well.. They wouldn't be lying now.. :P

richwicks says

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.

I'll repeat that part:

We now know that Nuland's line was compromised. WHERE THE FUCK ARE HER CONVERSATIONs THAT WOULD FIT THE TIMELINE OF THE BEGINNING OF THE UPRISING?? Where are the conversations which would incriminate us in starting the whole thing? Something going back to November 2013, or even prior?

Russia invited this question by de-facto disclosing that her phone was bugged.

None. Nada. Zilch. Apparently, this is the best that they had. THIS IS THE BEST THEY HAD! They couldn't produce a conversation which lead to Maidan in 2013. They couldn't produce a convesation which would explain how all those mentioned players - Yatsenyuk, Klitchko, others - got to the top of the movement. They only produced the conversation which discussed how we wanted to play/shuffle the cards in the landscape which already was there.

Which doesn't stop some unscrupulous minds from throwing around the "US revolt" theory left and right, where it fits and where it doesn't. Because "speculation by association".

* "November" - because that's when unrest on Maidan started

Fortwaynemobile says

At George of the 2020 Color Revolution elites played on us. The martyr of the movement… fuck this government

You got it.

richwicks says

Yeah, that's right. This guy is a hero saint:

Yup, a roided out drug addict never do well who beat up girlfriends, sold drugs, and invaded then burgled the home of a pregnant lady disguised in a security uniform, smacking her pregnant ass around. Nobody stays that big so long without Roids or Pre-Roids - see also Hugh Jackman, another Hollywood Special Exemption from the Rules All Else Must Follow. No 40 year old goes from reasonably fit to jacked in a few months by simply hitting the gym and eating chicken and broccoli and Protein Whey Shakes.

AmericanKulak says

mostly reader says

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.

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.
Got it.

mostly reader says

So, you have ignored the emphasis -

I'm just kind of ignoring you.

When I said I didn't think you were worth much consideration, I wasn't saying that just to insult you. I think it's quite a waste of my time to pay attention to what you write.

For example, it's entirely irrelevant even if Yanukovych was about to be removed anyhow, the fact of the matter is that Nuland is clearly deciding on who the next "leader" is going to be. That's a fact. It's not a supposition, it's not an inference, that's absolutely without doubt, true.

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. And to compound it our bullshit "news" media only reported her SHOCKING (!!! clasp my pearls !!!) use of vulgarity, and omitted the part where she was talking about who the next leader of Ukraine was going to be and who wouldn't be.

Our fucking system, it's just hilarious. They don't even respect the public enough to LIE to them at this point.

And you, you poor dope, you still believe it or claim you do, and are incensed I don't. Just ridiculous.

My government and my news, they are worth nothing more than my contempt at this point.

richwicks says

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.

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? Have you found answers to that inconvenient "how come that's the best they have" question? Or waiting for instructions?

mostly reader says

richwicks says

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.

?

mostly reader says

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.

You use "propaganda machine" in the way our government uses "insurrection" or "white supremacist".

I'm tired of newspeak, and people, like you, who commonly use this sort of tactic, simply can't be taken seriously. We've had the audio for nearly a decade.

mostly reader says

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.

I know exactly how my government overthrows other governments. I know what they did in Operation Ajax and PBSuccess. I know how they fund astroturf campaigns, and you do as well, since they did it in the United States with Antifa and BLM. It took our intelligence agencies 4 years to toss out Trump. How long did they work in Ukraine? I don't know, but Nuland said they pumped in 5 billion dollars for the effort.

If the coup was not successful, and it failed, the audio recording is still important because it shows US intervention in Ukraine something we shouldn't be fucking doing. Self determination IS I believe a human right, our nation, or rather our intelligence agencies, subvert that.

The reason Hunter Biden, a cokehead loser, is on the BOD of Burisma, is just because of US government intervention and blatant corruption. Who isn't fed up with this kind of shit? You're not apparently.

If our pederast pervert president Biden was LEGITIMATELY elected, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but he wasn't. He was installed by our intelligence agencies and WE have no right to self determination. Who is our enemy? Well, I'd put Russia pretty far down that list. They aren't fucking with our elections, but that lie can stand because our traitorous intelligence agencies have deemed it to be so.

A gestapo runs our country, we don't. You're a promoter of that gestapo, because you're either a coward or an idiot. Doesn't particularly matter which it is. Even the traitors that work in the intelligence agencies will be fucked by that machine in time. They're just useful idiots.

richwicks says

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.

You really should change your handle to "mostly writer".

mostly reader says

richwicks says

It'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.

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.

When has that been part of the job description of the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs?

What right does the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs have to pick a new leader in Ukraine?

Now that she is Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs she's explaining why there are US biological research labs in Ukraine. What are they doing in Ukraine?

It's astounding. What a fucking snake she is.

mostly reader says

You really should change your handle to "mostly writer".

No, I prefer to use my real name when voicing my political dissent.

mostly reader says

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.

Not worth answering. It's very clear to everybody who isn't a Faux Skeptic that the US and Soros NGOs were deeply involved in organizing the Maidan Protests.

The support for the Maidan Protesters was present from day one when the US warned the then-Ukrainian government to be very careful with the protesters, basically treat them the way Blue Cities treated Antifa/BLM rioters, to let them run riot no matter what.

This is like saying "Mossadegh wasn't overthrown with CIA help, it was totally organic and domestic, yeah, that's the ticket."

richwicks says

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.

Anyways, that was fun. Hope it helps someone.

mostly reader says

richwicks says

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.

Again, this is why I don't treat you seriously.

The Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs was openly choosing the next leader of Ukraine before the position for leader of Ukraine was open.

She had no business doing this. Obviously. This is some fucking insane level of fuckery of our government, and you just ignore it. Could you imagine if a Russian diplomat of ANY rank was openly discussing in a conversation who the next leader of the United States was going to be just prior to having the president ousted and then 3 weeks later, that's who the next "president" was?

I keep going back to this as if it's a big fucking deal, because it's a very big fucking deal. Ukraine is at war because of this. Think this asshole is really in charge of anything?



Do you?

A US puppet has been installed in a nation where Russia has been twice attacked before, and who is hosting biological "research" labs.

What
the
fuck??

If say, what happened in Ukraine happened in Mexico and Russia was behind it, you'd be singing and entirely different tune. What if Russia had biological "research" labs in Mexico?

And let's say the US went to war with Mexico over this bullshit, and the Russian puppet leader there refused to stand down, refused to surrender, and encouraged his civilian population to fight with improvised weapons? Zelenskyy is a fucking monster who is INTENTIONALLY getting people killed.

What would you be saying about this? I'd be saying the same thing as I am now

It's just crazy. You're crazy.

richwicks says

I'm just kind of ignoring you... (followed by hundreds of lines of text and recycling the same points)

This is not what "ignoring" looks like.

"mostly writer". Seriously. Very fitting.

mostly reader says

richwicks says

I'm just kind of ignoring you... (followed by hundreds of lines of text and recycling the same points)

This is not what "ignoring" looks like.

Yeah, I was being sloppy in my writing.

What I should have said is that I do not respect your thinking at all, it's not worth my time to try to explain why it's wrong, and I don't think you could possibly change any minds to your version of what I laughably would call "thinking" anyhow so there's little point in going through the effort or time to explain what is wrong about how you bizarrely draw conclusions.

Or more succinctly, I think everybody here realizes you're incorrect, and you're incapable of realizing it.

richwicks says

Yeah, I was being sloppy in my writing.

Indeed. You are also sloppy in your thinking.

richwicks says

Or more succinctly, I think everybody here realizes you're incorrect, and you're incapable of realizing it.

I wouldn't know that I'm incorrect until someone destroys my argument. You haven't, you've started shatting bricks instead. You probably understand that you've been owned. You should also realize that your argumentum ad populum just made you look like a FB snowflake.