If the Russians assassinate him, they "accomplish" 2 things:

1. They immortalize him as a martyr and rallying call
2. They put the assassination of Putin on the table

The Ruble-USD exchange rate is currently 128-1. For context, it was 80-1 a week ago, and 35-1 before the invasion of Crimea.

Serious question. How do we know what we are being told about anything is actually factual, true and unbiased?

Seen pics that were taken years ago and vids that have been used taken from Sony play station games.
My faith in trusting anything the media says to me is at an all time low so I'm curious where this stands with other members commenting here?
What do you actually know to be true?

When CNN, Fox, CBS, MSNBC, Reuters, Associated Press, the BBC, and reports, speeches, and votes (like regarding war crimes) that come from the UN all say basically the same things, I think you can believe it to be at least 95% accurate.

When Putin says he isn't targeting civilians, I think you can be assured he is lying.

When you see multiple images and videos of Putin ridiculously sitting 20 feet away from everyone else at the lonely end of an elongated table, you can assume he is paranoid to the extreme.

I watched a Fox report last week and they clearly said, "Who the hell knows what is really going on"

Before anyone thinks I am cheering Putin on or advocating for war, death and destruction, think again, but I can't help to be brought back to the WMD stories that all of MSM spewed to us before the Gulf war. How'd that story play out? :rolleyes:

I believe our media is corrupt and biased with a penchant for protecting U.S. interests by creating and pushing false narratives in an effort to make them look all divine and the like so I really have a hard time believing much of anything that we are being told about Putin, Russia, Zelenskyy and the Ukraine.
Imo, there is definitely more to this story than what we are being told.

If you can't figure out who started this war, and therefore who the bad guys are, I actually feel sorry for you. Yes, it is always good to be skeptical to a degree, but come on. Isn't this specific invasion clear enough to see it for what it is?

Sure, we don't know all the details. But we do see bombs and artillery shelling Ukranian cities, and miles upon miles of tanks invading across a sovereign border. Or are you thinking all the many competing news services in the free word are colluding to fool you?

oh yah and let's not forget how our military AND our government (up to the President) BS'd the public about Pat Tillman's death.

and no one was ever held accountable.

I don't think anyone doubts what is happening here......but all sides will have their own propaganda. Looks to be the Russians WAY more so here, but there will be some BS coming from the good side as well. Zelensky has tried some already, but can't blame him.

So, Putin, just out of the blue, decided to invade Ukraine for something to do?
Imo, the story that should be told is someone and/or something poked the bear, but of course we are hearing very little about that side of it.

And, just so you know, the media is happy to embellish and outright lie to you as they compete for viewership and ratings.
Sensationalism by any means necessary is used each and everyday by each and everyone of them.

See, it wasn't so hard to figure out.

He's trying to put the Soviet Union back together. First was Crimea, next Ukraine, then if all goes well, Moldova, and so on.

Seriously, don't you think Russia is invading, for the purpose of taking over, the Ukraine? And how hard would one have to poke the bear to justify that?

Mark, the MSM has pushed propaganda to fit their narrative for decades. Why would this situation be any different? Is Putin a good guy? NO....but wouldn't you be interested learning if there was a different story not being told? I sure would.

For as often as they're been proven wrong, YES!

Yeah, I'm sure Hitler had an excuse to invade sovereign nations one after the other, too. Gosh, maybe he really was the victim after all.

The sad truth is that totally innocent men, women, and children are being hurt and dying because of this action, regardless of who initially started it and their reasons for doing so.

And, just like I thought. Lots of North American interest in regards to Putin and the Ukraine.
What he says about Chrystia Freeland is 100% true. She was seen with this group holding this flag.
(Watch the Jimmy Dore vid below. You'll learn something)
https://youtu.be/KfaAyiP8Wuc
https://tnc.news/2022/03/03/national...stia-freeland/

Why do you continue to trust Jimmy Dore?

You didn't watch the video, did you? No need to answer. I know from the time you posted you practically had zero chance to.

Almost everything he broadcasts uses media sources, govt documents or first hand testimony as the focus of each show. Kinda like real journalists should do. Pretty pathetic that a comedian is putting the boots to MSM networks.
Why doesn't CNN or MSNBC invite him to their shows? Fox does. What are the others afraid of?

I was only suggesting there might be more at play we're not being told, not that Putin is an innocent Saint.

There was a dip in April 2020, but it came back pretty quickly.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/Le...s=MCRFPUS2&f=M

5 minutes in to that video and just WTF? A nutcase using the posturing of an even less coherent nutcase to support something that isn't at all clear...

Overall reaction?

Who? ranting about who?

Oh, a startup "news" organization that can't or won't even supply computers to their work from home employees....
Did they check if she knows either Russian or Ukranian? If not, how would she know what the banner said. And if she did what are the chances she knows some obscure historical groups slogans?

The weekly world news is a more credible source.

Yeah, keep believing that and believe you're being informed.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/GS8TU...gjJB8um5koRLE0

On the last long thread, you posted a Fox News clip from Facebook. We can agree to disagree, but Facebook? Fox news?? Not exactly where one goes to for "truth."

No, I think he feared they would eventually join NATO so this would be a stop to that. I think it could be as simple as that.

In that other thread you said you didn't watch MSM for your news so where exactly do you get yours from?
Don't like Fox, FB nor Jimmy Dore by the sounds of it so where do you, exactly, get your news from? Just listen to other people who share the same views as yours and call it a day? :confused:

Are you actually watching or listening to any of the dastardly "MSM", or are you just watching FOX News try to convince you that's what they aren't.

BTW the acronym "MSM" repeated over and over again, is just a devious way of dismissing any semblance of a free press.

No, I don't watch Fox news either even though they are, by far, imo, less biased and partisan than CNN or MSNBC.

CNN's and MSNBC's ratings have plummeted lately and I attribute that to people finally waking up and realizing they are just Liberal propaganda sites anymore that spread nothing but lies and fake news.
FOX news, for what's it's worth, is leading the charge now with MSM ratings, but many, like the vids I have posted, are turning to the likes of Jimmy Dore and Joe Rogan, to name just a couple.

MSM, btw, is the acronym for Main Stream Media. I wouldn't necessarily lump all other Free Press entities in with them as they clearly aren't Main Stream, imo.

LOL. :D

Maybe I should watch more MSM?
https://newtube.app/user/Fredyatelmstreet13/YkKq1pf

Personally I’ve always looked at attacks on “MSM” (whatever that means) as “what they report doesn’t align with what I believe”. CNN is obviously liberal leaning. Fox News is obviously conservative leaning. They both cook up factual news and season it with a heavy dose of opinion. 90% of press falls in the middle and outside of editorial sections - they are legitimately reporting the news as best and honestly as they can. But you guys feel free to argue whether the world press or YouTube comedians provide the best and most accurate coverage - while you do so remember bureaus of all major news sources in Russia (BBC, CNN, FoxNews, AP, Reuters, Al-Jazerra, etc) are closing up shop and removing their journalist and the two major Russian news channels remaining that aren’t state run signed off in the last 48 hours as the Duma (Russian Legislative Branch) passed laws punishing journalist who report “mis-information” with up to 15 years in prison.

If you don't watch Fox News, then how can you say they are less biased and partisan?

Nice shot!!!
 

Hey, just want to let you know your not alone out here. Most people don't realize that the news they watch is corporate media, not truly independent media. Regarding the entire Ukraine thing, most people are unaware of what the U.S. promised Russia about NATO after the latter agreed to the unification of Germany. Russia has warned the U.S. about Ukraine for years now and their warnings have been completely ignored despite the U.S. also being warned by many Russian scholars and former ambassadors to Russia.

To espouse this viewpoint doesn't mean that one is a Russian asset or that they support the war. It just means you're educated and know why the crisis is occurring. It's very hard to have rational conversations with people on the subject who don't know any of the background.

Btw, Dore is excellent and has on excellent and truly informed people like Glenn Greewald, Max Blumenthal, etc.

Yeah, if you watched the Dore video that Irv linked to previously you'd think the US promised Russia that NATO would not expand any further to the east of Germany. If that's what you think, "it just means you're [not] educated."

"The Myth of a No-NATO-Enlargement Pledge to Russia"

https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazona...prilkramer.pdf

"Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says “No”"

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-fr...achev-says-no/

And an excellent article from a dastardly, not-to-be-trusted MSM

"The Historical Dispute Behind Russia’s Threat to Invade Ukraine"

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...invade-ukraine

There is one site that I found that seems to support your view:

"NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard"

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-b...early#_ednref1

And I like that site because of all the documentation it provides. However, after reading several of the documents the site links to to support the view that Gorbachev was promised NATO would not expand, I don't see how they come to that conclusion. I could find no such promise documented in the documents I looked at. So feel free to provide a link to a credible document that supports your "educated" view that the US promised Russia that NATO would not expand to the east. And no, Dore is not a credible source.

"The Press and Public Misperceptions About the Iraq War"

https://web.archive.org/web/20110611...-Iraq-War.aspx

The short article is a good read, but here are a few excerpts:

"The study found three widespread misperceptions:

"49 percent believed that the United States had found evidence that Iraq was working closely with al-Qaeda;

"22 percent believed that actual weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq;

"23 percent believed that world public opinion favored the United States going to war with Iraq.

Overall, 60 percent of those we polled had at least one of these three misperceptions."

"As shown below, the percentage that had at least one of these misperceptions ranged from 23 percent among those who primarily got their news from National Public Radio (NPR) or PBS to 80 percent among those who primarily got their news from Fox News."

"However, there is also evidence that news outlets—some more than others—have allowed themselves to be passive transmitters of such messages."

Again, it's a short article but well worth the read.

Facebook is a great place to get news:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fake-cnn-...212045365.html

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. :rolleyes:

You're first link says: "These assertions were sharply challenged at the time by other observers, including former U.S. policymakers who played a direct role in the German reunification process. George H. W. Bush, Brent Scowcroft, and James A. Baker." Gee, I guess if those honest boy scouts say it, it must be true!

And you quote...The Brookings Institute, lol - that "humanitarian" think tank that was such a passionate advocate for the Iraq War.

The Yaffa article says: 'In the early nineties, Bill Clinton’s Administration was curious enough to look into the matter, commissioning an investigation on the question of deploying nato troops east of Germany. The takeaway was emphatic: Yeltsin was wrong. The agreement was limited to the role that nato could play in a united Germany, and had nothing to do with other countries in Eastern Europe. American diplomats should “pointedly remind the Russians of this basic fact,” the report said. Another opinion, this time from the German foreign ministry, ultimately agreed, but acknowledged that Russian claims contained a “political and psychological substance we had to take seriously.”'

"The takeaway was"...

The last article yes, does confirm my point of view.

The thing is, the U.S. had Russia down on the mat for years. They meddled in their elections and have also withdrawn from key treaties like the ABM, INF, and Open Skies Treaties. The U.S. participated in the coup that deposed Yanucovych and has turned a blind eye to the conflict in the Donbas. They've armed Ukraine as Putin has repeatedly made it clear that Ukraine and Georgia's inclusion into NATO was unacceptable. Even if there were no promise, which I believe there was, geopolitically it was damn stupid and arrogant for the U.S. to continue to taunt Russia and ignore the concerns of a fellow nuclear power. What the U.S. has done has encouraged Ukraine to poke the Russian bear, while knowing full well that it would never back it up militarily if anything happened. And that is exactly what is happening. Offensive weapons are currently being placed in Poland and Romania right now.

Scholars like Stephen Cohen, Noam Chomsky, John Mearsheimer and government officials and former diplomats to Russia have all discussed what I am talking about.

Btw, Dore is an excellent source as he has on journalists like Max Blumenthal, Aaron Mate, Glenn Greenwald who also corroborate what I am saying here. Dore makes no pretense at being a scholar. But what he is an open, curious human being who is interested in seeking out truth. Pompously dismissing him is a mistake, in my opinion. As far as documents go, the consensus is that while nothing was signed, the promise was made regarding NATO. Clinton was also warned. In this article by FAIR (Fairness And Accuracy In Reporting) https://fair.org/home/calling-russia...-off-the-hook/ Clinton was warned that he was making a grave error:

'In 1997, dozens of foreign policy veterans (including former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and former CIA Director Stansfield Turner) sent a joint letter to then-President Bill Clinton calling "the current US-led effort to expand NATO...a policy error of historic proportions." They predicted:

In Russia, NATO expansion, which continues to be opposed across the entire political spectrum, will strengthen the nondemocratic opposition, undercut those who favor reform and cooperation with the West [and] bring the Russians to question the entire post-Cold War settlement.'

All of this is not to say that Putin was justified in going to war. But the United States was negligent and arrogant in dismissing Putin's concerns. And that negligence is largely why we are in the situation we are in.

Hmm, way to prove your point by attacking people and not claims. Your personal bias does not prove anything.

See above.

Please note the highlighted text. Confirms what you're saying, no? NO

The article doesn't confirm your point of view, it only reiterates it. If I say the earth is flat and link to a site that also says the earth is flat, would that confirm that the earth is flat? In the meantime, the article does contain links to 30 documents that support their/your view. Surely you can find something in one of those documents that backs up your assertion.

Change of subject. Strawman argument. What does anything you wrote above have to do with NATO promising Russia that it would not expand eastward? Here, let me help you - NOTHING.

I guess from your statement earlier regarding the "honest boy scouts," it's okay for me to attack people, right?

Noam Chomsky:

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/250chomskylies.pdf

How about a link where Stephen Cohen and John Mearsheimer prove that the US and NATO promised Russia not to expand eastward?

In the meantime, here's Mearsheimer:

https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-conte...-Crisis-Is.pdf

"As the Cold War came to a close, Soviet leaders preferred that U.S.
forces remain in Europe and NATO stay intact, an arrangement they
thought would keep a reunifed Germany pacifed. But they and their
Russian successors did not want NATO to grow any larger and assumed
that Western diplomats understood their concerns. The Clinton administration evidently thought otherwise, and in the mid-1990s, it began pushing for NATO to expand."

Doesn't sound like he believes Russia was promised no eastward expansion by NATO.


Again, has nothing to do with your assertion that Russia was promised no eastward expansion.

The bottom line is Russia claims they were promised that NATO would not expand eastward. You believe that claim. Why? All you can do is cite other people with the same belief and say that confirms your belief. What evidence has been provided to you to make you believe the claim? That's all I'm asking for. Unless I see credible evidence that Russia was promised no eastward expansion by NATO, I have no reason to believe it.

That's right, I do have criticisms of the people and the institutions you site to throw smoke at what Russian scholars and informed government officials assessed at the time regarding eastward expansion of NATO.

Yes, the fourth link was making the same argument I was making. I guess they were all making it up.

Don't have time to read Paul Bogdanor's tome. I'm guess it corroborates everything you're saying.

Regarding the Yaffa article and quote, takeaways aren't always accurate.

Nice nitpicking of Mearsheimer.

Regardless of all this, what people like Kennan and McNamara were saying in the 90s is coming to pass. NATO began expansion when Russia was in chaos, struggling politically and economically. Putin has been talking about Ukraine for years. The U.S. refusal to engage him and take his concerns seriously played a pivotal role in the present crisis. Proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that promises were or weren't made ultimately isn't the issue. What is central, and was of concern to scholars like Cohen and the others mentioned earlier is how Russia would react to the encroachment of NATO on it's borders. Their concerns apparently were well-founded. I guess if Putin had talked to you, he never would have been concerned about Ukraine joining NATO. Troops stationed in bordering countries whose sole purpose is to engage you militarily, and missiles pointed at you aren't dangerous if someone didn't promise you that they wouldn't put them there. And the U.S. was correct in ignoring Putin's concerns despite his repeated statements and warnings, because they had never made that promise.

Anyway, you can have the last word! I'm here for the baseball cards. Have a good one.

I have not followed the "whys" of this conflict closely, so forgive my ignorance. But I keep hearing some people say Putin invaded Ukraine because he doesn't want another NATO nation on his border, assuming Ukraine were allowed to join. However, a quick peek at a map shows that if Russia takes over Ukraine, it will then have Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, and Romania for next door neighbors.

???

And he's ignoring that Russia already has NATO neighbors; Kaliningrad is sandwiched in between Poland and Lithuania, and Latvia and Estonia border Russia as well.

I say we send The Donald over there.

See if he can talk his boy into ending this.

He does that, he would wrap up the next election.

He brags about the Art of the Deal, this would be the biggest deal he ever closed on if he could pull that off.


That doesn't work maybe we try to get Ovechkin to take him out on the ice, one solid hit into the boards should do it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgbI55HdqQs

I was going to answer with a really caustic response, but then I decided to watch the video instead and get a good laugh.

Some nice stick work for an old man, but ultimately it's laughable Kim-Jong-Un level ego and demagoguery.

You know if any one of those actual pretty good hockey players so much as stole the puck away from him, they would have had a close relative thrown off a tall building somewhere.

This is the sort of thing that I thought only happened in bad episodes of Hogan's Heroes:

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/statu...47298520768515

It's amazing what some people will believe just because their T.V. screens and their corrupt gov't tells them.
I assume many have forgotten, or believe it was for the greater good, when their very own country invades other countries?

I see you've met Mike. :D
He is likely just upset like John Kerry is about Putin's lack of buying into the global warming scam. Couldn't believe my eyes when I seen that. Just how stupid can these dingleberries get?
How dare Putin invade another country and not be concerned about climate change!!!;)

"“I hope President Putin will help us to stay on track with respect to what we need to do for the climate,” Mr. Kerry added" :D
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...e-invasion-di/

Wow, that takes me back to, what, elementary school?

But yet you're here slinging your BS Russian propaganda.

Here you go, trying to change the topic again. Now you're talking about what was assessed at the time regarding the eastward expansion of NATO. We're discussing whether Russia was told by the US that NATO would not expand to the east. You claim that the US told Russia at the time that NATO would not expand to the east. You claim that the promise is an incontrovertible truth.

I'm only asking for proof for that claim. You are providing nothing.

You: Oh, but person X and person Y make that claim also. That confirms it.
Me: But person A and person B say it's not true.
You: You can't believe them, because "I do have criticisms of the people and the institutions you site[sic]."

That's all you offer.

Uh, yes it is the issue when you and the other Russian Stooge, Irv, come on this baseball card site and claim "The Truth about Ukraine/Russia NOT what you think." And part of the "Truth" is that the US told Russia that NATO would not expand to the east. Thereby justifying Russia attacking Ukraine to keep them out of NATO as we had promised Russia back in 1991. And now, because you can't support that claim, you want to say it doesn't matter? :eek:

Russia claims the US and NATO made the promise not to expand eastward. The US denies that claim. You believe Russia. Why? Because the US government lies? Yes, it does lie. So you don't want to believe them because they lie? Does the Russian government lie? I think it does, don't you? Or are you truly a Russian stooge who believes everything they say? If you believe the Russian government also lies, then why do you believe them in this case? Oh right, it doesn't matter whether the claim you and Irv and the Russians made about the alleged promise is true. :rolleyes: Everyone is just supposed to buy into the claim because you and Irv believe it.

Just to add a little more context to what the Russian stooge and resident idiot Irv posted. Kerry made these remarks before Irv's favorite country, Russia, attacked Ukraine.

In an interview recorded on February 21 and aired on February 23, 2022 on BBC Arabic (U.K.), former Secretary of State John Kerry, who currently serves as U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, said that he is concerned about the Ukraine crisis because the war would have "massive emissions consequences" and because people's attention - and big countries' attention – would be diverted away from the climate crisis. He said he hopes that Putin will realize that most of northern Russia is on frozen land that is now thawing, putting Russia's infrastructure and people at risk. Expressing hope that diplomacy will succeed, and that Putin will help people "stay on track" regarding the climate, Kerry also said that he is concerned about the Ukrainian people, international law, and Russian attempts to change its boundaries by force.

In response, a State Department spokesperson provided comment to MEMRI: "Secretary Kerry strongly condemns the unprovoked and unjustified attack by Russian military forces. On Monday prior to the attack, he was asked about the climate implications of a potential future conflict."

John Kerry: "I'm very concerned about, I'm concerned about Ukraine because of the people of Ukraine and because of the principles that are at risk, in terms of international law and trying to change boundaries of international law by force. I thought we lived in a world that had said no to that kind of activity. And I hope diplomacy will win.

"But massive emissions consequences to the war but equally importantly, you're going to lose people's focus, you're going to lose big country attention because they will be diverted and I think it could have a damaging impact. So, you know hopefully President Putin would realize that in the Northern part of his country, they used to live on 66% of the nation that was over frozen land.

"Now it's thawing, and his infrastructure is at risk. And the people of Russia are at risk. And so I hope President Putin will help us to stay on track with respect to what we need to do for the climate."


Fixed it for you.

No, Kerry can say what ever he wants. I don't believe in climate change because of Kerry, I do because of the evidence. Go back and read that thread.

Not anywhere near as stupid as the dingleberries floating around inside your head.

As always, great to have a stimulating conversation with you Irv.

Fixed it for you.

Why does believing in global warming make someone a cult member?

Greta’s activism convinced Germany and other European countries to phase out their nuclear plants and go renewables. Renewables are notoriously inefficient and Germany’s/Europe's carbon footprint actually expanded as nuke plants were decommissioned because of increased reliance on fossil fuels to supplement “green” energy.

Where’s that fossil fuel coming from? Russia, about 40% of it or higher.

Greta "appears" smart, she's fooled thousands, like you, but she was duped into activism by a campaign of fake and false misinformation just to pad the pockets of those promoting it.

I mean, she’s now supporting Ukraine. The country under attack by Russia. Russia, who has significantly benefited from her activism by raking in billions fueling their war machine. Like you, I don’t think she realizes what she’s done.

You should look up the Dunning Kruger effect, Mike. You're the textbook example of it.

Hey yeah. While some of it's comical, the worst part about it is the whole idea that if you try to understand a different point of view you're called a Russian sympathizer or stooge. And of course, as I know you know, it's not just the right wing. The Dems (who I don't think you wouldn't consider to be left, as I don't) were falsely claiming over the last 5 years that Trump was a Putin puppet, when he defied them on a number of things, and have been even more guilty of it.

Interesting to see how this whole thing is going to play out. A lot of armchair warriors are calling for no-fly zones and more sanctions. The sooner a diplomatic solution to this is found the better.

Dos vidanya! :)

May I ask what is so harmful about questioning MSM/news in general?

You'll be called a Russian stooge, or an anti-vaxxer, etc.

Nothing. The entire basis of human advancement has come from questioning things.

It’s when someone question something, then ignores the it’s verifiable by things like facts, numbers, maths, primary sources, physically verifiable evidence and decides that is “fake” “mis-information” or something else they had someone read to them in coloring book I just because sigh for devolution of humanity.

That’s me though. Could be an outlier or just cynical. Either way I just wish I didn’t see dead kids daily being pulled out cluster bombed apartment buildings across Ukraine or anywhere else for that matter.

What verifiable facts have come out about the Russia/Ukraine situation?

Just gonna throw a wild guess at the wall and say thousands of things reported over the past two weeks, but if you want specifics I’ll go with “your Visa debit card won’t work at the Kremlin gift shop.” That’s a good solid one.

Or American Express. Though MasterCard and Discover might still.

Don’t think American Express is throughout Europe. When I was last in the UK and Ireland no one took it.

No, if you totally buy into a claim without any evidence supporting that claim and then you say it doesn't matter whether the claim is true or not, then you are a stooge. Since you are so gung-ho for the Russian claim without evidence and it doesn't really matter whether the claim is true or not, you are a Russian stooge.

What specifically? I've heard a lot of narratives, not so much "verifiable facts".

[QUOTE=AustinMike;2202819]

No, Kerry can say what ever he wants. I do because I see it as a way of punishing, weakening, and controlling the people that I hate, the ones that voted for The Orange Meanie.
[/QUOTE



Fixed for you.

Remember back to this thread in May of 2020?

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...+change&page=2

That was your claim back then, that I only thought climate change was real because I want to punish, weaken, and control "the people that I hate, the ones that voted for," in YOUR words, "The Orange Meanie." :eek:

For me, personally, nothing! Everything I read I try to weigh with logic and take with a grain of salt. For me, personally, though, you* lose me when you start saying things like "open your eyes" and "they're all lying to you" and "truth!!" and then you post clips from InfoWars. InfoWars?? The Truth??? Sure...

Ken

PS: You* is a generic somebody/you, not Kyle/you.:)

There is absolutely nothing wrong or harmful about questioning MSM/news in general. In fact, I would encourage it.

It's only when you decide that everything MSM says is a lie and everything you read on Facebook or see on YouTube is the Truth that is harmful.

Then you get in a situation where you claim the US promised Russia that NATO would not expand to the east, get called on it, can't provide any proof, and then say it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. You become a stooge.

You only get called a Russian stooge when you say you believe Russia's claim that they were promised NATO wouldn't expand to the east, can't provide anything to support that claim, and then say it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. They you're called a Russian stooge because you ARE a Russian stooge.

I’m not your tutor or baby sitter. If for two weeks the only coverage of the war you’ve processed is “narrative” you’re either lying, slow, or oblivious. If it’s “oblivious” I’ll point you to The Institute for the Study of War. Their daily recaps of the war are pretty sound and in depth. If it’s one of the other two I can’t help you at all. Sorry.

Retired U.S. Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor's take and some clarity on the fake news that is being spread by MSM.

"TOP ARMY COLONEL: ‘PUPPET’ ZELENSKY PUTTING HIS PEOPLE AT "UNNECESSARY RISK"
https://rumble.com/vwkbrv-top-army-c...-risk-608.html

I originally said I saw this. I actually saw an interview with him on Fox. But he said a lot of the same stuff. He's correct about Zelensky, in my opinion.

You can both hate innocent people dying and question things.

Imagine if there were this much outcry against Obama when he let Russia take Crimea (and Georgia, or was that Bush?).

Imagine if the US were to invade sovereign countries under the guise of "saving them", and kill innocent people. Oh wait...

Y'all aren't wrong for hating war. But before you go calling people "Russian stooges" or insinuating others are terrorist apologists, you should be able to answer every question possible.

Why is Zelenskyy being dubbed a hero when all he has done is refuse to negotiate with Russia, then force 18-60 year old makes to stay and fight? He takes opportunistic photos that are nothing but propaganda, yet claims to be on the front lines.

Speaking of Zelenskyy, how closely is he tied to Burisma, the same company that has Hunter Biden, CIA people, etc. all on their board? The owner of the network that produced his show which he rose to fame through is on that board as well.

What does Nordstrom 2 have to do with this?

If what Putin is doing is so atrocious, why haven't US/NATO forces stepped in? If we don't want war but want to protect innocent people, why did we declare war via sanctions and leave the innocent people all but defenseless?

Have people forgotten the level of corruption and meddling the US has done in Ukraine? Or Soros's love of Ukraine?

Why did Obama/Biden allow the Clintons to sell uranium to the Russians?

Why did Biden kill our energy independence, only to buy Russian energy exports?


I'm focused on our involvement in this "conflict". Our government is as much to blame as anyone, yet I don't hear any of that coming from the MSM/news.

Imagine the US response if Cuba agreed to station Nuclear Missiles.

Is he actually forcing people to fight? I had not heard that.

Of course, we already know the answer to that, 1962.

I believe They planned an invasion first, but it wasnt logistically possible

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Banned them from leaving, then handed out 10k+ firearms to them. All the while pumping propaganda and false Russian death totals in the beginning to presumably fire up a "fighting spirit".

So semantics would affect the answer to your question.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ng/6936471001/

So you're saying we're as much to blame as Russia for what's happening right now?

Yes.

All of you that are good at finding links, can you find one talking about the lead up to this, meaning the month before the Russian Army started lining up their troops on the borders.

Just curious did Putin and Zelensky meet at all?

Just curious, how much blame do you place on the US for the Japanese attack in 1941?

So, are you saying the US should have just straight up attacked Cuba with our full military force?

Since we're imagining things, imagine if the US proposed to actually put nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

What would the acceptable Russian response be to that?

Also, as part of the agreement back in 1962, the US promised not to invade Cuba. As part of the agreement back in 1991 to get nuclear weapons out of Ukraine, Russia agreed not to attack Ukraine.

The first thought was a military response to take the missiles out. They later decided to go with a blockade, which they called a quarantine, to prevent any more missiles from being transported to Cuba. The crisis ended when Kennedy gave Khruschev his assurance that Cuba would not be invaded, and he also privately agreed to take some missiles out of Turkey.

Sounds like negotiation worked without having to shed blood. Too bad Putin (or, I guess some would say, Biden) hasn't done the same.

Oh yeah, the U.S. was lucky to have the right president at the right time. That was masterful diplomacy and statesmanship on his part.

I thought Putin would only go as far as recognizing Donetsk and Luhansk. The region leans heavily toward Russia. Official recognition by Russia as to the independence of those two regions, and the presence of Russian troops may have stopped the fighting there.

Putin absolutely made a mistake by going to war. He lost whatever high ground he had. He had legitimate arguments regarding Ukraine, but there was no reason to launch an all-out war. On the United States' part, we were foolish and arrogant, and misread how serious Russia was on the matter.

Answered above.