Post New

Russian missiles struck Odesa, the Ukrainian port city, overnight Sunday destroying Transfiguration Cathedral, damaging the Count Pototskyi Palace (Palace of Scientists), killing one, and injuring 22 others, including children.

The civilian toll is rising in Odesa, the Ukrainian port city that has been under relentless attack by Russian forces in the past week after the Kremlin pulled out of an agreement that allowed for the export of Ukrainian grain through the Black Sea.

One person died and 22 others, including four children, were injured in Russian missile strikes on Odesa overnight Sunday, according to Ukrainian officials. At least six residential buildings were damaged, as was an Orthodox cathedral where rescuers pulled an icon devoted to the patron saint of the city out of the rubble.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/23/world/europe/od...

^^Russian missiles struck Odesa, the Ukrainian port city, overnight Sunday destroying Transfiguration Cathedral, damaging the Count Pototskyi Palace (Palace of Scientists), killing one, and injuring 22 others, including children.^^

You are repeating the narrative that is fed to you. Ukrainian claims that the Orthodox cathedral in Odessa was severely damaged by a Russian missile strike are false. It will have at best been a missile defence error by Ukraine, or worse, a deliberate provocation. When we ordered the Ukraine military to fire at the nuclear plant, of course we reported it as Russia firing on it (despite controlling it and having no reason whatsoever to fire at it). Or when we blew up the Nordstream pipeline, the largest infrastructural terrorist act of the 21st century, we similarly put Russia as the culprit and when it was embarrassingly obvious that it was Washington, we turned the camera away. The UN are not even investigating it despite It being central to their concern and normally warranting being front page in the paper until it is shown that Washington organised this terrorist act. Return to this story about the cathedral combing in 2 years, once our propaganda is overshadowed by actual analysis, and you will find it to be highly unlikely that Russia is blew up the cathedral. Russia has the incentive to go after military objects. We have the incentive to create a war zone. In our media the line is "every bombing as Russia has no purpose except to create havoc". The truth is the diametric opposite of that. We are creating the havoc, have been doing so since 2014, and Russia is doing everything in their power to protect Ukraine from our rampant war sponsorship.
I sincerely do not blame you for following our own military PR narrative because prior to visiting Ukraine many times I had no idea how brainwashed I was myself. The first two visits I was still brainwashed but I started to read history, listen to everyone, and over time I learned that I was being lied to in the US. This is much like our soldiers visiting Vietnam - at first we are liberating the place, and then we realise we are destroying it without purpose. I saw the military and media take-over in Ukraine sine 2014 with my own eyes.
Imagine administering Russia, having been devastatingly invaded twice last century, and having our weapons on almost every inch of their border and asking repeatedly to have them removed. They removed the Warsaw Pact to create peace and the idea was for NATO to, if not be removed as unnecessary, then to at least stay far from Russia's border. So what do we do? We move NATO all around Russia repeatedly. Imagine standing in Russia between 2014 and 2022 and watching 14,000 Ukrainians killed by weapons supplied by us with the goal to try to lure Russia in. But they keep their cool and put efforts to have Minks I peace accords, then the Minsk II peace accords implemented, originally agreed by Ukraine. We don't even report these peace treaties because it would be so embarrassingly obvious that they should be strictly adhered to. So we turn the camera away, keep smearing Russia and our weapons continue flowing in after 2014, and promises announced that NATO will be more and more involved. Russia gave repeated warnings that this was a red line and we ignored every warning as if they were just bluffing. Our military wanted the war, continue to want the war (though some of the hysterical support at Washington goes over the top at times to far too dangerous and the military try to calm them a little).
The reports you are reading have the goal to encourage you to cheer for more weapons to be sent in. Nothing else.
The conflict there can end straight away if Washington actually wanted that. They would just listen to what Russia has been asking since 2008 which is for Ukraine to remain as a buffer zone. There more we send weapons in, the longer the war will go on for and the end will be the same - Ukraine will be disarmed and returned to peace. But we want the proxy war to go for as long as possible, our military does not want peace, and we in the public are being led to cheer it as we cheered every proxy war that we sponsored.
I'm afraid to say we are the criminals here. Furthermore we have the capacity to hold our own criminals to account legitimately owing the ordinary concept of sovereignty, but we should concentrate on criminals in other countries. Similarly if you live in Canada, you concentrate on the crimes of your own politicians, rather than going after US politicians. You criticise firstly your own domain with ten times more weight than other domains, because that is what sovereign democracy is. But concentrating on crimes of others is a non-democratic US policy trick to create hatred and emotions, and reducing accountability of our own politicians.

of course we reported it as Russia firing on it (despite controlling it and having no reason whatsoever to fire at it)

What reason does Russia have for flattening Ukraine cities.

They would just listen to what Russia has been asking since 2008 which is for Ukraine to remain as a buffer zone.

Wait...what? You believe what Putin's puppet show disseminates?
Whooo boy, have I got some fine Florida bottom land to sell you.

I'm afraid to say we are the criminals here.

What you mean, 'we', comrade?

Does anybody know this "Andromeda"? Troll farm? AI maybe?

Andromeda: You are repeating the narrative that is fed to you. ... I'm afraid to say we are the criminals here.


Simple question: did Russia violate the Budapest Memorandum?

The "narrative" is verified by numerous independent sources.

https://www.npr.org/2023/07/23/1189655846/a-russia...

There is no evidence it was a "missile defense error". Those things can happen, but just declaring that it is so doesn't make it so. Russia may not have deliberately targeted the cathedral, but it is almost certain their munitions hit it.

As for the larger war, Putin himself has made several speeches about de-Nazification and such. I don't speak Russian, but I suspect if the translations were inaccurate someone would have called the media on it. He has made his intentions and goals clear. He almost made it to Kiev, but that was thwarted. Otherwise there likely wouldn't be a Ukraine anymore.

As for "moving NATO" around Russia's borders, those nations joined voluntarily (and in fear of Russia). Putin has only himself to blame for that.

About the only thing you got right (verifiably) is that this is becoming a proxy war. Like 'Nam, or even Korea. And then we hamstring the Ukrainians by saying they can't use our weapons on targets inside the recognized borders of Russia. Which makes it easy to put assets inside Russia where the Ukrainians can't attack them (except with their own munitions, which are rather limited). Oh...you also were correct that the longer we send weapons, the longer this will go on. Sure. That's because Putin can't easily give up without appearing weak, and the Ukrainians don't want to be under Putin's control. The weapons we send help them stop the Russian invasion. Without them, this would have been over months ago (probably). Just like Czechoslovakia in 1968 (the Soviets couldn't have reformists in their midst!). I don't know if they called that action "de-Nazification" too.

Does anybody know this "Andromeda"? Troll farm? AI maybe?

He sounds like a pro-Russian person who feeds on a steady diet of TASS and the Moscow Times. There's also a prominent blog, but I can't remember the name of it. Basically spewing the Putin narrative.

It's not unlike what we have in this country where "news" convinces people that child sex slave rings are run out of the basements of pizza parlors (which have no basements). If you don't check sources outside your bubble, you wouldn't know that was BS.

For context:

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


spoiler alert: yes, Putin violated it.

The memoranda, signed in Patria Hall at the Budapest Convention Center with US Ambassador Donald M. Blinken amongst others in attendance,[3] prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations."

Thank you onepoorguy for not resorting to the ridiculous argument that anyone not cheerleading the sending of weapons to Ukraine, and not taking war reports by Ukraine at face value, is automatically assumed to be employed by the Russian government.

^^The "narrative" is verified by numerous independent sources.
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/23/1189655846/a-russia...^^
There is no investigative journalism in the war regions of Ukraine at all so we will only transmit what the official Ukraine PR reports. The Ukraine PR was virtually taken over since 2014 after our Washington sponsored violent Azov coup to remove Yanukovych for not following our direct orders and actually putting the Ukrainian public first rather than Washinton's interests. From Russian reports about the cathedral bombing - https://www.rt.com/russia/580146-ukraine-strike-od... it reads:

In a statement on Sunday, the ministry said that 'the information disseminated by the Kiev regime about the Transfiguration Cathedral in the city of Odessa being hit by [Russian] high-precision weapons does not correspond to reality.' It added that all Russian strikes successfully hit military facilities in the region that were located 'at a safe distance from the temple complex.'
Officials also stressed that 'the planning of high-precision strikes against the military and terrorist infrastructure of the Kiev regime is carried out based on carefully vetted and confirmed information' in a bid to avoid hitting the civilian population as well as cultural sites.
The ministry added that the footage from the scene suggests that 'the most likely cause for the destruction of [the cathedral] was the fall of a Ukrainian anti-aircraft guided missile.' The incident could have been caused by the 'incompetent actions' of personnel managing Ukrainian air defense systems which Kiev deliberately deploys in civilian-populated areas, it added.
According to the ministry, the Russian strikes overnight successfully hit Ukrainian naval facilities near Odessa that were 'used to prepare terrorist acts against Russia' involving sea drones. Officials also claimed that the attack landed on compounds accommodating foreign mercenaries fighting for Kiev.
Do not take their report at face value, but without any real journalism, quoting what Ukraine puts out, as you have done, as meaningless as quoting what Russia puts out. Thus far, the record has been more reliable from the Russian media than the Ukraine media, but the point is to look at both sources rather than just being in a bubble with the Ukraine sources:

^^There is no evidence it was a "missile defense error". Those things can happen, but just declaring that it is so doesn't make it so.^^
I do agree. There is no evidence that it was a Russian missile, but also no evidence that it was a Ukrainian missile. And if there is evidence, such as our bombing of the Nordstream II gas pipeline, the story is banned from discussion.

^^As for the larger war, Putin himself has made several speeches about de-Nazification and such. I don't speak Russian, but I suspect if the translations were inaccurate someone would have called the media on it. He has made his intentions and goals clear. He almost made it to Kiev, but that was thwarted. Otherwise there likely wouldn't be a Ukraine anymore.^^
Their visit to Kiev was to a low-probability high-outcome chance to avert the longer war by knocking out NATO command at the centre. It failed but you can understand the strategy. Russia cannot allow NATO to be in Ukraine, period. That is the reason for their military involvement and the only reason. If was want to avoid a war, we should not place our NATO equipment there.

^^As for "moving NATO" around Russia's borders, those nations joined voluntarily (and in fear of Russia). Putin has only himself to blame for that.^^
If they voluntarily joined, which is simplistic iterpretation, then we should not permit then to join. We should recognise that moving NATO close to the Russian borders is interpreted by Russia as a red line, and will provoke a war, and so we should not do it. Even if a border region such as Romania wants to join NATO, we should not permit it. We literally have nuclear submarines in the Black Sea. Imagine a similar hostile military alliance between North Korea, Iran, Russia and China called "NKIRC" placing nuclear subs in the Gulf of Mexico. You can understand Russia treats this as deplorable, but they have been tolerating it for a decade without it hardly being reported in our press. Moving NATO in to Ukraine was the last line as way over the top. Ukraine was the traditional entry route for the devastating attacks that nearly ended the Russia in World War I and nearly ended the Soviet Union in World War II.

^^About the only thing you got right (verifiably) is that this is becoming a proxy war. ^^
I'm glad we agree on that. But you need to watch out of the idea of relying reports that claim to verify when they are not involving journalism. This is a very central point when trying to determine what is true and what are just lies. The overwhelming majority of our media, the public alike, are sincere and mean well but they all falling for the same narrative. Journalist are not even permitted in the war zones, whilst even in Vietnam they were allowed to report independently. If you report anything that contradicts Kiev now, your career is over. At home, you can say what you want, but if you are on a camera held by someone speaking English, no-one in Ukraine will report what is actually happening there out of fear.
Start by expanding your research to include sources in Russia - I don' mean to believe every word, but to start by at least including their side as part of your fact verifying. Also try to put your perspective of yourself leading Russia since 1992. You try to cooperate with the West, you dismantle the Wars Pact and expect a long period of peace, but are brutally sanctioned, a hostile military alliance is pushed to all of your borders, and then terrorism is provoked right on your border in Donetsk for years.
My instinct is that Russia should have just stayed in their own territory, but it would have been horrendous to see their own brothers being killed year after year by this Washington sponsored terrorism whilst standing there doing nothing. They tried to support the Mink I and Minsk II implementations of peace but we continued to block that, and even more recently when there were 'threats' of Ukraine negotiating peace with Russia, B. Johnson immediately flew in to block it. Russia waited 8 years from 2014 to 2022 watching all this awful terrorism that Washington sponsored - the Ukrainian military firing at Ukrainians in Luhansk and Donetsk - and they warned us relatedly that NATO joining Ukraine was a red line. We just ignored their official warnings and had plenty of opportunity to remove NATO arms and NATO cooperation from Ukraine, and there would have been not reason for Russia to enter Ukraine.

Andromeda: From Russian reports about the cathedral bombing - https://www.rt.com/russia/580146-ukraine-strike-od...

RT News? Pro-Russia propaganda? Or should I get news from TV Rain, Russia's most prominent independent television channel?

Oh wait, they suspended operations, didn't they? And didn't the official communications and media regulator block Russians' access to TV Rain and an independent radio station, Echo of Moscow? Echo of Moscow was forced to move to Berlin, wasn't it? Guess the reporters and journalists had to leave because public criticism of Russia's war -- calling it an invasion, for example -- is an offence punishable with jail time.


Andromeda: And if there is evidence, such as our bombing of the Nordstream [sic] II gas pipeline, the story is banned from discussion.

Evidence? What evidence? And please don't provide an RT News link. The last article I read said investigators found traces of undersea explosives in samples taken from a yacht searched during the investigation but the mystery has yet to be solved.

I am curious though about the four people here who agree with you that Russia is the victim in this war and that the invasion of Ukraine is the fault of America. Any of you reccers want to enter the discussion and explain your support of Russia?

And you didn't answer my question: did Russia violate the Budapest Memorandum?

^^RT News? Pro-Russia propaganda? Or should I get news from TV Rain, Russia's most prominent independent television channel?^^
It is Pro-Russia propaganda, as our media is Pro-USA propaganda. So what? I would not read only from RT News alone, as I wrote at the onset, but I definitely encourage you to include Russian sourced news along with our US sourced news. The RT news worries us so much that we have to go as far as censoring it which isn't very American. I'm happy to work out what information I can trust rather than relying on Washington to censor sources that don't suit them.

^^Oh wait, they suspended operations, didn't they?^^
RT is suspended some of their operations because we censored the channel. We censor any story that doesn't match our narrative, such as those published by Julian Assange. There is nothing new there. If you try, you can still listen to complete speeches by Sergei Lavrov or Maria Zakharova, but they are increasingly hard to come by - almost impossible to find in our media:
Recent speech by Lavrov: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbF5pXk2UDw
Earlier speech by Maria Zahkarova about our media ignoring the story prior to 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnHEk1VAyjk&t=460s
I would not have a clue what is going however the family of my spouse Ukrainian so I have been able to "unlearn" all the British and US fabricated lies I had just assumed for most of my life.

^^[And if there is evidence, such as our bombing of the Nordstream [sic] II gas pipeline, the story is banned from discussion.]]
Evidence? What evidence? ^^
The evidence is very damning and the conventional view internationally. It is just being averted here in the US because it is so embarrassing.
https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-to...

^^And you didn't answer my question: did Russia violate the Budapest Memorandum?^^
It can be argued that in 2013 our sanctions against Belarussia were in violation of Article 3 of the Memorandum. Regarding the argument of Russia violating it in 2014, the context has to be understood. After the coup in Kiev in 2014 Russia expected Crimea to be rapidly controlled militarily by ourselves - in my view that is almost unquestionable, given our circling in the Black Sea and the importance of Crimea strategically, and the British history of wanting to control the region. It was one of our strong goals to have control of the territory in carrying out the Kiev coup in 2014, with Nancy Pelosi on audio record as deciding between the various presidents for Washington to install. Russia afterwards promptly secured Crimea from NATO entry, not before, but after the coup, knowing what would have been to come. Not a single weapon was fired in provide protection to Crimea. The public of Crimea will attest to you that they were completely happy to have Russia's protection. But the troops attached to the Russian Black Sea Fleet stationed in Crimea technically placed Russia in violation of the Budapest Memorandum.

Yeah, RT is not good. And the idea that US media is censored is absurd. Otherwise you would never have heard of Hunter Biden while Joe was POTUS, or Trump and Stormy Daniels while Trump was POTUS. There is a lot of bias, but it is not government controlled. Unlike Russia, who poisons and/or imprisons dissidents and journalists.

As for nations joining NATO, many of them weren't interested until Putin starting becoming bellicose. Then they realized they would once again be the "buffer", as Stalin used them back in 1939 when he seized them as a "buffer" to Germany. Then they clamored to join. Even then they weren't keeping up with the NATO military spending obligations (most of them) until Putin invaded Ukraine. They're much better about those obligations now. I fully support the expansion of NATO. Ukraine prior to the invasion didn't want to join, and even after the invasion Biden was expressing doubts about allowing them in. Putin had no reason to fear that event. But now he does, because they want to join. Last I heard, Biden is still not completely on-board, but is saying it can be discussed. It may be a coincidence, but Putin becoming Prime Minister was in 1999, the same year that the first former-Soviet block nations started apply for -and getting- NATO membership. Finland was just accepted this year (not a former Soviet nation), and Sweden looks like it will be accepted also (also not a former Soviet nation). Both were scared by Putin's war. The closest neighbors -other than Finland- were Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, which were accepted in 2004 (18 years before Putin invaded).

As for Crimea, you fail to mention that most of the residents of Crimea were pro-Russian, and favored closer ties to Russia than the West. Most -but not all- of Ukraine favored closer ties to the West. It's a polarizing issue there, apparently. Putin is trying to make that decision for them. The sanctions on Putin began after he rolled into Crimea, so that can't be an excuse for this invasion (8 years later). He just wanted reliable access to a warm-water port.

For current events, I do read various sources. But I also listen to Perun whom provides much more detailed analysis than any other media source I have found, has many sources closer to the conflict, and freely admits when sourcing gets a bit dodgy (as he did with his recent Ukrainian spring offensive video). When Russian media claims destroying western tanks before any had even arrived (which they did), or shooting down the Ukrainian air force more than twice (i.e. claiming numbers in excess of what Ukraine has), they simply aren't credible. I do realize there are always two sides to a story. One key factor is that Putin was disillusioned when the Soviet Union fell, and has since wanted to put it back together. He has dealt harshly with critics, with Chechnya, and couldn't stand the pro-west elements in Ukraine. And I'm not even getting into unproven allegations, like the Moscow bombings (among others).

He should really just pack-up and go home. It will be a public-relations hit for him, but he controls the media so he can spin it however he likes. At this point, without using nukes, he can't win. Not unless the west suddenly gives up on Ukraine, which many nations (including Germany and Poland) aren't going to do. He could even lose Crimea (which was an illegitimate annexation anyway, even if most Crimeans didn't mind).

^^And the idea that US media is censored is absurd.^^
Are you kidding? The news is all over the place and even in our own news, that we openly censor news. The news reported by Wikileaks is overwhelmingly ignored, despite being extremely in the public interest and no published items have been shown to be false. Our media openly report that we censor news, for example we openly and proudly censor RT. I visited an Iranian news source that was very good, and only day there was a US Government message that come up on the domain saying that the publication was being censored. Censoring a story reported by CNN does qualifies as censoring, but it is precisely when we censor stories reported elsewhere, that our State PR doesn't want to be known, that the censorship is a real problem. RT censorship by USA:
https://www.vulture.com/2022/03/youtube-tiktok-met...
Ask the question - have you ever watched full interviews on RT? The reason that the answer is likely no is will not be because you have carefully studied the credibility of the information independently, but rather that the censorship has succeeded in keeping you from understanding the story. You don't trust RT at face value - that is the final step where our propaganda is working successfully.

^^I fully support the expansion of NATO.^^
The expansion of NATO that has caused Russia to remove it by force, after doing all it could in its power to negotiate NATO to leave Ukraine. To support NATO is akin to a fellow in North Korea supporting an alliance of North Korea, China, Russia and Iran to surround the USA - every ocean and every inch of our border - with the NKKCRI alliance, including nuclear subs and missiles pointing over Washington. I would not support that alliance and I would suggest to dissolve it, just as I would suggest to dissolve NATO. It has no purpose that relates to defence after the Warsaw Pact was, entirely voluntarily, dismantled.

^^For current events, I do read various sources. But I also listen to Perun whom provides much more detailed analysis than any other media source I have found.^^
This is good.

^^Putin was disillusioned when the Soviet Union fell, and has since wanted to put it back together.^^
That is another concocted story by our military public relations. The idea is that Russia is wanting to expand and take territory all around Europe. There is no evidence of it and it is merely a fear tactic to motivate us to want to destroy Russia or to legitimise interfering with their government. Russia does, however, require a strict guarantee of a non-military region buffer its borders. This is not negotiable and given that they are a nuclear State, we would take their security concerns seriously rather than just ignoring them. I do agree that if Russia is not able to have that guaranteed after countless years, then, at the very last resort, it has sadly resorts to force to achieve it. However this was after every other peaceful channel has been attempted with great patience, and repeated warnings that went unreported in our media for two decades.

I don't blame Russia for not trusting Europe or Washington given how we have treated Russia as victim every year since the Soviet Union ended. Europe and USA have very little credibility in the view of Russia given how Russia has been treated with sanctions. Imagine you were leading Russia and you wanted to retain your sovereignty, that is, independence, with NATO placing weapons all around your borders. For what? It is really important to apply symmetry and imagine us in the same situation in USA with a hostile military alliance surrounding us, and our official statements that this is unacceptable being ignored.

^^He could even lose Crimea (which was an illegitimate annexation anyway, even if most Crimeans didn't mind).^^
I have been to Crimea numerous many times and I assure you the public there are emphatically in support of protection by Russia, and it would be devastating to them if Russia left. This doesn't fit our narrative, I know, but Crimea is going very well without Washington-commanded Ukrainian military and NATO wrecking the place, as they did with Donetsk and other Russian border regions.

^^And the idea that US media is censored is absurd.^^
Are you kidding? The news is all over the place and even in our own news, that we openly censor news.

The government or a controlling body can not censor news. Decisions made as to what hits the front page, etc., that are routinely made by editorial staff are usually not censorship, though they can be. There have been times where the gov asked for reporting to be delayed and the press cooperated. During WW2 articles, etc., were routinely subject to censorship.

Every person on this board would be interested in any real, true, verifiable censorship that occurred. Most of thee complaints are that some subject dear to the complainer isn't on the front page, or widely talked about or commented on.

RT should be censored. It is a government propaganda machine. At first I watched it and enjoyed the interesting videos of areas of the world not normally videoed. Then the propaganda became apparent. And the formula is to mix real news and commentary with propaganda to give it that veneer of reality. So I censored it. :) I stopped watching.

Andromeda: And if there is evidence, such as our bombing of the Nordstream [sic] II gas pipeline, the story is banned from discussion.

Commonone: Evidence? What evidence? And please don't provide an RT News link. The last article I read said investigators found traces of undersea explosives in samples taken from a yacht searched during the investigation but the mystery has yet to be solved.

There was a blurb a month ago that a leak indicated the Ukraine did that bombing. The reason it was a mystery is that it makes no sense for any of the players to do it to USians. Evidently there's a long Euro spat over energy security we aren't up on.

Andromeda: The idea is that Russia is wanting to expand and take territory all around Europe. There is no evidence of it...

Umm. Crimea and Ukraine seem like pretty good evidence.


Andromeda: I don't blame Russia for not trusting Europe or Washington given how we have treated Russia as victim every year since the Soviet Union ended.

I don't think you meant to write that we treat Russia as a victim, did you? Don't you mean 'criminal' or 'aggressor'? Isn't that what you believe?


Asking yet again: did Russia violate the Budapest Memorandum?

It is Pro-Russia propaganda, as our media is Pro-USA propaganda. So what?

That sentence; pure Russian propaganda.

There is no equivalence between a nation with press companies that occupy the extremes and the middle...vs.... a nation that only allows state sanctioned media, and imprisons (or worse) any opposing views.

To suggest otherwise, one is either brainwashed, supremely ignorant, or 'all-in' for Russia and doesn't mind lying to make their point.

How is NATO a threat to Russia? Isn't it just a defensive pact?

Oh, I see, it removes Russia's ability to threaten and bluster militarily against her neighbors.

Who in their right mind would ever consider invading Russia.

This is answering an earlier post of Andromeda's, because I can't take the time to find it. It's the post comparing the distorted-to-untruthful government announcements and much of the news coverage regarding the US-initiated war in Vietnam. Andromeda says that US soldiers went there filled with patriotic convictions, convinced they were going to help free South Vietnam from the North Vietnamese oppressors. And only once they arrived in Vietnam did they discover what the US lies, and what they were covering up.

But that's only part of that history, leaving out an essential component that destroys any attempts to model the US/Russia'Ukraine dynamics and realities on that earlier tragedy. The essential difference? Andromeda's insistant description of the US's skullduggery and Russia as its poor victim is the very first time I have encountered this rather incredible rewriting. But in the era of the Vietnam War, I was ALWAYS aware of the reality that the government and most of the media.....those who accepted what the White House was saying....were not telling us. I was ALWAYS against that war. I always knew many others who were against it. I marched and protested, including the huge march on Washington (boy, did we have to get up early to get down there!).

But in this current situation, with such a flagrant dissonance......why hasn't this been picked up by those news sources dedicated to reality and truth?

Andromeda: I don't blame Russia for not trusting Europe or Washington given how we have treated Russia

Who is "we"? You don't come across as being American.

^^How is NATO a threat to Russia? Isn't it just a defensive pact?^^
NATO was indeed formed with a defensive intent but it is accepted that it moved beyond that long ago. NATO was involved with the needless invasion of Kuwait-Iraq in 1990, the needless invasion of Kuwait-Iraq in 1991, the needless bombing of Serbia in 1999, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2003, weapons supply and training for the murderous Iraq invasion in 2004, killings in Somalia in 2009 and the invasion of Libya. NATO is a threat to world peace and many around the world, outside of the US, understandable believe NATO should be dissolved to make the world safer and kinder.
Living in a cosy way inside the US we are not exposed to the effects of our war machine outside of our borders. We don't have any business needing to help Europe defend itself - there is no-one wanting to attack it. The only ones doing all the attacking around the world, including sponsorship of the terrorism in Ukraine from 2014-2022 that Russia is now trying to return to stability, are ourselves.

Authoritarian regimes with poor economies deeply do no want Western style democracies with vibrant economies on their borders.

NATO was indeed formed with a defensive intent but it is accepted that it moved beyond that long ago. NATO was involved with the needless invasion of Kuwait-Iraq in 1990, the needless invasion of Kuwait-Iraq in 1991, the needless bombing of Serbia in 1999, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2003, weapons supply and training for the murderous Iraq invasion in 2004, killings in Somalia in 2009 and the invasion of Libya. NATO is a threat to world peace and many around the world, outside of the US, understandable believe NATO should be dissolved to make the world safer and kinder.
Living in a cosy way inside the US we are not exposed to the effects of our war machine outside of our borders. We don't have any business needing to help Europe defend itself - there is no-one wanting to attack it. The only ones doing all the attacking around the world, including sponsorship of the terrorism in Ukraine from 2014-2022 that Russia is now trying to return to stability, are ourselves.

These are hardly my own views, others are much more critical towards the international murderousness of US power, and the criminality of all of our presidents. As I wrote at the onset, using the standards at Nuremberg Trial all of our presidents would be hung. So the discussion of who raped who is should be dwarfed by our continued international criminal actions.
These views are the census* outside our our media cocoon in the US. It astonishes how people find why I write even controversial on this board. The brainwashing here would be hilarious if it was not also sad, and part of the problem when iterated around our country. This speaks to how well lubricated our propaganda here in the US is. When one cannot even see that we are brainwashed and obedient/ambivalent to power, than that is when we are truly brainwashed.

* The 2014 Gallup poll as conducted about what the greatest threat to world peace is. Pakistan is further down the list in the no. 2 spot at 8%, then China at 6%, then North Korea, Israel. Russia hardly registered in the response. The country on top of the list as the biggest threat to world peace, far above all the others, was USA. As for more recent international polls about NATO, in 2022 across 138 countries the global approval of NATO stood at only 34%. NATO, and the majority of our war installations around the world, needs to be dissolved to make people happier around the world, and the world more stable.
Sources: (1) https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/508766/nato... (2) https://brilliantmaps.com/threat-to-peace/

Andromeda: NATO was involved with the needless invasion of Kuwait-Iraq in 1990...

So United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 was, what, an aggression against Iraq? And in your opinion Iraq was justified in its invasion and occupation of Kuwait?

Still asking: did Russia violate the Budapest Memorandum?

He could be American. My guess is that he's either a naturalized immigrant or 1st generation. And there are people that simply are pro-Russian, just as there are people that are pro-Trump, pro-Biden, pro-Israel, etc.

I only am listening to him because he's presenting the other perspective (i.e. pro-Russian). And am engaging him with facts that I can verify. We actually supported the fledgling Russian democracy. Since Putin seized power, it's been growing more antagonistic. I saw an interesting documentary on Putin (Frontline, as I recall). Putin was a disillusioned KGB agent at the time of the fall of the Soviet Union, and has since been working to recreate the Soviet Union; at least in part because he saw the Soviet society as superior to the infant democracy right after the fall. Plus he saw the West as the enemy (he's as much a Cold Warrior as I am...I grew up convinced the Soviets were going to nuke us at any moment), and wanted Russia to be competitive with the West (as the Soviet Union was, at least militarily, if not really economically).

Andromeda: NATO was involved with the needless invasion of Kuwait-Iraq in 1990...

So United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 was, what, an aggression against Iraq? And in your opinion Iraq was justified in its invasion and occupation of Kuwait?

Still asking: did Russia violate the Budapest Memorandum?

My Ukrainian friend says Andromeda likely gets paid by the response.

....but it is accepted that.....

Horsepucky.

It's so transparent when somebody tries to slip a phrase through as if everybody is in agreement as to the veracity of the phrase.....and then tries to slip in a non sequitur ; "NATO is a threat to world peace" and "many around the world, outside of the US, understandable believe NATO should be dissolved to make the world safer and kinder."

Pardon me if I LOL at those Bolshoi leaps of illogic.

To quote the great Melvin Udall, "Go sell crazy someplace else; we're all stocked up."

PS: Tripping on the peninsula? Snort. You ain't the only person on this board with friends and family east of Austria.

She uses "whilst" and spells defence with a c. She is practiced, but English may not be her first language. My gut doesn't trust her.

In the Philippines there'd be a wire grid wall with phones attached - 80 phones or so. An earlier board poster someone brought up Grayzone in response to videos by Ben Norton she's posting and taking a pro-Chinese stance.
"Blumenthal is the editor of The Grayzone website, which is known for its apologetic coverage of authoritarian regimes such as the Chinese, Russian, Syrian, and Venezuelan governments, including its denial of chemical attacks by the Syrian government and of human rights abuses against Uyghurs"

The RT news worries us so much that which isn't very American. I'm happy to work out what information I can trust rather than relying on Washington to censor sources that don't suit them.

You can read RT News and so can I. As such, how do you figger "we have to go as far as censoring it" if both you and the dreadful 'We,' "I" are reading it? You're shooting your own argument in the derriere.

PS: You need to work on the consistency of your object pronouns. They reek of agitprop.

Yeah, NATO helps keep the peace. It's not a threat. It helps keep the peace because attacking a NATO member is suicide, and -to my knowledge- two democracies have never gone to war with each other. At least one player is an autocracy in every case (possibly excepting civil wars, like the US Civil War). Which feeds back into the "suicide" angle of NATO. Putin isn't going to attack Finland -for example- because he'll face the full weight of NATO. Meanwhile, unless Finland can make a good case, NATO wouldn't support them attacking Moscow. They could do it, but that wouldn't automatically bring in NATO.

He only dared attack Ukraine because Ukraine was NOT in NATO. So a lot of countries are sending materiel, but no one is sending troops and air superiority (which we could do easily...but we aren't, and probably shouldn't). If Ukraine was NATO, we'd be obligated to send in the Marines (and SAS, and USAF, and the RN and everything else from everyone else).

I note that a lot of Russians don't support the conflict either. On the order of a million Russians have fled Russia-proper, going to Georgia, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and other neighboring countries, as well as coming to Mexico to apply for entry into the USA. Read an interesting article just today that the former Soviet republics are experiencing a surge in economic growth because most of those Russian refugees have skills (like IT), and they're applying those skills in their new homelands.

in the era of the Vietnam War, I was ALWAYS aware of the reality that the government and most of the media.....those who accepted what the White House was saying....were not telling us. I was ALWAYS against that war. I always knew many others who were against it. ....
But in this current situation, with such a flagrant dissonance......why hasn't this been picked up by those news sources dedicated to reality and truth?

Very tired when I wrote this yesterday evening, and I realize I left a central thought unspoken. And I want to make it very clear. I'm not wondering why these reliable news sources haven't yet recognized the truths underlying the Russia-Ukraine war. Quite the opposite. I'm saying that the complete void of even the slightest hints of information in line with Andromeda's infuriated claims makes it clear that those claims are the untruths.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.