Russian Foreign Policy

[tecate]

Did I read wrongly, but was it not this enlightened view that the US or in particular the Democrats stirred this all up out of revenge for losing the 2016 election and now want it to drag on.

You said that he agrees with Belarus - again, I don't see where you read that - and the point you make above is not relevant to that.

At least you will have to hand it to the US that they do accommodate the alternative view, The Donald is a real Russiaphile who thinks Putin is a "really smart guy". The alternative view in Russia seems to involve 15 years in prison, if you're lucky to survive a poisoning.

So if you deem Russia to be the offender, we don't need to think for ourselves and hold other stakeholders (inclusive of the US) to account for their actions/inactions? Any comment I've made here is not in support of Putin or Russia (just so there's no misunderstanding. To think that one party can't possibly be adding to this mess just because they have a more democratic system doesn't seem like something we should assume. There is always room for improvement.

This is the same guy who declared there would be no invasion of Ukraine... that the US would distort reports of Russian military activity to turn it into an invasion. When is an invasion not a real invasion?

Tucker Carlson and Glenn Greenwald Have Reacted With Admirable Humility to Getting the Ukraine Crisis Wrong (Just Kidding)

Time to pivot!

slate.com

So remind me... has Ukraine been invaded? Come on.

So if he made that speculative call and was wrong, so what? Many people speculated on that - coming down on either side of it. Furthermore, we still don't know what the decision making process was going into it - whether it was planned from day one - or whether Russia/Putin felt that they had no choice but to go down that road - as it progressed.
Either way, if he was wrong in his speculation doesn't in any way discount any other view he expresses.

Who spreads false rumours about bio weapons.

Why? Because there are those with an opposing view? I can't say that I'm right up to speed on the subject but my understanding is that Victoria Nuland referred to such a program.

He has no credibility.

In your opinion. Ed Snowden would most likely disagree with you - and beyond that, countless others. I'm not saying his view is right/wrong but I am saying that he certainly has plenty of credibility as a journalist.

 

[tecate]

His representation of the Ukraine war concentrates exclusively on his particular view of US politics and its media.

There is NO opinion without inherrent bias. It's interesting that in this echo chamber, no other media which has beeen posted here has beeen challenged on this basis. Go figure.

Perhaps he should, like other journalists, bother to travel to Ukraine and report the Ukrainian viewpoint which might open his mind to "other possibilities and outcomes".

That may or may not be a factor - what he has written about is largely at a higher level. You can't say that being there necessarily guarantees that he has a better hold of the subject - although it may well play into it. You could have a journo imbedded with one side or another and that would have the opposite outcome ( a skewed take).

I've been to Ukraine several times - should I claim to know more about it and whats going on right now on that basis than you do? Of course not.

 

[odyssey06]

You said that he agrees with Belarus - again, I don't see where you read that - and the point you make above is not relevant to that.



So if you deem Russia to be the offender, we don't need to think for ourselves and hold other stakeholders (inclusive of the US) to account for their actions/inactions? Any comment I've made here is not in support of Putin or Russia (just so there's no misunderstanding. To think that one party can't possibly be adding to this mess just because they have a more democratic system doesn't seem like something we should assume. There is always room for improvement.


So if he made that speculative call and was wrong, so what? Many people speculated on that - coming down on either side of it. Furthermore, we still don't know what the decision making process was going into it - whether it was planned from day one - or whether Russia/Putin felt that they had no choice but to go down that road - as it progressed.
Either way, if he was wrong in his speculation doesn't in any way discount any other view he expresses.



Why? Because there are those with an opposing view? I can't say that I'm right up to speed on the subject but my understanding is that Victoria Nuland referred to such a program.



In your opinion. Ed Snowden would most likely disagree with you - and beyond that, countless others. I'm not saying his view is right/wrong but I am saying that he certainly has plenty of credibility as a journalist.

He has no credibility. He lies twists and distorts language. He is both wrong and wrong for the wrong reasons. He abuses and assaults language and truth.

You said nobody had a response.

I linked to the article showing why his claims about bio labs are false and have been debunked and you respond with weasel words about not having looked into it in detail. But yet you will retain your confidence in him no matter how many 'speculative calls' he gets wrong. They werent speculative calls. They were fake news.

Yeah thats how these con artists work spreading plausible lies that he knows there will be an audience eager to lap up without question. He is just telling you what you want to hear.

And you wont even read the article that might puncture the balloon.

Says it all.

Is the invasion of Ukraine a real invasion?
Yes.

You need to engage your fake news detectors otherwise you will fall for his next 'speculative call'.

The comments you have made here are in support of Russia. Repeating this fake news to spread relativity and the US culpable is exactly what Russia want right now.

Russia did not invade Ukraine because of NATO. Look at the list of demands they had - change of government, no EU membership, demilitarization, annexation of regions. Russia does not have the right to treat Ukraine as a colony. Russia invaded in 2014 not when Ukraine made moves to join NATO but rather the EU.
It was after that unprovoked invasion support for joining Nato increased in Ukraine. So if Russia was so concerned about Ukraine staying neutral why did it make Ukraine its enemy.

These are not legitimate demands and go far beyond Russia concerns about nuclear missiles which ring hollow given what they have in Kalingrad.

 

[Sophrosyne]

what he has written about is largely at a higher level.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

@tecate is your real name Wallace or Daly? “Don’t get me wrong I don’t support Putin, but the US Democrat party is ultimately to blame for it all.”
The fact that you have visited Ukraine does give you a greater right than me to comment on the situation. Did you spot any swastikas whilst you were there?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

It continues to baffle how much intense, reflexive left-wing hostility there is to Bitcoin given its potential. Greenwald

I should have guessed Greenwald is a cultist.

 

[tecate]

He has no credibility. He lies twists and distorts language. He is both wrong and wrong for the wrong reasons. He abuses and assaults language and truth.

So you claimed already - but you seem a tad confused - thats your opinion and nothing more. He's an award winnning journalist. Is he beyond reproach? Certainly not. But is your hatchet job credible - no it isn't - although you're entitled to hold whatever opinion you want.

You said nobody had a response.

Quite rightly I did. I introduced an entirely different viewpoint into this discussion echochamber via his article prior to you posting. Yet nobody would focus on that.

I linked to the article showing why his claims about bio labs are false and have been debunked and you respond with weasel words about not having looked into it in detail. They werent speculative calls. They were fake news.

Weasel words? Odyssey06 - you can take your ignorant, misguided sentiment and shuve it up yer jacksie! Mind your manners. That's first and foremost.
Secondly, what I said was honest - and I suppose given your response we're to assume that your sky news informed view makes you an expert on the subject? I've read through this thread - the cognitive dissonance is breathtaking.
I recall clearly that there was a lot of speculation (and yes, it is speculation - or opinion/best guess - based on speculation) as regards whether these were manoeuvers, a ramping up with a view towards negotiating a settlement, or plans from the get go to invade. Yes, the Russians crossed the border but all the while, there is no earthly way that you could know at what point Putin made that decision. Neither you nor Greenwald or anyone else - even if Greenwald's best guess was that it wouldn't happen and the outcome was otherwise. You'll be aware that as part of what he wrote in the article I linked to, he questioned to what extent the Americans had made efforts to negotiate agreement/consensus.
As for your 'fake news' conspiracy - you're presenting here with nothing of substance to dispell any such concerns. I read your article - it's just a hatchet job which dispells nothing. All the while, we have Nuland confirming that there were/are biolabs in Ukraine. If there are, who the hell was/is running them? Last time I visited Ukraine, it was a country scant on resources - yet they can finance biolabs? - Figure that one out!

But yet you will retain your confidence in him no matter how many 'speculative calls' he gets wrong.

So you're going to tell me how I will think in the future now? That's impressive.

Yeah thats how these con artists work spreading plausible lies that he knows there will be an audience eager to lap up without question. He is just telling you what you want to hear.

From your reaction and your hatchet job, it appears that this is not about 'what I want to hear' (as I'm wary of all stakeholders in this mess) - it's more about your own beliefs relative to this mess.

And you wont even read the article that might puncture the balloon.

Firstly, kindly don't make claims that you can't back up. Secondly, I read your hatchet job article - it didn't serve to dispell any concerns about biolabs.

And now we can talk in more detail about biolabs and 'fake news'!
where it clarifies that emails attributed to Hunter Biden were suppressed and passed off as Russian disinformation and fake news. It turns out that they're real and credible all the while...and those emails link the Presidents son in the funding of US biolabs in Ukraine. By the way, the Washington Post is NO friend of far right conservatives in the US and McArdle concludes the article with this:

"An actual solution will require the recognition that we in the mainstream media are part of the problem: We are not trusted because we are not entirely trustworthy. That is not the only thing that will have to be fixed to heal our epistemic divide. But it would make a very good start."

I've been calling this out for an age on another subject - this wayward notion because some legacy media title carries something, it means we can assume it to be correct. We can't and we shouldn't - we shouldn't assume anything to be correct - from anyone and nobody is beyond reproach.

And yet here you are screaming about 'fake news' relative to biolabs in Ukraine...

Says it all.

Yeah, right back at you.

Is the invasion of Ukraine a real invasion?
Yes.

Have you taken to arguing with yourself because I don't see anyone claiming that Russia hasn't invaded Ukraine on this thread?

You need to engage your fake news detectors otherwise you will fall for his next 'speculative call'.

In a thread where fault is found with one stakeholder in this mess and nobody else has been found to be anything but angels, I believe that it's more a case of you needing to overcome some natural bias you hold on the subject. You don't need to worry about my 'fake news' detection because my default is to be naturally sceptical of ALL news media - you should try it some time.

The comments you have made here are in support of Russia.

I see you also peddle fake news yourself. I most certainly have not made any comments in support of Russia - and I've gone out of my way to point that out. However, what's remarkable is the level of cognitive dissonance here - because whilst I haven't, I've suggested that there are no clean hands - and that's been enough to try to push me into suggesting I support Russia (when I don't).

Russia did not invade Ukraine because of NATO. Look at the list of demands they had - change of government, no EU membership, demilitarization, annexation of regions. Russia does not have the right to treat Ukraine as a colony. Russia invaded in 2014 not when Ukraine made moves to join NATO but rather the EU. It was after that unprovoked invasion support for joining Nato increased in Ukraine. So if Russia was so concerned about Ukraine staying neutral why did it make Ukraine its enemy.

According to you? I'm to take your word for it? Nato expansion is very much at the heart of this - It's been an issue forever and a day. The Russians were given assurances after the fall of the Soviet Union that there would be no Nato expansion into the east. And it has been very much an issue ever since.

Are you also claiming that there was no interference in 2014 in Ukraine by the US led by Nuland?

@tecate is your real name Wallace or Daly?

What was it you said? That you 'despise a certain constituency'? I couldn't care less who you despise (even if that includes me on the basis of an untruthful claim you made a couple of posts ago). See a counsellor for that maybe?

“Don’t get me wrong I don’t support Putin, but the US Democrat party is ultimately to blame for it all.”

Let me add words to your mindset here:
This is an echochamber view in which nobody dares question whether there might be fault on a number of sides and not just one side.

I should have guessed Greenwald is a cultist.

I guess you must be a socialist then! That's hilarious.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Let me get this str8. Putin amasses an army of 130,000 on Ukraine’s borders and then invades, as the US military said they would; trust the experts not the armchair generals.
And then the Greenwalds have the nerve to question who was responsible for the invasion which they said would never happen. Did Putin really intend all along to invade or was he just bluffing? They clearly imply that he was bluffing but that the US goaded him into carrying out his bluff. Or if the West had just fed Putin a wee bit to feed his bluff he would have retreated in glory. Even if true does this really shift the blame from Putin to the US Democrat Party?
It is worth reflecting that only one year after his man had been cheated out of the White House, Putin goes on this insane escapade.
@tecate you didn’t answer my question. Let us accept your thesis that I can trust none of the news coming out of Ukraine. Well you were on the ground. Did you see ranks of goose stepping Hail Zelensky supporters wearing swastika arm bands?

 

[odyssey06]

@tecate you are repeating conspiracy theory garbage about bioweapons labs. They are not bioweapons labs. It is all dealt with and debunked n the article which you refuse to engage with- biolabs are not bioweapons labs. You give cover to russian propaganda repeating this fake news. Shouting 'hatchet job' is not engaging with its points. The claim has zero credibility. Any claim made by this con artist has zero credibility. It's rather telling how you think we are in an echochamber but you accept conspiracy theory nonsense from this con artist without question. You don't get to link to conspiracy theory nonsense and then when challenged on it, say you haven't looked into it in detail. That's just a blank cheque for conspiracy theorists and con artists to write that you are cashing when you post this fake news on AAM.
So when you say you subject media to scrutiny, well obviously you don't. By your admission.
It was only when prompted on this thread.

More fact checks debunking this fake news:

Ukraine war: Fact-checking Russia's biological weapons claims

The BBC finds no evidence for Russian claims that Ukraine is developing biological weapons with US support.

www.bbc.co.uk

Russia signed a treaty with Ukraine when Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons.
Can you find me any assurances in that treaty that Ukraine wouldn't join NATO or military alliance?
Can you find me the security and territorial guarantees in that treaty which Russia has repeatedly violated?
Can you find me any treaty between NATO and Russia saying ex USSR countries wouldn't be admitted?
Russia agreed to this with the NATO Russia Founding Act in 1996.

Russia’s belief in Nato ‘betrayal’ – and why it matters today

The idea that the Soviet Union was tricked in 1989-90 is at the heart of Russia’s confrontation with the west

www.theguardian.com

Russia invaded Ukraine when the Ukranian people and its parliament threw out a Russian stooge who wanted to veto a treaty with the EU which had overwhelming democratic mandate. Nothing to do with NATO.

Why if it's all about NATO is Russia annexing parts of Ukraine? Why was it insisting on demilitarization not merely neutrality or defensive weapons?
Why was it insisting on removal of Ukraine's democratically elected leader?
Those were its opening demands for surrender.

Was Belarus about to join NATO? Then why did Russia annex it in conjunction with its corrupt dictator?

So it's not all about NATO. So the choices faced by the West were:
Do nothing and see Ukraine fight Russia unaided.
Do nothing and see Ukraine fall and become a Russian colony like Belarus, divided up and partitioned into puppet states.
Aid Ukraine as a democratic country which has a political and trade treaty with the EU to be able to defend itself against Russian aggression, if it chooses to fight, and preserve its sovereignty and territorial core.

Russia is in the wrong here. All you are doing here is engaging in deliberate muddying of the waters "no cleans hands", "just asking questions", meaningless language like "cognitive dissonance" and peddling conspiracy theories. These actions have the effect of giving cover and support to Russia.

 

[Purple]

Try this alternate link here instead.
I'm well aware who the good and bad guys are here - there aren't any (albeit some are likely to be worse than others).

My view on which side we should support is that, notwithstanding the deep flaws in Ukrainian civil and political society, we support the side that is a democracy and oppose the side which is the aggressor and is a police state and opposes democracy and the core values our society is built on. I'm surprised you don't agree.
Okay, so, after a brief comment about how using the term "Bad Guys" is adolescent Greenwald moved on to some specific, if badly framed, points.
He States that America went "all in" in support of Ukraine and frames his entire discussion in that context. Unfortunately for him he is totally incorrect and America didn't go anywhere close to "all in". They haven't sent troops, they haven't sent fighter jets, they haven't imposed a No Fly Zone (and they could, easily, have no doubt about that).

He points out that Ukraine is within Russia's sphere of influence and not within Americas. I don't subscribe to that imperialistic world view in which military and economic strength are justification for subjugation. 130 Nations agree with me, 30 aren't sure and a small number disagree.

He then talks about the de facto expansion of NATO into Ukraine. It is common for countries to provide that level of support and training to each other and if a sovereign democracy asks another sovereign democracy for help in protecting itself from a neighbour which is a police state and has already invaded and annexed part of its territory that is a reasonable thing to do.

His basic accusation is that the US is waging a proxy war against Russia. That is one of the most stupid things I've read in years. The US and Russia have been waging proxy wars against each other for most of the last 70 years. It is part of the ongoing struggle between democracy and totalitarianism. It is a struggle we should all support.

If he'd argued that Russia had a reasonable historical, political and cultural claim for Crimea then I'd agree with him.

If he said that Yeltsin's incompetence is the root cause of this because Crimea and Donbass could have been returned to Russia during the break-up of the Soviet Union then I'd agree with him.

Instead he has an ill informed childish whine about America being mean to Russia and how they should have thrown Ukraine to the wolves, as if this was 1884 and they were at the Berlin Conference, carving up Africa into colonies. His hypothesis is disgusting and the subtext of it is morally reprehensible.

 

[odyssey06]

He States that America went "all in" in support of Ukraine and frames his entire discussion in that context. Unfortunately for his he is totally incorrect and America didn't go anywhere close to "all in". They haven't sent troops, they haven't sent fighter jets, they haven't imposed a No Fly Zone (and they could, easily, have no doubt about that).

The article criticises the US for escalating the crisis, and yet also criticises the US for not doing enough to help Ukraine win! That they want to prolong but not end the war.
How would that not be seen as real escalation by Russia?
The US has been clear it will give defensive weapons only. They could have done more but it would certainly have been seen by Russia as an escalation.
The article is not coherent, consistent with itself.

It presents no alternative narrative \ coherent explanation of the consequences of the US doing nothing, of throwing Ukraine to the wolves.
It does not consider what that would mean for future Russian actions in the region, for the security of other NATO members, or the Ukranian people.

 

[Sunny]

And Bitcoin is still worthless...

 

[Firefly]

And Bitcoin is still worthless...

Actually, I think we are witnessing the first, genuinely positive use for Bitcoin -> it is facilitating people all over the world to provide financial assistance to Ukraine against the invasion and destruction by Russia. @tecate you must be delighted with this development

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I Wiki'd this Greenwald guy. Besides being the ultimate capitalist conspiracy theorist and bitcoin cultist he also supports anti vaxers*. On the positive side, he and his Brazilian husband are a thorn in Bolsonaro's side.

* In the interests of the whole truth he is actually a "Don't get me wrong, I myself am vaccinated, but..."

 

[Purple]

I think it's really bad form that Zelenskyy hasn't made a statement about the Will Smith/Chris Rock incident. I know he's a busy guy but does he not keep up to date with the really important things going on in the world?

 

[Firefly]

I think it's really bad form that Zelenskyy hasn't made a statement about the Will Smith/Chris Rock incident. I know he's a busy guy but does he not keep up to date with the really important things going on in the world?

I believe that these things are far more complex than a determination of good guys and bad guys - because this sort of thing is filthy - and you can be sure that there are no good guys in this

 

[Purple]

On the broader issue of how we frame who the good guys and the bad guys are it is important to step back from the gritty details on conflict and look at what is being fought for.
During the Second World War the Western Allies and the USSR were the good guys. In the 1-2 years after the war ended the good guys committed the greatest act of mass rape in recorded history on German women. Well over a million women were raped, some up to 100 times. An estimated 250,000 died as a result of this mass crime. The Russians were by far the biggest culprits but the British and American forces were neck-deep in it too.

Does that mean that there were really no good guys or bad guys during the War? No, of course it doesn't.

 

[tecate]

Let me get this str8. Putin amasses an army of 130,000 on Ukraine’s borders and then invades, as the US military said they would; trust the experts not the armchair generals.

Ah, yes - we should trust them! Give them free license and don't hold them to account. Brilliant Duke. And you say this and you still have no notion at what point Putin decided to invade.

And then the Greenwalds have the nerve to question who was responsible for the invasion which they said would never happen.

Imagine anyone questioning anything - as there has been no questioning of anything in this echo chamber.

Did Putin really intend all along to invade or was he just bluffing? They clearly imply that he was bluffing but that the US goaded him into carrying out his bluff.

There are many commentators who believe that to be the case.

Or if the West had just fed Putin a wee bit to feed his bluff he would have retreated in glory. Even if true does this really shift the blame from Putin to the US Democrat Party?

You think if a war could have been avoided and wasn't, that's reasonable?

@tecate you didn’t answer my question.

I think you've got this the wrong way round. The question I asked you was where did Greenwald say he agreed with Belarus - as you claimed?

@tecate you are repeating conspiracy theory garbage about bioweapons labs. They are not bioweapons labs. It is all dealt with and debunked n the article which you refuse to engage with- biolabs are not bioweapons labs.

The article that 'I won;t engage with'? I read your article - there is nothing substantive in it in disspelling the claim re. bioweapons labs. And other than that, you're telling me that the WaPo is now a publication that acts on behalf of Russia and that they're 'repeating conspiracy theories' - despite the bulk of their readership having similar views to yourself? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Tell me, what career did Hunter Biden have that involved Biolabs? What compulsion is there for US companies to place Biolabs in Ukraine? Why did they lie about it?

You give cover to russian propaganda repeating this fake news. ... The claim has zero credibility.

The WaPo article is now Russian propaganda alongside Greenwalds? Is that what you're claiming now?

Shouting 'hatchet job' is not engaging with its points.

Citing an article that doesn't contain anything substantive in dispelling the claim re. biolabs - and that otherwise waffles about the counter-claim being false? You want me to 'engage' with that? I have done - by identifying it as a hatchet job.

The claim has zero credibility. Any claim made by this con artist has zero credibility.

You're repeating yourself. That is your opinion. It's most certainly not mine - the guy is not beyond reproach but he is an award winning journalist. You can repeat yourself again if you wish - and I'll come back and provide the very same clarification.

It's rather telling how you think we are in an echochamber but you accept conspiracy theory nonsense from this con artist without question.

Is there a question over it being an echo chamber - because I can't imagine how anyone could come to any other conclusion. You all agree - Russia bad and USA! USA! USA! That's what it boils down to.
As regards Greenwald, who said I accept his views without question? I introduced that article of his to add perspective here. And as for conspiracy theories, other than the biolab issue (which in no way can you dismiss summarily like you're trying to do), what other 'conspiracy theory' does he present? He presents his opinion and like yours and everyone elses, there's an inherrent bias in his opinion.

It was only when prompted on this thread.

BS. See above.

Russia signed a treaty with Ukraine when Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons.
Can you find me any assurances in that treaty that Ukraine wouldn't join NATO or military alliance?
Can you find me the security and territorial guarantees in that treaty which Russia has repeatedly violated?
Can you find me any treaty between NATO and Russia saying ex USSR countries wouldn't be admitted?
Russia agreed to this with the NATO Russia Founding Act in 1996.

Russia’s belief in Nato ‘betrayal’ – and why it matters today

The idea that the Soviet Union was tricked in 1989-90 is at the heart of Russia’s confrontation with the west

www.theguardian.com

The Americans gave assurrances that there would be no encroachment of NATO to the east after the fall of the Soviet Union. Bush explicitly gave such an assurance. Meanwhile, you think if there were missiles pointed at the US from Mexico, they'd be ok with it? Well we know that they would lose their bloody minds ( Cuban missile crisis ) - and take us to the brink of nuclear war.
Many have been warning that this was an issue - over years. It takes two to tango - but apparently according to all that have posted on this thread, it's much more simple - one party can do no wrong and another can do no right.

Russia invaded Ukraine when the Ukranian people and its parliament threw out a Russian stooge who wanted to veto a treaty with the EU which had overwhelming democratic mandate. Nothing to do with NATO.

And that happened without US interference? Is that what you're claiming?

Russia is in the wrong here. All you are doing here is engaging in deliberate muddying of the waters "no cleans hands", "just asking questions", meaningless language like "cognitive dissonance" and peddling conspiracy theories. These actions have the effect of giving cover and support to Russia.

You're wildly oversimplfying something that's far more complex. Other than that, the suggestion that anything that isn't wildly in favour of the US government approach to this whole thing - is in support of Russia - that's absolutely ridiculous. You'd have loved McCarthyism!

He points out that Ukraine is within Russia's sphere of influence and not within Americas. I don't subscribe to that imperialistic world view in which military and economic strength are justification for subjugation.

It doesn't matter whether you subscribe to it or not. That is the reality. There's a whole history behind it.

Actually, I think we are witnessing the first, genuinely positive use for Bitcoin -> it is facilitating people all over the world to provide financial assistance to Ukraine against the invasion and destruction by Russia. @tecate you must be delighted with this development

Last I checked, over $100 million of BTC had been raised for Ukraine. And yes, I'm happy that ordinary people can move funds unhindered. It has also assisted ordinary Ukrainians who were cut off in cases from remittances because of irrational sanctions - that impacted irrational banking practice...and ordinary Russians who were more explicitly exposed to sanctions. Because making ordinary people suffer is justified, right?

I Wiki'd this Greenwald guy. Besides being the ultimate capitalist conspiracy theorist and bitcoin cultist he also supports anti vaxers*. On the positive side, he and his Brazilian husband are a thorn in Bolsonaro's side.

* In the interests of the whole truth he is actually a "Don't get me wrong, I myself am vaccinated, but..."

Yes, the usual tar and feathering - like his sexual orientation or views on vaccination have anything to do with this. I'd expect nothing less from you Duke.

I believe that these things are far more complex than a determination of good guys and bad guys - because this sort of thing is filthy - and you can be sure that there are no good guys in this

You can act the jester all you wish and engage with the cognitive dissonance love-in that's on display here all you want, Firefly. I'll leave you with the words of US Senator Hiram Johnson:

"The first casualty of war is truth"

 

[Purple]

It doesn't matter whether you subscribe to it or not. That is the reality. There's a whole history behind it.

There is a whole history behind many abhorrent things. That doesn't mean we should form current geopolitical policy based on them.

We, the liberal democratic West, have moved away from colonialism. I bring you back to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights and how it is the baseline from which policy in these matters should be set.
You and Greenwald may think that countries should be pawns of the board of colonial powers but the Free World disagrees with you and has done for over 70 years.
You may think that Russia's war is a latter day version of taking up the Whiteman's Burden but Kipling's racism and imperialism is no longer in fashion. As Irish people we should be happy about that.

 

[Firefly]

"The first casualty of war is truth"

It does seem to be the case alright, no more so than in Russia, where you can end up in jail for 15 years for spreading what it described as "fake" information about the military. Of course, "fake" means anything going against the party line. International and local journalists have shut up shop, leaving the poor Russian people with only state-controlled propaganda for their "news".