Russia begins the invasion

[Frank Underwood]

The most critical events that have been airbrushed out of the West's political narrative are the violation of agreements made by Western leaders at the end of the Cold War not to expand NATO into Eastern Europe, and the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine in February 2014. Western mainstream media accounts date the crisis in Ukraine back to Russia's 2014 reintegration of Crimea, and the decision by ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine to secede from Ukraine as the Luhansk and Donetsk People's Republics.

But these were not unprovoked actions. They were responses to the U.S.-backed coup, in which an armed mob led by the neo-Nazi Right Sector militia stormed the Ukrainian parliament, forcing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and members of his party to flee for their lives. After the events of Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington, that scenario should now be easier for Americans to understand.

Ukraine Neo-Nazis Infiltrate EVERY LEVEL Of Military & Government - YouTube

 

[Emelee]

The west has sure damaged a lot around the world, but nowadays we have systems that are meant to stop a single mad leader. Normal leaders don´t censor news, they don´t jail journalists, they don´t poison the competition. And they don´t try to make new laws that will make it possible for them to be dictator for life in a country.
Putin has been "President" for too long, and that has now made him seriously corrupt, suspicious, paranoid, cocky and downright mad.

 

[Frank Underwood]

The US desperately wants to extradite and prosecute Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, and the White House routinely encourages big tech censorship of dissidents.

US news media uses propaganda to gin up support for wars by manufacturing consent, while the US military goes to work laying waste to those countries.

We may have term limits in the US, but the new boss is always the same as the old boss. It's the deep state that's truly in control. The person in office is just their puppet.

With regards to Russia, the US's duplicity on NATO expansion was based on lucrative weapons deals. Here's a little more context on the US's role in the Ukraine conflict:

"For the US project of turning Ukraine into a vassal state while pretending to care about its sovereignty, you couldn't have picked a worse face than the guy who helped organize the coup of 2014 and then got his son a lucrative gas company board seat in the immediate aftermath." - Aaron Maté (jounalist)

"A 2016 (Pentagon-tied) RAND study noted that if US increases military support for Ukraine, 'Russia might respond by mounting a new offensive and seizing more Ukrainian territory.' In the years since, Trump and then Biden increased US weapons to Ukraine. Now Russia has invaded." - Aaron Maté (journalist)

"By casually meddling in Ukrainian politics... the United States has effectively incited Russia to undertake its reckless invasion. Putin richly deserves the opprobrium currently being heaped on him. But US policy has been both careless and irresponsible." - Andrew Bacevich (American historian)

This video covers all of that, along with the role the US's opposition to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline played:

What the Media Is HIDING About Ukraine/Russia - YouTube

 

[Angela Channing]

What the Media Is HIDING About Ukraine/Russia - YouTube

I'm not going to watch the video because the man behind it always reminds me of this quote from the UK writer and comedian David Baddiel:

 

[Angela Channing]

While some people are in their basement advancing conspiracy theories, senior UK journalist and national treasure Clive Myrie, who is actually on the ground in Kyiv reporting on the war, said this in a newspaper interview on Sunday. I agree with him:

 

[Frank Underwood]

I'm not going to watch the video because the man behind it always reminds me of this quote from the UK writer and comedian David Baddiel:

I couldn't care less if you watch it. I posted takeaways from it for a reason, along with full length articles. How interesting you responded with an ad hominem attack...

People who spout stuff like this also believe the establishment media is completely trustworthy, no matter how many times that's been proven not to be the case.

Anyhow, thanks for sharing this bit of "wisdom" from a comedian you happen to agree with, while telling me the comedians I listen to are full of crap.

While some people are in their basement advancing conspiracy theories, senior UK journalist and national treasure Clive Myrie, who is actually on the ground in Kyiv reporting on the war, said this in a newspaper interview on Sunday. I agree with him:

LMAO, establishment media isn't held accountable for shit. They're the biggest purveyors of propaganda and cheerleaders for war. Ever heard of "manufacturing consent"?

I get that you don't like Jimmy Dore because he doesn't side with the lockdown left, but his reporting on the 2014 Ukraine coup and NATO'S duplicity isn't a conspiracy. He's interviewed journalists, quoted government officials, and covered reporting done by other outlets. How are facts about actions that provoked Russia a conspiracy theory?

You quoted someone who basically called journalists/commentators outside of establishment media "dicks." Misinformation may exist on social media, but it also exists on a larger scale within establishment media. For example, nobody in establishment media paid a price for getting the Iraq War and Russia gate wrong, yet journalists have lost their jobs for being anti-war. For the most part, independent media has done a much better job of reporting the news because they're willing to interview journalists and cite sources that aren't beholden to a giant corporation like the mainstream media is. Dore is not a journalist, which is why he brings on journalists and covers outside reporting.

I respect people with different views that have a genuine rebuttal, but calling someone a conspiracy theorist in their basement just makes you "some dick on a forum."

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

While some people are in their basement advancing conspiracy theories, senior UK journalist and national treasure Clive Myrie, who is actually on the ground in Kyiv reporting on the war, said this in a newspaper interview on Sunday. I agree with him:

I am not familiar with this Clive Myrie, however I do think that the Social Media world
can be a source of questionable information, due to a variety of reasons.

Don't misunderstand me, I support the right of every individual to express an opinion.
The consideration of multiple perspectives could lead to fuller understanding of
various issues.

Having said that, people would be well advised to gather the the best factual evidence possible
in order to make reasonable assertions, and reach sensible conclusions.
It is reasonable , even advisable to ask questions and be skeptical when a report/story/event
seems unlikely, incomplete, out of context or one-sided.
People should also be aware that certain sources, even so-called fact checkers could have biases.

With regard to conspiracy theories, again, people should be careful about the sources of the information
and the verifiable facts

With regard to conspiracy theories, again, people should try to gather the best factual information and data.

 

[Frank Underwood]

I am not familiar with this Clive Myrie, however I do think that the Social Media world
can be a source of questionable information, due to a variety of reasons.

Don't misunderstand me, I support the right of every individual to express an opinion.
The consideration of multiple perspectives could lead to fuller understanding of
various issues.

Having said that, people would be well advised to gather the the best factual evidence possible
in order to make reasonable assertions, and reach sensible conclusions.
It is reasonable , even advisable to ask questions and be skeptical when a report/story/event
seems unlikely, incomplete, out of context or one-sided.
People should also be aware that certain sources, even so-called fact checkers could have biases.

With regard to conspiracy theories, again, people should be careful about the sources of the information
and the verifiable facts

With regard to conspiracy theories, again, people should try to gather the best factual information and data.

Questionable information is everywhere. Mainstream media routinely crafts narratives around issues such as economics and foreign policy to suit the party they're shilling for. Questionable information exists online as well. The key is to search for corroborating information in order to discern between actual journalism and an opinion piece.

Some commentators I follow cover stories they admittedly don't have all the facts on, while presenting what they do know. Sometimes this leads to speculation in an attempt to make sense of the facts that exist. However, as long as they're not making assertions based on incomplete information, it doesn't constitute pushing a conspiracy theory.

I often post videos from a primary source, but I always look into the articles/journalists they cite before posting them. I know I'm not infallible, nor are the commentators I follow. However, I try to do my due diligence. That's more than I can say for the mainstream media, who keep insisting that the invasion of Ukraine was an "unprovoked" attack.

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

Questionable information is everywhere. Mainstream media routinely crafts narratives around issues such as economics and foreign policy to suit the party they're shilling for. Questionable information exists online as well. The key is to search for corroborating information in order to discern between actual journalism and an opinion piece.

Some commentators I follow cover stories they admittedly don't have all the facts on, while presenting what they do know. Sometimes this leads to speculation in an attempt to make sense of the facts that exist. However, as long as they're not making assertions based on incomplete information, it doesn't constitute pushing a conspiracy theory.

I often post videos from a primary source, but I always look into the articles/journalists they cite before posting them. I know I'm not infallible, nor are the commentators I follow. However, I try to do my due diligence. That's more than I can say for the mainstream media, who keep insisting that the invasion of Ukraine was an "unprovoked" attack.

I think you do quite well in your research.

I agree that the mainstream media can be unreliable and biased.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Most people who rail on against "conspiracy theories" turn out to be all about conspiracy theories when they run across one they like or makes sense to them.

 

[Angela Channing]

Having said that, people would be well advised to gather the the best factual evidence possible
in order to make reasonable assertions, and reach sensible conclusions.
It is reasonable , even advisable to ask questions and be skeptical when a report/story/event
seems unlikely, incomplete, out of context or one-sided.
People should also be aware that certain sources, even so-called fact checkers could have biases.

With regard to conspiracy theories, again, people should be careful about the sources of the information
and the verifiable facts

With regard to conspiracy theories, again, people should try to gather the best factual information and data.

This precisely.

The reason why I quoted Clive Myrie is because he is in Kyiv talking to people on the ground and reporting first hand what he is seeing and hearing. He is one of the most respected journalists in the UK. He works for the BBC which by law has to be unbiased which is why he says he "can be held accountable for every word [he] puts on air".

By contrast, Jimmy Dore is no where near Ukraine, he makes his protestations from the safety of his house in the USA. He is held accountable by precisely no one.

Like you say, "people should be careful about the sources of the information and the verifiable facts"

 

[Frank Underwood]

This precisely.

The reason why I quoted Clive Myrie is because he is in Kyiv talking to people on the ground and reporting first hand what he is seeing and hearing. He is one of the most respected journalists in the UK. He works for the BBC which by law has to be unbiased which is why he says he "can be held accountable for every word [he] puts on air".

By contrast, Jimmy Dore is no where near Ukraine, he makes his protestations from the safety of his house in the USA. He is held accountable by precisely no one.

Like you say, "people should be careful about the sources of the information and the verifiable facts"

View attachment 36299

"This precisely." Unless I don't like the source, in which case I'll pretend all of the verifiable information he's reported is just the ramblings of a conspiracy theorist.

The funny thing is cable news hosts are giving their commentary on the conflict from the safety of their news desks. Even when they have an on the scene reporter, the reporting is suspect. I am unfamiliar with Clive Myrie and his reporting, but I recall CNN "reporter" Arwa Damon sniffing a backpack in Syria and "confirming" it smelled of deadly sarin gas! Clearly she was telling the truth since she was "on the ground reporting first hand" from Syria. How can one prove a journalist is unbiased? Even if they are, reporting directly from Kyiv isn't necessarily going to cover the events that led to the invasion itself, such as NATO provocation and the 2014 US-backed coup in Ukraine.

 

[Angela Channing]

"This precisely." Unless I don't like the source, in which case I'll pretend all of the verifiable information he's reported is just the ramblings of a conspiracy theorist.

I will go to first hand accounts and hard facts and not how a conspiracy theorist reinterprets them.

I recall CNN "reporter" Arwa Damon sniffing a backpack in Syria and "confirming" it smelled of deadly sarin gas!

Clearly she was telling the truth since she was "on the ground reporting first hand" from Syria. LMAO!

But she never said that. She said the backpack smelt of "something that stings". She never said it was sarin, that is just another reinterpretation (misinterpretation) of facts to fit an anti-CNN narrative. This is exactly what conspiracy theorists do: they take something based in fact to give the appearance of authenticity and then they twist it to support their case even if that means it is no longer true.

 

[Frank Underwood]

I will go to first hand accounts and hard facts and not how a conspiracy theorist reinterprets them.

How did he "reinterpret" the 2014 coup in Ukraine and warnings from insiders over an impending Russian invasion due to US meddling? His sources can be easily found.

Also, repeatedly calling someone a conspiracy theorist doesn't automatically make it so.

But she never said that. She said the backpack smelt of "something that stings". She never said it was sarin, that is just another reinterpretation (misinterpretation) of facts to fit an anti-CNN narrative. This is exactly what conspiracy theorists do: they take something based in fact to give the appearance of authenticity and then they twist it to support their case even if that means it is no longer true.

"She never said it was sarin." What do you think the point of that segment was? The irony is cable news regularly engages in the acts you're attributing to conspiracy theorists.

Crazy conspiracy theories do exist (QAnon comes to mind.) However, lacking discernment and taking mainstream news at face value can be just as dangerous.

 

[Angela Channing]

"She never said it was sarin." What do you think the point of that segment was? The irony is cable news regularly engages in the acts you're attributing to conspiracy theorists.

People can watch the news report themselves and see that she never "confirmed" the backpack "smelled of deadly sarin gas" as you claim, in fact I don't think sarin is even mentioned in the report. The strapline on screen throughout says it was a "suspected chemical attack" not a confirmed one.

When in doubt, go back to the source material to determine the facts rather than the reinterpretation of the facts by conspiracy theorists.

 

[Frank Underwood]

People can watch the news report themselves and see that she never "confirmed" the backpack "smelled of deadly sarin gas" as you claim, in fact I don't think sarin is even mentioned in the report. The strapline on screen throughout says it was a "suspected chemical attack" not a confirmed one.

When in doubt, go back to the source material to determine the facts rather than the reinterpretation of the facts by conspiracy theorists.

Again, what do you think the point of that segment was? I'll answer that. It was to try to convince Americans that Assad gassed his own people. She didn't have to say sarin.

You can go back to the source, but we still only have her word that it smelled of anything. Besides, who smells something they think might be coated in poisonous gas?

During the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, George HW Bush and the mainstream media reported that Iraqi soldiers took babies out of incubators in a Kuwaiti hospital and left the babies to die. It was later revealed that this testimony came from the 15 year old daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US. If people had doubted the veracity of her claims, I'm sure they too would have been written off as conspiracy theorists. More recent mainstream media failures include pushing the WMDs in Iraq lie, as well as Russia gate. Skeptics of those media blunders were written off as conspiracy theorists for not falling for such deception. Many of the people who fell for these lies are incapable of learning from history, which is why they expect us to believe mainstream reporting on Russia's invasion of Ukraine today. Fortunately for me, my memory isn't that short.

As I said before, people who take mainstream reporting at face value while showing contempt for people who challenge their narrative are seriously lacking in discernment.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Tucker is a deeply flawed dude -- but he does have his moments...

Tucker: We are at war with Russia - YouTube

Media censorship...

Lee Camp On Why RT America Really Shut Down - YouTube

 

[Michelle Stevens]

A question for @Emelee or any Swede . Is Sweden more likely to join NATO since the "Special Military Operation" by the Russians in Ukraine started? What is the mood of the Swedish public on this issue? I have seen recent interviews of the Finnish President warming more to the idea of joining NATO since this conflict started. Just curious.

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

A question for @Emelee or any Swede . Is Sweden more likely to join NATO since the "Special Military Operation" by the Russians in Ukraine started? What is the mood of the Swedish public on this issue? I have seen recent interviews of the Finnish President warming more to the idea of joining NATO since this conflict started. Just curious.

You make a good point.

 

[Angela Channing]

A question for @Emelee or any Swede . Is Sweden more likely to join NATO since the "Special Military Operation" by the Russians in Ukraine started? What is the mood of the Swedish public on this issue? I have seen recent interviews of the Finnish President warming more to the idea of joining NATO since this conflict started. Just curious.

Majority of Swedes in favour of country joining NATO: poll

For the first time in history, the majority of the country’s inhabitants would want it to join the alliance.

tvpworld.com

According to the article, 51% of Swedes now support Sweden joining NATO. A similar poll carried out in January, showed only 42% in favour of NATO membership so there has been a significant increase since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson has rejected the idea.

Someone from Sweden may be able to say if any of this reflects the general mood of the country.