|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On September 26 2022 21:28 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2022 21:10 Ghanburighan wrote:On September 26 2022 21:04 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:56 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:46 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:38 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:34 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:22 maybenexttime wrote: @Ardias Edit: As with "Odessa massacre", you are presented with video evidence that invalidates your bogus claims. Yet you refuse to admit you were wrong. Pathetic. He literally admitted that both is happening based on the evidence presented... If you people would start to actually faithfully engage instead of just going down your debate conversation tree this thread would be so much better. And if the mods would start to care about the rules set out in the first post... After spending several posts insinuating how these referendums could be legitimate and how he has doubts that people were voting at gunpoint based on some anecdotal evidence from a friend. I'm tired of the hutzpah. For someone as well informed as Ardias, I have a hard time believing that he wasn't aware of the videos posted by Ghanburighan. I understood his position as he is aware that the result of the referendum is already clear in advance, but he did not make conclusions about any claims resulting from that (i.e. if all pro ukrainian people had been filtrated out, a properly conducted referendum could lead to a real result, but that result would give no justification for anything). I also did not get the impression that he is trying to claim they are legit, just bringing some well needed nuance and caveats or even random bits of information to it. Of course a good way of seeing if he is 'insinuating' anything would be to ask in a non combative manner - but you know, that would include giving the benefit of the doubt and being interested in an actual conversation... After the "Odessa massacre" debacle I can't give him the benefit of the doubt. He was literally peddling Kremlin propaganda and when presented with heaps of evidence directly contradicting his claims, he stuck to the lies. The fact that you have to constantly go back to one single thing when he has been part of many exchanges here might led a more rational person to consider that he is... *gasp* wrong about that and not deliberately lying. His sources disagree with yours, and he values them over yours is a perfectly fine explanation. Not one you have to agree with, but one that you should be able to accept. At worst you can call him gullible for that. Or consider the fact that many times he does agree when confronted with different information. Or perhaps we shouldn't tolerate spreading the Kremlin's lies. I also don't believe Ardias is manufacturing these lies in a troll farm, but they're still lies and need to be called out at every juncture. So you are admitting that you are actually lying? Because apparently you are the opinion that he is not lying, but is propagating false information (lies from someone else), yet you accuse him of lying. Finally the mask comes off. Being an ass in the name of good does not make you less of an ass. If someone is lying(hint: that means knowingly and deliberately spreading false information) you are free to call it out, when someone is wrong you are free to correct them without false accusations. Nowhere did I say you should just accept it silently, all I ask is stop relying on accusations and being a cancer to any discourse in this thread. That way you might actually get taken seriously by them and can manage to change their mind.
Le sigh. First, how about you watch your language? Or prove that I have uttered lies, that I'm an ass and that I'm cancer to any discourse. How is that not just attempting to silence me, huh?
Secondly, I was replying to your post towards maybenexttime. There, as far as I see, he was spreading Kremlin's lies. But I wasn't here for that discussion. In the "gunpoint" view, he was spreading his own lies about voting not being at gunpoint. He had evidence for a case of it not being at gunpoint, but he was undermining the general claim. And "I didn't know" should be quickly followed by an admission that his post was wrong and preferably an edit of the original post.
Remind me again, what kind of valuable nuance does Ardias add to this discussion? Should we heed his arguments for why these elections aren't that bad and endorse the referenda? Let those regions be annexed? Is that the valuable nuance?
|
On September 26 2022 21:42 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2022 21:28 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 21:10 Ghanburighan wrote:On September 26 2022 21:04 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:56 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:46 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:38 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:34 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:22 maybenexttime wrote: @Ardias Edit: As with "Odessa massacre", you are presented with video evidence that invalidates your bogus claims. Yet you refuse to admit you were wrong. Pathetic. He literally admitted that both is happening based on the evidence presented... If you people would start to actually faithfully engage instead of just going down your debate conversation tree this thread would be so much better. And if the mods would start to care about the rules set out in the first post... After spending several posts insinuating how these referendums could be legitimate and how he has doubts that people were voting at gunpoint based on some anecdotal evidence from a friend. I'm tired of the hutzpah. For someone as well informed as Ardias, I have a hard time believing that he wasn't aware of the videos posted by Ghanburighan. I understood his position as he is aware that the result of the referendum is already clear in advance, but he did not make conclusions about any claims resulting from that (i.e. if all pro ukrainian people had been filtrated out, a properly conducted referendum could lead to a real result, but that result would give no justification for anything). I also did not get the impression that he is trying to claim they are legit, just bringing some well needed nuance and caveats or even random bits of information to it. Of course a good way of seeing if he is 'insinuating' anything would be to ask in a non combative manner - but you know, that would include giving the benefit of the doubt and being interested in an actual conversation... After the "Odessa massacre" debacle I can't give him the benefit of the doubt. He was literally peddling Kremlin propaganda and when presented with heaps of evidence directly contradicting his claims, he stuck to the lies. The fact that you have to constantly go back to one single thing when he has been part of many exchanges here might led a more rational person to consider that he is... *gasp* wrong about that and not deliberately lying. His sources disagree with yours, and he values them over yours is a perfectly fine explanation. Not one you have to agree with, but one that you should be able to accept. At worst you can call him gullible for that. Or consider the fact that many times he does agree when confronted with different information. Or perhaps we shouldn't tolerate spreading the Kremlin's lies. I also don't believe Ardias is manufacturing these lies in a troll farm, but they're still lies and need to be called out at every juncture. So you are admitting that you are actually lying? Because apparently you are the opinion that he is not lying, but is propagating false information (lies from someone else), yet you accuse him of lying. Finally the mask comes off. Being an ass in the name of good does not make you less of an ass. If someone is lying(hint: that means knowingly and deliberately spreading false information) you are free to call it out, when someone is wrong you are free to correct them without false accusations. Nowhere did I say you should just accept it silently, all I ask is stop relying on accusations and being a cancer to any discourse in this thread. That way you might actually get taken seriously by them and can manage to change their mind. Le sigh. First, how about you watch your language? Or prove that I have uttered lies, that I'm an ass and that I'm cancer to any discourse. How is that not just attempting to silence me, huh? Secondly, I was replying to your post towards maybenexttime. There, as far as I see, he was spreading Kremlin's lies. But I wasn't here for that discussion. In the "gunpoint" view, he was spreading his own lies about voting not being at gunpoint. He had evidence for a case of it not being at gunpoint, but he was undermining the general claim. And "I didn't know" should be quickly followed by an admission that his post was wrong and preferably an edit of the original post. Remind me again, what kind of valuable nuance does Ardias add to this discussion? Should we heed his arguments for why these elections aren't that bad and endorse the referenda? Let those regions be annexed? Is that the valuable nuance?
Also, what were you lying about it not being at gunpoint again?
I expect your diversion within the hour.
Also the expressed part where I encourage you to disagree in a way that can actually create a fruitful discussion... yeah, I am really silencing you there...
EDIT: Got him I guess
+ Show Spoiler +Last editerino for my ego: On September 27 2022 06:55 Ghanburighan wrote: Didn't know Estonians are still German slaves that need to jump when you say so. I thought that ended a few hundred years back.
Also, this is what "diversion" means:
"the act or an instance of diverting or straying from a course, activity, or use"
- Merriam Webster.
So, how about you learn the meaning of words. This has been a problem before. Because I really don't know what kind of a diversion I'm supposed to provide.
You mean like suddenly throwing out some weird thing about estonians being enslaved by germans after being confronted with proof for the very thing you wanted, and after having your attempt of playing the victim been revealed as ridiculous? I can only imagine your slavery bit was aimed at the 'got him' part, which clearly was directed at the fact that I caught you red handed with no way of you weaselling out of this one. So yeah, you tried to divert attention away from my allegations. It also seems like the people who accused you of having a grudge against germany might have been on to something... I am ashamed to admit it, but this has been extremely satisfying to me. Not only blew your antics right up in your face, you even did exactly what I predicted, although it took you longer than I anticipated.
|
Russian Federation605 Posts
On September 26 2022 21:28 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2022 21:04 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:56 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:46 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:38 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:34 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:22 maybenexttime wrote: @Ardias Edit: As with "Odessa massacre", you are presented with video evidence that invalidates your bogus claims. Yet you refuse to admit you were wrong. Pathetic. He literally admitted that both is happening based on the evidence presented... If you people would start to actually faithfully engage instead of just going down your debate conversation tree this thread would be so much better. And if the mods would start to care about the rules set out in the first post... After spending several posts insinuating how these referendums could be legitimate and how he has doubts that people were voting at gunpoint based on some anecdotal evidence from a friend. I'm tired of the hutzpah. For someone as well informed as Ardias, I have a hard time believing that he wasn't aware of the videos posted by Ghanburighan. I understood his position as he is aware that the result of the referendum is already clear in advance, but he did not make conclusions about any claims resulting from that (i.e. if all pro ukrainian people had been filtrated out, a properly conducted referendum could lead to a real result, but that result would give no justification for anything). I also did not get the impression that he is trying to claim they are legit, just bringing some well needed nuance and caveats or even random bits of information to it. Of course a good way of seeing if he is 'insinuating' anything would be to ask in a non combative manner - but you know, that would include giving the benefit of the doubt and being interested in an actual conversation... After the "Odessa massacre" debacle I can't give him the benefit of the doubt. He was literally peddling Kremlin propaganda and when presented with heaps of evidence directly contradicting his claims, he stuck to the lies. The fact that you have to constantly go back to one single thing when he has been part of many exchanges here might led a more rational person to consider that he is... *gasp* wrong about that and not deliberately lying. His sources disagree with yours, and he values them over yours is a perfectly fine explanation. Not one you have to agree with, but one that you should be able to accept. At worst you can call him gullible for that. Or consider the fact that many times he does agree when confronted with different information. He claimed that an aggressive pro-Ukrainian crowd murdered innocent, peaceful pro-Russian protesters trapping them in a building and setting it on fire, and that people were stopped from helping them. I showed footage of the pro-Russian protesters firing live rounds from the rooftop and throwing molotovs from the building (and some pro-Ukrainians throwing theirs at the building). The footage also showed many pro-Ukrainian protesters helping people escape, with no one obstructing them. I also linked to investigations proving that the fire started in several places, including some that only the pro-Russian side had access to. In other words, the pro-Russian side was not peaceful, the people were not trapped by the pro-Ukrainian side but by the fire, and nobody was stopping anyone from escaping, on the contrary - the pro-Ukrainian crowd was actively helping people escape. There is tons of evidence supporting the official account of the events and zero evidence supporting the Kremlin narrative shared by Ardias. So forgive me if after that I assume he's more likely to post in bad faith. Are you still on about it? Well, if you are really interested in different perspective on events (of which I sincerely doubt, because most likely you just hate our guts) - I've send you some ot the "zero evidence" via PM, the investigation I was talking about previously few dozen pages back. when you started to dig under my skin again (though you didn't seem interested in it back then).
I found that discussion derailing the thread from the current events at that time, and I still do so now, plus I understood that with the dismissal off the bat of anything I provide it's impossible to have a reasonable conversation regarding the event (imagine court proceeding where the evidence of one side are not accepted from the start, would that be a fair trial?). That's why I refrained from it.
|
On September 26 2022 21:46 Ardias wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2022 21:28 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 21:04 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:56 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:46 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:38 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:34 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:22 maybenexttime wrote: @Ardias Edit: As with "Odessa massacre", you are presented with video evidence that invalidates your bogus claims. Yet you refuse to admit you were wrong. Pathetic. He literally admitted that both is happening based on the evidence presented... If you people would start to actually faithfully engage instead of just going down your debate conversation tree this thread would be so much better. And if the mods would start to care about the rules set out in the first post... After spending several posts insinuating how these referendums could be legitimate and how he has doubts that people were voting at gunpoint based on some anecdotal evidence from a friend. I'm tired of the hutzpah. For someone as well informed as Ardias, I have a hard time believing that he wasn't aware of the videos posted by Ghanburighan. I understood his position as he is aware that the result of the referendum is already clear in advance, but he did not make conclusions about any claims resulting from that (i.e. if all pro ukrainian people had been filtrated out, a properly conducted referendum could lead to a real result, but that result would give no justification for anything). I also did not get the impression that he is trying to claim they are legit, just bringing some well needed nuance and caveats or even random bits of information to it. Of course a good way of seeing if he is 'insinuating' anything would be to ask in a non combative manner - but you know, that would include giving the benefit of the doubt and being interested in an actual conversation... After the "Odessa massacre" debacle I can't give him the benefit of the doubt. He was literally peddling Kremlin propaganda and when presented with heaps of evidence directly contradicting his claims, he stuck to the lies. The fact that you have to constantly go back to one single thing when he has been part of many exchanges here might led a more rational person to consider that he is... *gasp* wrong about that and not deliberately lying. His sources disagree with yours, and he values them over yours is a perfectly fine explanation. Not one you have to agree with, but one that you should be able to accept. At worst you can call him gullible for that. Or consider the fact that many times he does agree when confronted with different information. He claimed that an aggressive pro-Ukrainian crowd murdered innocent, peaceful pro-Russian protesters trapping them in a building and setting it on fire, and that people were stopped from helping them. I showed footage of the pro-Russian protesters firing live rounds from the rooftop and throwing molotovs from the building (and some pro-Ukrainians throwing theirs at the building). The footage also showed many pro-Ukrainian protesters helping people escape, with no one obstructing them. I also linked to investigations proving that the fire started in several places, including some that only the pro-Russian side had access to. In other words, the pro-Russian side was not peaceful, the people were not trapped by the pro-Ukrainian side but by the fire, and nobody was stopping anyone from escaping, on the contrary - the pro-Ukrainian crowd was actively helping people escape. There is tons of evidence supporting the official account of the events and zero evidence supporting the Kremlin narrative shared by Ardias. So forgive me if after that I assume he's more likely to post in bad faith. Are you still on about it? Well, if you are really interested in different perspective on events (of which I sincerely doubt, because most likely you just hate our guts) - I've send you some ot the "zero evidence" via PM, the investigation I was talking about previously few dozen pages back. when you started to dig under my skin again (though you didn't seem interested in it back then). I found that discussion derailing the thread from the current events at that time, and I still do so now, plus I understood that with the dismissal off the bat of anything I provide it's impossible to have a reasonable conversation regarding the event (imagine court proceeding where the evidence of one side are not accepted from the start, would that be a fair trial?). That's why I refrained from it. I only bring this up when questioned about why I assume bad faith when you post your pro-Kremlin takes. I also don't have the time to read the article you sent me or, more importantly, verify every detail mentioned there. The Russian side has zero credibility, considering all the lies it constantly spreads (numerous bogus theories regarding MH17, numerous assassinations by the Kremlin, false flags in Ukraine, and so on). Especially an article from a propaganda website affiliated with Igor Strelkov... The article is besides the point. I provided footage that directly contradicted your claims and you decided to stick with your claims.
For those interested, here's the article in question:
http://novorossia.pro/25yanvarya/1859-evgeniy-norin-odessa-2-maya-2014-kak-eto-bylo.html
|
Thus just reiterates that the 1970's doctrine still rules. If one flies, they all fly, no matter where they are aimed. Followed by UK, and France launching. Then China etc.
White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan on Sunday said the U.S. has had private, high-level talks with leaders in Moscow about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s threat to use nuclear weapons amid the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, explaining the Biden administration is trying to prevent a “rhetorical tit for tat” between the two countries.
“If Russia crosses this line, there will be catastrophic consequences for Russia. The United States will respond decisively,” Sullivan said in an interview with moderator Chuck Todd on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
“Now, in private channels we have spelled out in greater detail exactly what that would mean, but we want to be able to have the credibility of speaking directly to senior leadership in Russia and laying out for them what the consequences would be without getting into a rhetorical tit for tat publicly,” Sullivan said.
Putin last week threatened the use of nuclear weapons, further heightening growing concerns about their potential use in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Sullivan on Sunday said the U.S. has been in contact with senior Russian officials “frequently” over the last few months, and as recently as in the last few days — despite worries since the start of the war that the U.S. was struggling to get in touch with Moscow.
The top White House national security aide said administration officials have been “careful to protect the timing and the content” of conversations with the Kremlin.
“We have not wanted to indicate exactly what those channels look like because we want to be able to protect them so that we have the continuing ability to reach Russia and tell them in no uncertain terms, for example, what the consequences would be, and they would be catastrophic if Russia went down the dark road of nuclear weapons use,” Sullivan said.
Source
|
On September 26 2022 22:11 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2022 21:46 Ardias wrote:On September 26 2022 21:28 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 21:04 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:56 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:46 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:38 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:34 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:22 maybenexttime wrote: @Ardias Edit: As with "Odessa massacre", you are presented with video evidence that invalidates your bogus claims. Yet you refuse to admit you were wrong. Pathetic. He literally admitted that both is happening based on the evidence presented... If you people would start to actually faithfully engage instead of just going down your debate conversation tree this thread would be so much better. And if the mods would start to care about the rules set out in the first post... After spending several posts insinuating how these referendums could be legitimate and how he has doubts that people were voting at gunpoint based on some anecdotal evidence from a friend. I'm tired of the hutzpah. For someone as well informed as Ardias, I have a hard time believing that he wasn't aware of the videos posted by Ghanburighan. I understood his position as he is aware that the result of the referendum is already clear in advance, but he did not make conclusions about any claims resulting from that (i.e. if all pro ukrainian people had been filtrated out, a properly conducted referendum could lead to a real result, but that result would give no justification for anything). I also did not get the impression that he is trying to claim they are legit, just bringing some well needed nuance and caveats or even random bits of information to it. Of course a good way of seeing if he is 'insinuating' anything would be to ask in a non combative manner - but you know, that would include giving the benefit of the doubt and being interested in an actual conversation... After the "Odessa massacre" debacle I can't give him the benefit of the doubt. He was literally peddling Kremlin propaganda and when presented with heaps of evidence directly contradicting his claims, he stuck to the lies. The fact that you have to constantly go back to one single thing when he has been part of many exchanges here might led a more rational person to consider that he is... *gasp* wrong about that and not deliberately lying. His sources disagree with yours, and he values them over yours is a perfectly fine explanation. Not one you have to agree with, but one that you should be able to accept. At worst you can call him gullible for that. Or consider the fact that many times he does agree when confronted with different information. He claimed that an aggressive pro-Ukrainian crowd murdered innocent, peaceful pro-Russian protesters trapping them in a building and setting it on fire, and that people were stopped from helping them. I showed footage of the pro-Russian protesters firing live rounds from the rooftop and throwing molotovs from the building (and some pro-Ukrainians throwing theirs at the building). The footage also showed many pro-Ukrainian protesters helping people escape, with no one obstructing them. I also linked to investigations proving that the fire started in several places, including some that only the pro-Russian side had access to. In other words, the pro-Russian side was not peaceful, the people were not trapped by the pro-Ukrainian side but by the fire, and nobody was stopping anyone from escaping, on the contrary - the pro-Ukrainian crowd was actively helping people escape. There is tons of evidence supporting the official account of the events and zero evidence supporting the Kremlin narrative shared by Ardias. So forgive me if after that I assume he's more likely to post in bad faith. Are you still on about it? Well, if you are really interested in different perspective on events (of which I sincerely doubt, because most likely you just hate our guts) - I've send you some ot the "zero evidence" via PM, the investigation I was talking about previously few dozen pages back. when you started to dig under my skin again (though you didn't seem interested in it back then). I found that discussion derailing the thread from the current events at that time, and I still do so now, plus I understood that with the dismissal off the bat of anything I provide it's impossible to have a reasonable conversation regarding the event (imagine court proceeding where the evidence of one side are not accepted from the start, would that be a fair trial?). That's why I refrained from it. I only bring this up when questioned about why I assume bad faith when you post your pro-Kremlin takes. I also don't have the time to read the article you sent me or, more importantly, verify every detail mentioned there. The Russian side has zero credibility, considering all the lies it constantly spreads (numerous bogus theories regarding MH17, numerous assassinations by the Kremlin, false flags in Ukraine, and so on). Especially an article from a propaganda website affiliated with Igor Strelkov... The article is besides the point. I provided footage that directly contradicted your claims and you decided to stick with your claims. For those interested, here's the article in question: http://novorossia.pro/25yanvarya/1859-evgeniy-norin-odessa-2-maya-2014-kak-eto-bylo.html
This website screams of imperialism even simply due to its own name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiya And.. what a surprise, it looks like occupied territories by Russia. I wouldn't spend even 5 minutes reading it too.
From Wikipedia: + Show Spoiler +
Also, I'd like to use this opportunity to say that Macron is beyond any hope. He thinks this Russian invasion is because of resentment towards Russia? No, it's because Putin grew increasingly frustrated with Euromaidan in Ukraine. Don't forget Crimea happened right after that.
|
It's affiliated with (run by?) Igor Strelkov, the man behind the downing of the MH17 and all the bogus theories that followed. It's in the name: the Novorossiya Movement of Igor Strelkov.
|
On September 26 2022 22:27 SC-Shield wrote:Also, I'd like to use this opportunity to say that Macron is beyond any hope. He thinks this Russian invasion is because of resentment towards Russia? No, it's because Putin grew increasingly frustrated with Euromaidan in Ukraine. Don't forget Crimea happened right after that.
From my understanding, the annexation of crimea was exactly because of 'resentment towards russia' as in russia wanted to retain its naval base. Expectations were that the next government would be much less aligned with russia, and probably not continuing their lease, thus russia annexed it illegally. Just to make sure, this is what I assume to be the reasoning and not any justification for it.
For the ukraine war, there are many speculations for its reasons, but some of them go into similar directions: Ukraine was increasingly less aligned with russias interests and their influence over it was drying up.
I think what you are taking offence to is that you interpret the 'resentment towards russia' as macron indirectly giving ukraine some blame for the situation?
|
Even if Ukraine wanted to stop leasing Russia its Black sea naval base, if Russia said 'no' there was not a god damn thing Ukraine was going to do about it.
The concept that they 'needed' to invade Crimea for it is ludicrous.
|
Russian Federation605 Posts
On September 26 2022 22:27 SC-Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2022 22:11 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 21:46 Ardias wrote:On September 26 2022 21:28 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 21:04 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:56 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:46 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:38 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:34 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:22 maybenexttime wrote: @Ardias Edit: As with "Odessa massacre", you are presented with video evidence that invalidates your bogus claims. Yet you refuse to admit you were wrong. Pathetic. He literally admitted that both is happening based on the evidence presented... If you people would start to actually faithfully engage instead of just going down your debate conversation tree this thread would be so much better. And if the mods would start to care about the rules set out in the first post... After spending several posts insinuating how these referendums could be legitimate and how he has doubts that people were voting at gunpoint based on some anecdotal evidence from a friend. I'm tired of the hutzpah. For someone as well informed as Ardias, I have a hard time believing that he wasn't aware of the videos posted by Ghanburighan. I understood his position as he is aware that the result of the referendum is already clear in advance, but he did not make conclusions about any claims resulting from that (i.e. if all pro ukrainian people had been filtrated out, a properly conducted referendum could lead to a real result, but that result would give no justification for anything). I also did not get the impression that he is trying to claim they are legit, just bringing some well needed nuance and caveats or even random bits of information to it. Of course a good way of seeing if he is 'insinuating' anything would be to ask in a non combative manner - but you know, that would include giving the benefit of the doubt and being interested in an actual conversation... After the "Odessa massacre" debacle I can't give him the benefit of the doubt. He was literally peddling Kremlin propaganda and when presented with heaps of evidence directly contradicting his claims, he stuck to the lies. The fact that you have to constantly go back to one single thing when he has been part of many exchanges here might led a more rational person to consider that he is... *gasp* wrong about that and not deliberately lying. His sources disagree with yours, and he values them over yours is a perfectly fine explanation. Not one you have to agree with, but one that you should be able to accept. At worst you can call him gullible for that. Or consider the fact that many times he does agree when confronted with different information. He claimed that an aggressive pro-Ukrainian crowd murdered innocent, peaceful pro-Russian protesters trapping them in a building and setting it on fire, and that people were stopped from helping them. I showed footage of the pro-Russian protesters firing live rounds from the rooftop and throwing molotovs from the building (and some pro-Ukrainians throwing theirs at the building). The footage also showed many pro-Ukrainian protesters helping people escape, with no one obstructing them. I also linked to investigations proving that the fire started in several places, including some that only the pro-Russian side had access to. In other words, the pro-Russian side was not peaceful, the people were not trapped by the pro-Ukrainian side but by the fire, and nobody was stopping anyone from escaping, on the contrary - the pro-Ukrainian crowd was actively helping people escape. There is tons of evidence supporting the official account of the events and zero evidence supporting the Kremlin narrative shared by Ardias. So forgive me if after that I assume he's more likely to post in bad faith. Are you still on about it? Well, if you are really interested in different perspective on events (of which I sincerely doubt, because most likely you just hate our guts) - I've send you some ot the "zero evidence" via PM, the investigation I was talking about previously few dozen pages back. when you started to dig under my skin again (though you didn't seem interested in it back then). I found that discussion derailing the thread from the current events at that time, and I still do so now, plus I understood that with the dismissal off the bat of anything I provide it's impossible to have a reasonable conversation regarding the event (imagine court proceeding where the evidence of one side are not accepted from the start, would that be a fair trial?). That's why I refrained from it. I only bring this up when questioned about why I assume bad faith when you post your pro-Kremlin takes. I also don't have the time to read the article you sent me or, more importantly, verify every detail mentioned there. The Russian side has zero credibility, considering all the lies it constantly spreads (numerous bogus theories regarding MH17, numerous assassinations by the Kremlin, false flags in Ukraine, and so on). Especially an article from a propaganda website affiliated with Igor Strelkov... The article is besides the point. I provided footage that directly contradicted your claims and you decided to stick with your claims. For those interested, here's the article in question: http://novorossia.pro/25yanvarya/1859-evgeniy-norin-odessa-2-maya-2014-kak-eto-bylo.html This website screams of imperialism even simply due to its own name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NovorossiyaAnd.. what a surprise, it looks like occupied territories by Russia. I wouldn't spend even 5 minutes reading it too. From Wikipedia: + Show Spoiler +Also, I'd like to use this opportunity to say that Macron is beyond any hope. He thinks this Russian invasion is because of resentment towards Russia? No, it's because Putin grew increasingly frustrated with Euromaidan in Ukraine. Don't forget Crimea happened right after that. Site itself - yes, that's why I didn't want to post it in the thread, but thinking that maybenexttime is geniuinely interested in reading other side perspective, I PM'ed it to him. Didn't think that he'll post it in the thread. The reason why I gave this particular link though is that the site where it was posted originally (Sputnik I Pogrom, site of a Russian nationalist Egor Prosvirnin) was blocked... by the Russian government, and Prosvirnin himself, who was a very much vocal supporter of LDPR, fell off the window being drugged few months before the war. Makes you think about what the Kremlin agenda is in all this. Regarding the article itself - Evgeniy Norin, however, despite being pro-Russian, is an author who gives a lot of attention to details, and article itself is trying to dissect the events of 02.05.2014 in Odessa by the minute. If anything it's useful to check how the events and perception of those in different sources are lining up.
On September 26 2022 22:49 Gorsameth wrote: Even if Ukraine wanted to stop leasing Russia its Black sea naval base, if Russia said 'no' there was not a god damn thing Ukraine was going to do about it.
The concept that they 'needed' to invade Crimea for it is ludicrous. It was leased for 25 years in 1992. So the end term was 2017. Ukraine could simply deny the prolongation (it was their right to do so) and demand Russian Black Sea Fleet and other forces to be removed from Crimea as they would now be stationed in the foreign land territory.
Not that there wouldn't be any other way to resolve this. But Ukraine could force Russian Navy out and basically force them to retire majority of it from the Black Sea (Novorossiysk naval base has nowhere near enough capacity to accomodate all Black Sea Fleet there, and I'm not sure if it could be expanded there, need to read up on that).
|
On September 26 2022 22:49 Gorsameth wrote: Even if Ukraine wanted to stop leasing Russia its Black sea naval base, if Russia said 'no' there was not a god damn thing Ukraine was going to do about it.
The concept that they 'needed' to invade Crimea for it is ludicrous.
If this is directed at me, I specifically said that I do not see it is a justification, but as russias reasoning, aka what motivated russia to do it. I don't think it justifies it, and I also don't think Macron thinks that, but understanding the intentions and reasons of your opponent is important.
|
On September 26 2022 22:50 Ardias wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2022 22:27 SC-Shield wrote:On September 26 2022 22:11 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 21:46 Ardias wrote:On September 26 2022 21:28 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 21:04 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:56 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:46 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:38 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:34 Artesimo wrote: [quote]
He literally admitted that both is happening based on the evidence presented... If you people would start to actually faithfully engage instead of just going down your debate conversation tree this thread would be so much better. And if the mods would start to care about the rules set out in the first post... After spending several posts insinuating how these referendums could be legitimate and how he has doubts that people were voting at gunpoint based on some anecdotal evidence from a friend. I'm tired of the hutzpah. For someone as well informed as Ardias, I have a hard time believing that he wasn't aware of the videos posted by Ghanburighan. I understood his position as he is aware that the result of the referendum is already clear in advance, but he did not make conclusions about any claims resulting from that (i.e. if all pro ukrainian people had been filtrated out, a properly conducted referendum could lead to a real result, but that result would give no justification for anything). I also did not get the impression that he is trying to claim they are legit, just bringing some well needed nuance and caveats or even random bits of information to it. Of course a good way of seeing if he is 'insinuating' anything would be to ask in a non combative manner - but you know, that would include giving the benefit of the doubt and being interested in an actual conversation... After the "Odessa massacre" debacle I can't give him the benefit of the doubt. He was literally peddling Kremlin propaganda and when presented with heaps of evidence directly contradicting his claims, he stuck to the lies. The fact that you have to constantly go back to one single thing when he has been part of many exchanges here might led a more rational person to consider that he is... *gasp* wrong about that and not deliberately lying. His sources disagree with yours, and he values them over yours is a perfectly fine explanation. Not one you have to agree with, but one that you should be able to accept. At worst you can call him gullible for that. Or consider the fact that many times he does agree when confronted with different information. He claimed that an aggressive pro-Ukrainian crowd murdered innocent, peaceful pro-Russian protesters trapping them in a building and setting it on fire, and that people were stopped from helping them. I showed footage of the pro-Russian protesters firing live rounds from the rooftop and throwing molotovs from the building (and some pro-Ukrainians throwing theirs at the building). The footage also showed many pro-Ukrainian protesters helping people escape, with no one obstructing them. I also linked to investigations proving that the fire started in several places, including some that only the pro-Russian side had access to. In other words, the pro-Russian side was not peaceful, the people were not trapped by the pro-Ukrainian side but by the fire, and nobody was stopping anyone from escaping, on the contrary - the pro-Ukrainian crowd was actively helping people escape. There is tons of evidence supporting the official account of the events and zero evidence supporting the Kremlin narrative shared by Ardias. So forgive me if after that I assume he's more likely to post in bad faith. Are you still on about it? Well, if you are really interested in different perspective on events (of which I sincerely doubt, because most likely you just hate our guts) - I've send you some ot the "zero evidence" via PM, the investigation I was talking about previously few dozen pages back. when you started to dig under my skin again (though you didn't seem interested in it back then). I found that discussion derailing the thread from the current events at that time, and I still do so now, plus I understood that with the dismissal off the bat of anything I provide it's impossible to have a reasonable conversation regarding the event (imagine court proceeding where the evidence of one side are not accepted from the start, would that be a fair trial?). That's why I refrained from it. I only bring this up when questioned about why I assume bad faith when you post your pro-Kremlin takes. I also don't have the time to read the article you sent me or, more importantly, verify every detail mentioned there. The Russian side has zero credibility, considering all the lies it constantly spreads (numerous bogus theories regarding MH17, numerous assassinations by the Kremlin, false flags in Ukraine, and so on). Especially an article from a propaganda website affiliated with Igor Strelkov... The article is besides the point. I provided footage that directly contradicted your claims and you decided to stick with your claims. For those interested, here's the article in question: http://novorossia.pro/25yanvarya/1859-evgeniy-norin-odessa-2-maya-2014-kak-eto-bylo.html This website screams of imperialism even simply due to its own name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NovorossiyaAnd.. what a surprise, it looks like occupied territories by Russia. I wouldn't spend even 5 minutes reading it too. From Wikipedia: + Show Spoiler +Also, I'd like to use this opportunity to say that Macron is beyond any hope. He thinks this Russian invasion is because of resentment towards Russia? No, it's because Putin grew increasingly frustrated with Euromaidan in Ukraine. Don't forget Crimea happened right after that. Site itself - yes, that's why I didn't want to post it in the thread, but thinking that maybenexttime is geniuinely interested in reading other side perspective, I PM'ed it to him. Didn't think that he'll post it in the thread. The reason why I gave this particular link though is that the site where it was posted originally (Sputnik I Pogrom, site of a Russian nationalist Egor Prosvirnin) was blocked... by the Russian government, and Prosvirnin himself, who was a very much vocal supporter of LDPR, fell off the window being drugged few months before the war. Makes you think about what the Kremlin agenda is in all this. Regarding the article itself - Evgeniy Norin, however, despite being pro-Russian, is an author who gives a lot of attention to details, and article itself is trying to dissect the events of 02.05.2014 in Odessa by the minute. If anything it's useful to check how the events and perception of those in different sources are lining up. Show nested quote +On September 26 2022 22:49 Gorsameth wrote: Even if Ukraine wanted to stop leasing Russia its Black sea naval base, if Russia said 'no' there was not a god damn thing Ukraine was going to do about it.
The concept that they 'needed' to invade Crimea for it is ludicrous. It was leased for 25 years in 1992. So the end term was 2017. Ukraine could simply deny the prolongation (it was their right to do so) and demand Russian Black Sea Fleet and other forces to be removed from Crimea as they would now be stationed in the foreign land territory. And if Russia said 'no, we are not leaving' there is absolutely no one that would have forced them.
Remember, in this case we are talking about a pre "lol can't even beat Ukraine" Russia. Before this humiliating self inflicted defeat absolutely no one was interested in trying to pick a fight with them.
|
Russian Federation605 Posts
On September 26 2022 22:58 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2022 22:50 Ardias wrote:On September 26 2022 22:27 SC-Shield wrote:On September 26 2022 22:11 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 21:46 Ardias wrote:On September 26 2022 21:28 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 21:04 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:56 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:46 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:38 maybenexttime wrote: [quote] After spending several posts insinuating how these referendums could be legitimate and how he has doubts that people were voting at gunpoint based on some anecdotal evidence from a friend. I'm tired of the hutzpah. For someone as well informed as Ardias, I have a hard time believing that he wasn't aware of the videos posted by Ghanburighan. I understood his position as he is aware that the result of the referendum is already clear in advance, but he did not make conclusions about any claims resulting from that (i.e. if all pro ukrainian people had been filtrated out, a properly conducted referendum could lead to a real result, but that result would give no justification for anything). I also did not get the impression that he is trying to claim they are legit, just bringing some well needed nuance and caveats or even random bits of information to it. Of course a good way of seeing if he is 'insinuating' anything would be to ask in a non combative manner - but you know, that would include giving the benefit of the doubt and being interested in an actual conversation... After the "Odessa massacre" debacle I can't give him the benefit of the doubt. He was literally peddling Kremlin propaganda and when presented with heaps of evidence directly contradicting his claims, he stuck to the lies. The fact that you have to constantly go back to one single thing when he has been part of many exchanges here might led a more rational person to consider that he is... *gasp* wrong about that and not deliberately lying. His sources disagree with yours, and he values them over yours is a perfectly fine explanation. Not one you have to agree with, but one that you should be able to accept. At worst you can call him gullible for that. Or consider the fact that many times he does agree when confronted with different information. He claimed that an aggressive pro-Ukrainian crowd murdered innocent, peaceful pro-Russian protesters trapping them in a building and setting it on fire, and that people were stopped from helping them. I showed footage of the pro-Russian protesters firing live rounds from the rooftop and throwing molotovs from the building (and some pro-Ukrainians throwing theirs at the building). The footage also showed many pro-Ukrainian protesters helping people escape, with no one obstructing them. I also linked to investigations proving that the fire started in several places, including some that only the pro-Russian side had access to. In other words, the pro-Russian side was not peaceful, the people were not trapped by the pro-Ukrainian side but by the fire, and nobody was stopping anyone from escaping, on the contrary - the pro-Ukrainian crowd was actively helping people escape. There is tons of evidence supporting the official account of the events and zero evidence supporting the Kremlin narrative shared by Ardias. So forgive me if after that I assume he's more likely to post in bad faith. Are you still on about it? Well, if you are really interested in different perspective on events (of which I sincerely doubt, because most likely you just hate our guts) - I've send you some ot the "zero evidence" via PM, the investigation I was talking about previously few dozen pages back. when you started to dig under my skin again (though you didn't seem interested in it back then). I found that discussion derailing the thread from the current events at that time, and I still do so now, plus I understood that with the dismissal off the bat of anything I provide it's impossible to have a reasonable conversation regarding the event (imagine court proceeding where the evidence of one side are not accepted from the start, would that be a fair trial?). That's why I refrained from it. I only bring this up when questioned about why I assume bad faith when you post your pro-Kremlin takes. I also don't have the time to read the article you sent me or, more importantly, verify every detail mentioned there. The Russian side has zero credibility, considering all the lies it constantly spreads (numerous bogus theories regarding MH17, numerous assassinations by the Kremlin, false flags in Ukraine, and so on). Especially an article from a propaganda website affiliated with Igor Strelkov... The article is besides the point. I provided footage that directly contradicted your claims and you decided to stick with your claims. For those interested, here's the article in question: http://novorossia.pro/25yanvarya/1859-evgeniy-norin-odessa-2-maya-2014-kak-eto-bylo.html This website screams of imperialism even simply due to its own name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NovorossiyaAnd.. what a surprise, it looks like occupied territories by Russia. I wouldn't spend even 5 minutes reading it too. From Wikipedia: + Show Spoiler +Also, I'd like to use this opportunity to say that Macron is beyond any hope. He thinks this Russian invasion is because of resentment towards Russia? No, it's because Putin grew increasingly frustrated with Euromaidan in Ukraine. Don't forget Crimea happened right after that. Site itself - yes, that's why I didn't want to post it in the thread, but thinking that maybenexttime is geniuinely interested in reading other side perspective, I PM'ed it to him. Didn't think that he'll post it in the thread. The reason why I gave this particular link though is that the site where it was posted originally (Sputnik I Pogrom, site of a Russian nationalist Egor Prosvirnin) was blocked... by the Russian government, and Prosvirnin himself, who was a very much vocal supporter of LDPR, fell off the window being drugged few months before the war. Makes you think about what the Kremlin agenda is in all this. Regarding the article itself - Evgeniy Norin, however, despite being pro-Russian, is an author who gives a lot of attention to details, and article itself is trying to dissect the events of 02.05.2014 in Odessa by the minute. If anything it's useful to check how the events and perception of those in different sources are lining up. On September 26 2022 22:49 Gorsameth wrote: Even if Ukraine wanted to stop leasing Russia its Black sea naval base, if Russia said 'no' there was not a god damn thing Ukraine was going to do about it.
The concept that they 'needed' to invade Crimea for it is ludicrous. It was leased for 25 years in 1992. So the end term was 2017. Ukraine could simply deny the prolongation (it was their right to do so) and demand Russian Black Sea Fleet and other forces to be removed from Crimea as they would now be stationed in the foreign land territory. And if Russia said 'no, we are not leaving' there is absolutely no one that would have forced them. Remember, in this case we are talking about a pre "lol can't even beat Ukraine" Russia. Before this humiliating self inflicted defeat absolutely no one was interested in trying to pick a fight with them. Base itself was supplied by Ukrainian power and a lot of general stuff (like food) was provided by local contractors. Ukraine could simply shut it all down, with legal grounds to do so. Because also nobody before 2014 could believe that Russia may military interviene in other European country business.
Though it's mostly pointing out the nuances, I would agree that the base itself could be only a supporting reason, not the main one (it could simply be included as a part of another one of the gas deals, for example).
|
|
|
The UK hits RU officials, UA collaborators, and bankers with sanctions as a response to the sham referenda.
The Foreign Secretary has today (26 September) announced 92 sanctions in response to the Russian regime imposing sham referendums in four regions of Ukraine – a clear violation of international law, including the UN charter. The Russian regime has organised these sham referendums in a desperate attempt to grab land and justify their illegal war. The process reflects their approach in Crimea in 2014, combining disinformation, intimidation, and fake results. These referendums do not represent the demonstrated will of the Ukrainian people and are a severe violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and political independence. The Foreign Secretary James Cleverly said: Sham referendums held at the barrel of a gun cannot be free or fair and we will never recognise their results. They follow a clear pattern of violence, intimidation, torture, and forced deportations in the areas of Ukraine Russia has seized. Today’s sanctions will target those behind these sham votes, as well as the individuals that continue to prop up the Russian regime’s war of aggression. We stand with the Ukrainian people and our support will continue as long as it takes to restore their sovereignty. In order to implement these fake referendums, the Russian regime has deployed officials and collaborators to each of the these temporarily controlled regions - 33 of these individuals are being sanctioned today. Source and more details
|
It appears the "beachhead" across the Oskil river is growing.
Also it appears that German Mines are now in use. As well as playing a part in the major air losses over the weekend.
|
On September 26 2022 21:46 Ardias wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2022 21:28 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 21:04 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:56 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:46 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:38 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:34 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:22 maybenexttime wrote: @Ardias Edit: As with "Odessa massacre", you are presented with video evidence that invalidates your bogus claims. Yet you refuse to admit you were wrong. Pathetic. He literally admitted that both is happening based on the evidence presented... If you people would start to actually faithfully engage instead of just going down your debate conversation tree this thread would be so much better. And if the mods would start to care about the rules set out in the first post... After spending several posts insinuating how these referendums could be legitimate and how he has doubts that people were voting at gunpoint based on some anecdotal evidence from a friend. I'm tired of the hutzpah. For someone as well informed as Ardias, I have a hard time believing that he wasn't aware of the videos posted by Ghanburighan. I understood his position as he is aware that the result of the referendum is already clear in advance, but he did not make conclusions about any claims resulting from that (i.e. if all pro ukrainian people had been filtrated out, a properly conducted referendum could lead to a real result, but that result would give no justification for anything). I also did not get the impression that he is trying to claim they are legit, just bringing some well needed nuance and caveats or even random bits of information to it. Of course a good way of seeing if he is 'insinuating' anything would be to ask in a non combative manner - but you know, that would include giving the benefit of the doubt and being interested in an actual conversation... After the "Odessa massacre" debacle I can't give him the benefit of the doubt. He was literally peddling Kremlin propaganda and when presented with heaps of evidence directly contradicting his claims, he stuck to the lies. The fact that you have to constantly go back to one single thing when he has been part of many exchanges here might led a more rational person to consider that he is... *gasp* wrong about that and not deliberately lying. His sources disagree with yours, and he values them over yours is a perfectly fine explanation. Not one you have to agree with, but one that you should be able to accept. At worst you can call him gullible for that. Or consider the fact that many times he does agree when confronted with different information. He claimed that an aggressive pro-Ukrainian crowd murdered innocent, peaceful pro-Russian protesters trapping them in a building and setting it on fire, and that people were stopped from helping them. I showed footage of the pro-Russian protesters firing live rounds from the rooftop and throwing molotovs from the building (and some pro-Ukrainians throwing theirs at the building). The footage also showed many pro-Ukrainian protesters helping people escape, with no one obstructing them. I also linked to investigations proving that the fire started in several places, including some that only the pro-Russian side had access to. In other words, the pro-Russian side was not peaceful, the people were not trapped by the pro-Ukrainian side but by the fire, and nobody was stopping anyone from escaping, on the contrary - the pro-Ukrainian crowd was actively helping people escape. There is tons of evidence supporting the official account of the events and zero evidence supporting the Kremlin narrative shared by Ardias. So forgive me if after that I assume he's more likely to post in bad faith. because most likely you just hate our guts I'm also curious what you meant by that.
|
On September 26 2022 19:02 Ardias wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2022 18:22 Simberto wrote: Ardias. You are from Russia. You have to know how Russian Elections work.
Do you really have any doubt that these referenda will deliver exactly the results that Putin wants? And that whatever these people mark on these ballots it utterly irrelevant to that point? Answering your question - yes, I know that referendums will end in Russia's favour. The question of would there be a need to rig them a lot - in Kherson and Zaporozhie - I guess yes, in LPR/DPR - not so sure. I know all of you guys believe that every person currently living in Donetsk, Lugansk or Sevastopol (or even Kherson, though of course pro-Ukrainian sentiment is still strong there) are eagerly willing to go back to Ukraine, but according to the people whom I personally know and who live there - that's not exactly the case. You may not believe me, or you may consider them brainwashed by Kremlin propaganda, that's up to you.
In fact quite the opposite, I believe a lot of the people who currently live in Donbas and occupied territories are happy to vote to join Russia. The problem is the current population is completely not representative to the actual population of the territory.
(you = russia, you is not you personally) : A) After 2014 a lot of pro-Ukrainians will have fled. B) You raped and murdered a whole lot of pro-Ukrainians in the last 7 months as the war criminals that you are. C) You abducted a ton of Ukrainians and put them through your concentration (filtration) camps like the fascists/ warcriminals that you are. D) You sent a whole bunch of them as cannon fodder to the front line as the war criminals that you are. E) You probably, forcifully or paid, sent a whole bunch of Russians from various places in your country to Donbass to become locals and vote instead of the actual citizens who are no longer there. etc. etc.
So yeah, even without faking and forcing people at gunpoint I expect that shitshow, which has literally nothing to do with a referendum, to actually score quite high on wanting to join Russia, esp Donbass.
|
Netherlands has announced more support for Ukraine. Not only in terms of Weapon deliveries(whatever that entails), but also Sanctions against Russia etc.
|
|
|
|