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 August 18 2024 03:18 sertas wrote: a launcher is not worth 1.2-1.5 billion, its the whole complex cost. If they're legit I will see them on youtube soon. Russia is known for posting old footage aswell.
Also it doesn't change the fact that the video you posted is wrong, it said 24 hours, it's not, its maybe last 2 weeks (why do i have to fact check this anyway , as i said it takes to much work)
I wrote that the systems are worth that much, the entire system not one part. Pro-whatever-side copetubers dont decide what is legit and what isnt, they only care about positive engagment from their sources of income. Something being peddled by a copetuber does not make it real.
The news and videos are from yesterday, that is what everyone is going on. Your argument that the launchers were destroyed 2 weeks ago doesnt make any sense, is this somehow a win for Ukraine that the launchers were destroyed 2 weeks ago instead of yesterday?
On August 18 2024 04:25 zeo wrote: Pro-whatever-side copetubers dont decide what is legit and what isnt, they only care about positive engagment from their sources of income. Something being peddled by a copetuber does not make it real.
So only Putin gets to decide, is that what you're getting at? You do see the flaw in your argument here? "People who analyze footage doesn't get to decide, they're only after clicks. The people who consistently lie about literally everything are the only ones I trust!"
What exactly does it take for you to entertain a source that isn't Kremlin?
On August 18 2024 03:18 sertas wrote: a launcher is not worth 1.2-1.5 billion, its the whole complex cost. If they're legit I will see them on youtube soon. Russia is known for posting old footage aswell.
Also it doesn't change the fact that the video you posted is wrong, it said 24 hours, it's not, its maybe last 2 weeks (why do i have to fact check this anyway , as i said it takes to much work)
It always takes way more effort to disprove fake news than it takes to throw it out there in the first place. And when you do, it's not going to change anyone's mind; they'll just move on to the next bullshit. The only winning move is to not engage.
Brandolini’s Bullshit Assymetry Principle if memory serves! Nothing like tacking a name onto a pretty understood problem haha
On August 18 2024 03:18 sertas wrote: a launcher is not worth 1.2-1.5 billion, its the whole complex cost. If they're legit I will see them on youtube soon. Russia is known for posting old footage aswell.
Also it doesn't change the fact that the video you posted is wrong, it said 24 hours, it's not, its maybe last 2 weeks (why do i have to fact check this anyway , as i said it takes to much work)
I wrote that the systems are worth that much, the entire system not one part. Pro-whatever-side copetubers dont decide what is legit and what isnt, they only care about positive engagment from their sources of income. Something being peddled by a copetuber does not make it real.
The news and videos are from yesterday, that is what everyone is going on. Your argument that the launchers were destroyed 2 weeks ago doesnt make any sense, is this somehow a win for Ukraine that the launchers were destroyed 2 weeks ago instead of yesterday?
You mean the videos i watched called "ukrainian himars destroyed" and "ukrainian aircraft destroyed" and then showing the video of russians destroying said equipment is a copetuber? It's showing the significant russian and ukrainian losses.
The same video guy also showed when russians destroyed 2 himars launchers 6 months ago I think it was, it was called "2 ukrainian himars launchers destroyed by russians" or something to that effect and then it showed it happened.
Note that these two videos about aircraft destroyed and himars destroyed where from different days and not in the same 24 hours. Your video claims all the losses happened in 24 hours which is just wrong.
If there's confirmation of himars launchers destroyed it will 100% show up on youtube. So far it probably didn't happen, and if it happened today or yesterday it 100% didn't happen in the same 24 hours as your misinformation video says. (a lot of that video seems to be misinformation aswell, not even acounting the 24 hours statement).
Also I should mention that losing a himars is not a big deal at all. Ukraine has 40+ launchers, more launchers than they have missiles. The only big thing happening in this war is currently happening in Kursk
What kind of negotiations can there be with people who indiscriminately attack civilians and civilian infrastructure or attempt to pose threat to nuclear power facilities? What is there to discuss with them?
- Vladimir Putin 2024
Not a strong look from the butcher of Bucha, the destroyer of the dam, and the occupier of ZNPP. This is peak ‘how it started how it’s going’ energy.
This really does pose a lot of problems for the Russians. If they won't push back Ukrainians from their territory (especially if they manage to capture the nuclear power plant) they won't really be able to go for "peace at current borders" angle. And they can't really push back the Ukrainians with their current tactics. Leveling entire cities might look good when you're invading but not when you're doing it to your own cities.
On August 18 2024 05:07 Excludos wrote: "People who analyze footage doesn't get to decide, they're only after clicks. The people who consistently lie about literally everything are the only ones I trust!"
Another poorly thought out straw man fallacy but I would advise against getting your news from Youtube influensers. Very few take a nuanced non-biased approach based on sources from both sides, these videos take a long time to put together. Twice a day contect creators do not have the time to process what is going on between videos and usually go with the content that retains them the most viewers.
Hot take off the cuff Youtubers are a kind of 'you get what you are paying for deal'
On August 18 2024 05:07 Excludos wrote: What exactly does it take for you to entertain a source that isn't Kremlin?
On November 12 2023 04:25 GreenHorizons wrote: New reporting on the Nord Stream pipeline attack furthers the assessment that the attack was a Ukrainian operation.
Ukrainian military officer coordinated Nord Stream pipeline attack
A senior Ukrainian military officer with deep ties to the country’s intelligence services played a central role in the bombing of the Nord Stream natural gas pipeline last year, according to officials in Ukraine and elsewhere in Europe, as well as other people knowledgeable about the details of the covert operation.
The officer’s role provides the most direct evidence to date tying Ukraine’s military and security leadership to a controversial act of sabotage that has spawned multiple criminal investigations and that U.S. and Western officials have called a dangerous attack on Europe’s energy infrastructure.
Roman Chervinsky, a decorated 48-year-old colonel who served in Ukraine’s Special Operations Forces, was the “coordinator” of the Nord Stream operation, people familiar with his role said, managing logistics and support for a six-person team that rented a sailboat under false identities and used deep-sea diving equipment to place explosive charges on the gas pipelines. On Sept. 26, 2022, three explosions caused massive leaks on the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines, which run from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea. The attack left only one of the four gas links in the network intact as winter approached.
Chervinsky did not act alone and he did not plan the operation, according to the people familiar with his role, which has not been previously reported. The officer took orders from more senior Ukrainian officials, who ultimately reported to Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, Ukraine’s highest-ranking military officer, said people familiar with how the operation was carried out. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive details about the bombing, which has strained diplomatic relations with Ukraine and drawn objections from U.S. officials.
And yet again, it's important to distinguish what is a credible source or not. Washington post is only on lvl 3 out of 5 on the trustworthiness scale. They repeatedly post false articles. Thus, to trust anything written by them, it needs to be backed up by a third party source that isn't themselves, or evidence that can be verified, which they have failed to do on every single one of their nord stream articles.
Publications like the Washington Post, the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal can send many journalists at once to spend some time on a subject and work together to write an article. This article is then signed name and surname by the writers that they stand by it.
When these articles uncover certain uncomfortable truths that dont conform to your view of the situation your knee jerk reaction is to pull out an 'untrustworthiness scale' (yes, i laughed at that too) which apparently invalidates the writers of the article and you can say 'well the random bot Telegram account or fake name X user didnt confirm it so it cant be true.
Or as some posters here think 'a random Youtube influenser didnt do a reaction video on it so it never happened'
On August 18 2024 03:18 sertas wrote: a launcher is not worth 1.2-1.5 billion, its the whole complex cost. If they're legit I will see them on youtube soon. Russia is known for posting old footage aswell.
Also it doesn't change the fact that the video you posted is wrong, it said 24 hours, it's not, its maybe last 2 weeks (why do i have to fact check this anyway , as i said it takes to much work)
Thank you for doing so. It is important to remind him after the holidays that reality also exist outside his orc bubble. It's not like he is risking anything by being wrong. Russia in his mind is planning to let Ukraine take more territory because potion is giant brain and if Russia is losing. It is all part of his plan. But yeah, how can he be wrong fort two years now and getting even more wrong. Soon he will start counting again dead civilians as dead Ukrainian soldiers.
Anyway he is literally in denial about the Ukrainian special military operation.
On August 18 2024 03:18 sertas wrote: a launcher is not worth 1.2-1.5 billion, its the whole complex cost. If they're legit I will see them on youtube soon. Russia is known for posting old footage aswell.
Also it doesn't change the fact that the video you posted is wrong, it said 24 hours, it's not, its maybe last 2 weeks (why do i have to fact check this anyway , as i said it takes to much work)
I wrote that the systems are worth that much, the entire system not one part. Pro-whatever-side copetubers dont decide what is legit and what isnt, they only care about positive engagment from their sources of income. Something being peddled by a copetuber does not make it real.
The news and videos are from yesterday, that is what everyone is going on. Your argument that the launchers were destroyed 2 weeks ago doesnt make any sense, is this somehow a win for Ukraine that the launchers were destroyed 2 weeks ago instead of yesterday?
Yes it matters to us because you are known to write your own narrative. You are doing exactly what you hate and you are unable to see it. So we point it out and you get mad from it.
What kind of negotiations can there be with people who indiscriminately attack civilians and civilian infrastructure or attempt to pose threat to nuclear power facilities? What is there to discuss with them?
- Vladimir Putin 2024
Not a strong look from the butcher of Bucha, the destroyer of the dam, and the occupier of ZNPP. This is peak ‘how it started how it’s going’ energy.
We should show this video whenever some idiot suggests negotiating with Russia. ;-)
On August 18 2024 12:26 Manit0u wrote: This really does pose a lot of problems for the Russians. If they won't push back Ukrainians from their territory (especially if they manage to capture the nuclear power plant) they won't really be able to go for "peace at current borders" angle. And they can't really push back the Ukrainians with their current tactics. Leveling entire cities might look good when you're invading but not when you're doing it to your own cities.
From the point of view of the Russian gov-t I don't see a glimpse of a reason to get into any sort of negotiations in the next ~2 years. This is quite clear from the previous Putin's proposal, which included a complete withdrawal of the US forces from the European continent, among the other claims, - so even if the Ukrainian gov-t would suddenly agree to the rest of the proposal, this would still be likely a no go for the rest parties involved. A very likely current goal is to destroy the Ukrainian state to the point of no return, which includes taking several (arguably, four) more regions with a significant share of pro-Russian population, and cutting Ukrainian access to the sea, which would require a significant amount of time.
To the proponents of negotiations with Putin Russia:
From 2014 until February 24, 2022, negotiations took place almost continuously in various formats. Shortly before Putin Russia launched the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine in response to and in the midst of negotiations, there were intensive negotiations between Russia, the USA and NATO, which were apparently intended by Russia to remain without agreement. This was because Russia consistently insisted on its maximum demands, which were virtually impossible for the “Western” side to accept. With the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these diplomatic negotiations were implicitly ended unilaterally by the Russian side. On the other hand, at the same time as the attack on Ukraine, Russia put forward a proposal for a diplomatic “solution”: A de facto subjugation of Ukraine under Russian rule: The Russian Demands on Ukraine: - Ukraine laying down its arms - Abandonment of any ambitions to join NATO - Permanent neutral status - Introduction of Russian as the official state language - Recognition of Crimea as Russian - Recognize the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics as independent - “denazification” and ‘demilitarization’ of Ukraine; in other words, Ukraine must install a regime at Russia's mercy.
Anyone who, after listing these facts, is still of the opinion that diplomatic negotiations with Putin Russia are a way to create peace and security in Europe should now know better. After a decade of war and a multitude of diplomatic attempts to find some kind of amicable solution for peace, it is obvious that Putin Russia is seeking goals other than peace and solutions acceptable to all sides.
Sources: www.swp-berlin.org, www.swp-berlin.org and many many more you can easily find, have access to and confirm everything stated in the above sources.
On August 18 2024 18:34 jodljodl wrote: To the proponents of negotiations with Putin Russia:
From 2014 until February 24, 2022, negotiations took place almost continuously in various formats. Shortly before Putin Russia launched the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine in response to and in the midst of negotiations, there were intensive negotiations between Russia, the USA and NATO, which were apparently intended by Russia to remain without agreement. This was because Russia consistently insisted on its maximum demands, which were virtually impossible for the “Western” side to accept. With the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these diplomatic negotiations were implicitly ended unilaterally by the Russian side. On the other hand, at the same time as the attack on Ukraine, Russia put forward a proposal for a diplomatic “solution”: A de facto subjugation of Ukraine under Russian rule: The Russian Demands on Ukraine: - Ukraine laying down its arms - Abandonment of any ambitions to join NATO - Permanent neutral status - Introduction of Russian as the official state language - Recognition of Crimea as Russian - Recognize the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics as independent - “denazification” and ‘demilitarization’ of Ukraine; in other words, Ukraine must install a regime at Russia's mercy.
Anyone who, after listing these facts, is still of the opinion that diplomatic negotiations with Putin Russia are a way to create peace and security in Europe should now know better. After a decade of war and a multitude of diplomatic attempts to find some kind of amicable solution for peace, it is obvious that Putin Russia is seeking goals other than peace and solutions acceptable to all sides.
Sources: www.swp-berlin.org, www.swp-berlin.org and many many more you can easily find, have access to and confirm everything stated in the above sources.
First, you (actually, the propagandist that you quote) aptly conceal here, that in return for these mild requirements (most of these terms like neutrality, language issue, army size - is how Ukraine used to be before the coups, with neutrality being a key condition of its formation in 1991 in the first place) Ukraine would get back 90 thousand sq km of territories, lost in the spring campaign, which is close to the size of South Korea.
Second, it is generally a bad taste to quote one of the main propaganda centers instead of giving your own reasons
Third, your sentence on “denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine" smells of racism, because its "denazification" part implies that Ukraine cannot be self-sufficient without reliance on paramilitary nazi groups like Azov in its internal\external policy. I skip here the demilitarization part, because there is enough evidence that countries with limited armies can live well in this world.
Countries with limited armies and friendly neighbours live peacefully. Countries with limited armies and Russia for a neighbour get annexed. Russia didn’t become the world’s largest country by sticking within its own borders. There’s five hundred years of history making the case against showing weakness to Russia. The only thing Russia respects is violence.
On August 18 2024 20:24 KwarK wrote: Countries with limited armies and friendly neighbours live peacefully. Countries with limited armies and Russia for a neighbour get annexed. Russia didn’t become the world’s largest country by sticking within its own borders. There’s five hundred years of history making the case against showing weakness to Russia. The only thing Russia respects is violence.
To be fair, no big/powerful European countries - nor USA - wanted to stick within their own borders up until WW1 or even WW2 or so. Colonies all across the world don't come with sticking to your borders and respecting other countries or natives. E.g. USA did expand to the west coast in the same way as Russia expanded to the east in 17-18th centuries, capturing land with natives. Russia became the world's largest country because it had the most land next to it (e.g. entire Siberia) not claimed by another powerful country who could defend it.
So this is IMO a bad take, referencing 500 years of expansion - every powerful enough country tried to do the same during vast majority of these 500 years. It's the last ~80 years that are different, so maybe we should stick to them for historical perspective re: "Russia has always been like that".
On August 18 2024 20:24 KwarK wrote: Countries with limited armies and friendly neighbours live peacefully. Countries with limited armies and Russia for a neighbour get annexed. Russia didn’t become the world’s largest country by sticking within its own borders. There’s five hundred years of history making the case against showing weakness to Russia. The only thing Russia respects is violence.
To be fair, no big/powerful European countries - nor USA - wanted to stick within their own borders up until WW1 or even WW2 or so. Colonies all across the world don't come with sticking to your borders and respecting other countries or natives. E.g. USA did expand to the west coast in the same way as Russia expanded to the east in 17-18th centuries, capturing land with natives. Russia became the world's largest country because it had the most land next to it (e.g. entire Siberia) not claimed by another powerful country who could defend it.
So this is IMO a bad take, referencing 500 years of expansion - every powerful enough country tried to do the same during vast majority of these 500 years. It's the last ~80 years that are different, so maybe we should stick to them for historical perspective re: "Russia has always been like that".
No, it's a good take. It highlights the fact that other imperial powers moved past their imperialism while Russia has not. The vast majority of Russians are imperialists who believe the stab in the back myth, in which the treacherous West robbed Russia of its empire (colonial possessions) in a moment of weakness. This narrative is at the core of Russia's descent into fascism.
Then focus should be on "in the last 80 years other stopped but Russia didn't" - not "it has been like that for 500 years".
Also you like to say "vast majority" when what you see on the internet is a very loud minority, and you don't actually even see 99% of the population, they don't post their opinions on the internet. Somewhat big part of the population, yes. More than most other countries - yes. Too many - absolutely. But far from vast majority.
It's like saying vast majority of Poles are religious or misogynist bigots because Poland has anti-abortion policies/laws. These laws would not be there if vast majority of Poles didn't support it, right? Do you support these laws? Do most of your friends support these laws? Does vast majority of women support these laws? Well, as if it could change your mind...
On August 18 2024 20:41 ZeroByte13 wrote: Russia became the world's largest country because it had the most land next to it (e.g. entire Siberia) not claimed by another powerful country who could defend it.
Did you forget which side of the debate you were arguing? You made this point in favour of Ukrainian disarmament and trusting that Russia wouldn’t attempt to expand into nearby land just because it wasn’t defended.
On August 18 2024 21:24 ZeroByte13 wrote: Then focus should be on "in the last 80 years other stopped but Russia didn't" - not "it has been like that for 500 years".
Also you like to say "vast majority" when what you see on the internet is a very loud minority, and you don't actually even see 99% of the population, they don't post their opinions on the internet. Somewhat big part of the population, yes. More than most other countries - yes. Too many - absolutely. But far from vast majority.
It's like saying vast majority of Poles are religious or misogynist bigots because Poland has anti-abortion policies/laws. These laws would not be there if vast majority of Poles didn't support it, right? Do you support these laws? Do most of your friends support these laws? Does vast majority of women support these laws? Well, as if it could change your mind...
Nice try but the abortion law was changed without a popular vote precisely because it had no popular support.
70% of the Russian population find returning the occupied Ukrainian territories as unacceptable. 3/4 of the population supports the Russian armed forces, which are engaged in a genocidal war in Ukraine. According to a UN human rights monitor, 95% of Ukrainian POWs captured by Russia were tortured. Russians also routinely torture conscripts from Donbas. Most Russians also support the kidnapping of the Ukrainian children.
You can be in denial all you want. That won't change the facts.
EPT
