Unit2Suck said:

---

...So while I agree that Putin's fascism is leading to a yes-men culture that caused him to be surprised at how challenging this war would be, he also doesn't care about the impact it has on anyone, not the least of which are the Russian people. That's why it's absolutely bonkers when his cheerleaders here and elsewhere pretend that Putin cares one iota about Russian-speaking people in Ukraine. If he doesn't care about actual Russians, why would he care about the ones who live elsewhere?

The cheerleaders will never answer these questions because they can't criticize Putin and there's no way to acknowledge reality without doing so. Instead they resort to obviously false propaganda.

---

How do you know that your own propaganda is not fake? Do you have a modicum of skepticism when evaluating articles like the one above?

A lot of the items about Russia described in the article above are actually far worse on the Ukrainian side. Consider that Russia has concluded its first mobilization round (quite successfully so, according to Zaluzhny, head of Ukrainian armed forces, with 300,000 troops added), while Ukraine is on its 10th mobilization round. I am pretty sure that :

-Ukrainian military losses greatly outnumber Russian losses, commensurate with the huge discrepancy in firing power/volume

-Ukrainian forces are far less well-equipped than Russian forces, with far fewer everything (tanks, planes, helis, AA systems, long-range missiles, cannons, ammo, ambulances etc)

-Ukrainian forces' equipment is less modern and not as good as Russian's, they're basically older Soviet stock with a small sprinkling of NATO equipment.

In light of this, the articles like the Yahoo one linked above amount to basic wartime propaganda.

Russia is currently dictating the terms and tempo of this war, they have been favoring a more static artillery duel where they have a very disproportionate advantage in firepower, logically resulting in a war of attrition with disproportionate losses for Ukraine.

That might change as their numbers swell, they will be starting the year with a large numeric advantage, which was the opposite of the situation at the beginning of the conflict. Resuming big arrow maneuvers is now an option, though nobody knows what they will do, they might just pursue their current approach with more firepower.

I know people's first reaction to this information on here is to interpret it as some kind of support or cheerleading for Russia, when in fact my intent is to provide a factual counterpoint to the wartime propaganda, this war is far nastier than portrayed. Ukrainians have been bleeding at much higher rates than acknowledged, and their prospects for victory are very dim in the short and medium term.

Entire cities and regions that are largely intact in Ukraine can yet be saved if a diplomatic solution could be implemented. Unfortunately that ship might have sailed, I think at this point the Russians are going to press their advantage and keep grinding till they reach Ukraine's breaking point. The Russians' economic and diplomatic positions are secure. NATO's military support only serves to raise that threshold of Ukraine's breaking point, which means that another 100,000-200,000 Ukrainians might have to die, and more of Ukraine will have to be destroyed.

Cal88 said:

---

Unit2Suck said:

---

...So while I agree that Putin's fascism is leading to a yes-men culture that caused him to be surprised at how challenging this war would be, he also doesn't care about the impact it has on anyone, not the least of which are the Russian people. That's why it's absolutely bonkers when his cheerleaders here and elsewhere pretend that Putin cares one iota about Russian-speaking people in Ukraine. If he doesn't care about actual Russians, why would he care about the ones who live elsewhere?

The cheerleaders will never answer these questions because they can't criticize Putin and there's no way to acknowledge reality without doing so. Instead they resort to obviously false propaganda.

---

How do you know that your own propaganda is not fake? Do you have a modicum of skepticism when evaluating articles like the one above?

A lot of the items about Russia described in the article above are actually far worse on the Ukrainian side. Consider that Russia has concluded its first mobilization round (quite successfully so, according to Zaluzhny, head of Ukrainian armed forces, with 300,000 troops added), while Ukraine is on its 10th mobilization round. I am pretty sure that :

-Ukrainian military losses greatly outnumber Russian losses, commensurate with the huge discrepancy in firing power/volume

-Ukrainian forces are far less well-equipped than Russian forces, with far fewer everything (tanks, planes, helis, AA systems, long-range missiles, cannons, ammo, ambulances etc)

-Ukrainian forces' equipment is less modern and not as good as Russian's, they're basically older Soviet stock with a small sprinkling of NATO equipment.

In light of this, the articles like the Yahoo one linked above amount to basic wartime propaganda.

Russia is currently dictating the terms and tempo of this war, they have been favoring a more static artillery duel where they have a very disproportionate advantage in firepower, logically resulting in a war of attrition with disproportionate losses for Ukraine.

That might change as their numbers swell, they will be starting the year with a large numeric advantage, which was the opposite of the situation at the beginning of the conflict. Resuming big arrow maneuvers is now an option, though nobody knows what they will do, they might just pursue their current approach with more firepower.

I know people's first reaction to this information on here is to interpret it as some kind of support or cheerleading for Russia, when in fact my intent is to provide a factual counterpoint to the wartime propaganda, this war is far nastier than portrayed. Ukrainians have been bleeding at much higher rates than acknowledged, and their prospects for victory are very dim in the short and medium term.

Entire cities and regions that are largely intact in Ukraine can yet be saved if a diplomatic solution could be implemented. Unfortunately that ship might have sailed, I think at this point the Russians are going to press their advantage and keep grinding till they reach Ukraine's breaking point. The Russians' economic and diplomatic positions are secure. NATO's military support only serves to raise that threshold of Ukraine's breaking point, which means that another 100,000-200,000 Ukrainians might have to die, and more of Ukraine will have to be destroyed.

---

The issue is that the statements you make are contrary to multiple experts and information outlets. These outlets range from Al-Jazeera and Wion to reuters to bbc to geopolitical strategists like ian bremmer, peter zeihan, STG, George friedman, and military experts like michael Kofman, and a few others.

Further it is not our place to pressure Ukraine to surrender. It is their freedom and they suffer the consequences. The ukranians are far more aware of the impact of the war than any of us internet warriors. The ukranians are the best informed people to choose whether or not to fight or surrender and if they still choose to fight, we should support them.

Cal88 said:

---

Guys like Ian Bremmer and Zeihan who derive their mid-6 figure income from speaking engagements, book sales and consulting to corporate and MIC clients are only going to stick to the rosy,, ideologically-driven narrative.

---

As opposed to your sources who (as I have demonstrated) take money directly from Russia?

Please.

Cal88 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Unit2Suck said:

---

...So while I agree that Putin's fascism is leading to a yes-men culture that caused him to be surprised at how challenging this war would be, he also doesn't care about the impact it has on anyone, not the least of which are the Russian people. That's why it's absolutely bonkers when his cheerleaders here and elsewhere pretend that Putin cares one iota about Russian-speaking people in Ukraine. If he doesn't care about actual Russians, why would he care about the ones who live elsewhere?

The cheerleaders will never answer these questions because they can't criticize Putin and there's no way to acknowledge reality without doing so. Instead they resort to obviously false propaganda.

---

How do you know that your own propaganda is not fake? Do you have a modicum of skepticism when evaluating articles like the one above?

A lot of the items about Russia described in the article above are actually far worse on the Ukrainian side. Consider that Russia has concluded its first mobilization round (quite successfully so, according to Zaluzhny, head of Ukrainian armed forces, with 300,000 troops added), while Ukraine is on its 10th mobilization round. I am pretty sure that :

-Ukrainian military losses greatly outnumber Russian losses, commensurate with the huge discrepancy in firing power/volume

-Ukrainian forces are far less well-equipped than Russian forces, with far fewer everything (tanks, planes, helis, AA systems, long-range missiles, cannons, ammo, ambulances etc)

-Ukrainian forces' equipment is less modern and not as good as Russian's, they're basically older Soviet stock with a small sprinkling of NATO equipment.

In light of this, the articles like the Yahoo one linked above amount to basic wartime propaganda.

Russia is currently dictating the terms and tempo of this war, they have been favoring a more static artillery duel where they have a very disproportionate advantage in firepower, logically resulting in a war of attrition with disproportionate losses for Ukraine.

That might change as their numbers swell, they will be starting the year with a large numeric advantage, which was the opposite of the situation at the beginning of the conflict. Resuming big arrow maneuvers is now an option, though nobody knows what they will do, they might just pursue their current approach with more firepower.

I know people's first reaction to this information on here is to interpret it as some kind of support or cheerleading for Russia, when in fact my intent is to provide a factual counterpoint to the wartime propaganda, this war is far nastier than portrayed. Ukrainians have been bleeding at much higher rates than acknowledged, and their prospects for victory are very dim in the short and medium term.

Entire cities and regions that are largely intact in Ukraine can yet be saved if a diplomatic solution could be implemented. Unfortunately that ship might have sailed, I think at this point the Russians are going to press their advantage and keep grinding till they reach Ukraine's breaking point. The Russians' economic and diplomatic positions are secure. NATO's military support only serves to raise that threshold of Ukraine's breaking point, which means that another 100,000-200,000 Ukrainians might have to die, and more of Ukraine will have to be destroyed.

---

The issue is that the statements you make are contrary to multiple experts and information outlets. These outlets range from Al-Jazeera and Wion to reuters to bbc to geopolitical strategists like ian bremmer, peter zeihan, STG, George friedman, and military experts like michael Kofman, and a few others.

Further it is not our place to pressure Ukraine to surrender. It is their freedom and they suffer the consequences. The ukranians are far more aware of the impact of the war than any of us internet warriors. The ukranians are the best informed people to choose whether or not to fight or surrender and if they still choose to fight, we should support them.

---

Guys like Ian Bremmer and Zeihan who derive their mid-6 figure income from speaking engagements, book sales and consulting to corporate and MIC clients are only going to stick to the rosy,, ideologically-driven narrative. Analysts like Col. McGregor on the other hand get zero coverage in the MSM.

We've actually been pressuring Ukraine to fight and not surrender. A high number of Ukrainian men have left the country in order to avoid being sent to the front, including some of my relatives. And a lot of Ukrainians who went to the front were sold on a rosier picture. The number of hardcore Ukrainian nationalists who are willing to die for this war is constantly dwindling, they are now in the minority. The proverbial silent majority of Ukrainians want a settlement and an end to this war, as reflected by their votes prior to the Maidan Coup.

---

And this why people receive your comments with scorn and derision. Because it is almost always wrong.

First, the income of speakers has nothing to do with the accuracy of their reporting so raising that issue is just dumb. Second, Zeihan thinks Russia will win, so your claim he (and the others) stick to an ideologically narrative and paints a rosy picture is wrong. Third, there is no way that breadth of sources from that range of countries are all in cahoots to promote a false narrative to continue support for Ukraine. Again, all of these sources directly contradict your narrative of Russia being smart, powerful and in control. Your continued and unapologetic wrongness defines you in this thread, that is why I value the input of these sources over yours. That is why I believe your counter narrative should be disregarded.

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Guys like Ian Bremmer and Zeihan who derive their mid-6 figure income from speaking engagements, book sales and consulting to corporate and MIC clients are only going to stick to the rosy,, ideologically-driven narrative.

---

As opposed to your sources who (as I have demonstrated) take money directly from Russia?

Please.

---

You've demonstrated nothing, the notion that someone like Col. McGregor is on Russia's payroll is ridiculous. The extent of your demonstration was that some analysts or journalists like Noam Chomsky or Chris Hedges were on RT, that's it.

golden sloth said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

The issue is that the statements you make are contrary to multiple experts and information outlets. These outlets range from Al-Jazeera and Wion to reuters to bbc to geopolitical strategists like ian bremmer, peter zeihan, STG, George friedman, and military experts like michael Kofman, and a few others.

Further it is not our place to pressure Ukraine to surrender. It is their freedom and they suffer the consequences. The ukranians are far more aware of the impact of the war than any of us internet warriors. The ukranians are the best informed people to choose whether or not to fight or surrender and if they still choose to fight, we should support them.

---

Guys like Ian Bremmer and Zeihan who derive their mid-6 figure income from speaking engagements, book sales and consulting to corporate and MIC clients are only going to stick to the rosy,, ideologically-driven narrative. Analysts like Col. McGregor on the other hand get zero coverage in the MSM.

We've actually been pressuring Ukraine to fight and not surrender. A high number of Ukrainian men have left the country in order to avoid being sent to the front, including some of my relatives. And a lot of Ukrainians who went to the front were sold on a rosier picture. The number of hardcore Ukrainian nationalists who are willing to die for this war is constantly dwindling, they are now in the minority. The proverbial silent majority of Ukrainians want a settlement and an end to this war, as reflected by their votes prior to the Maidan Coup.

---

And this why people receive your comments with scorn and derision. Because it is almost always wrong.

First, the income of speakers has nothing to do with the accuracy of their reporting so raising that issue is just dumb. Second, Zeihan thinks Russia will win, so your claim he (and the others) stick to an ideologically narrative and paints a rosy picture is wrong. Third, there is no way that breadth of sources from that range of countries are all in cahoots to promote a false narrative to continue support for Ukraine. Again, all of these sources directly contradict your narrative of Russia being smart, powerful and in control. Your continued and unapologetic wrongness defines you in this thread, that is why I value the input of these sources over yours. That is why I believe your counter narrative should be disregarded.

---

That scorn is mostly a reflection of people being emotionally hooked on the popular narrative that is hiding the nature and extent of the bloodbath in Ukraine.

You can't derive a high income from mainstream think tanks, or the client base of someone like Brennan if you don't espouse the main NATO narrative. Someone like Jeffrey Sachs, who has recently left the NATO plantation, is no longer featured on outlets like CNN he used to be on when it comes to discussing US foreign policy and foreign wars.

Sometime around the Iraq War and 9/11 aftermath, the MSM ceased to be abide by their historical journalistic standards and became glorified and embedded MIC cheerleaders. The bias in reporting on the Ukraine war is even more pronounced, as it is wrapped in an emotional narrative that makes it hard for their audience to accept anything that goes counter that narrative.

Eventually, sometime next year, I will be proven right on the main points discussed here.

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Guys like Ian Bremmer and Zeihan who derive their mid-6 figure income from speaking engagements, book sales and consulting to corporate and MIC clients are only going to stick to the rosy,, ideologically-driven narrative.

---

As opposed to your sources who (as I have demonstrated) take money directly from Russia?

Please.

---

You've demonstrated nothing, the notion that someone like Col. McGregor is on Russia's payroll is ridiculous. The extent of your demonstration was that some analysts or journalists like Noam Chomsky or Chris Hedges were on RT, that's it.

---

Wrong. I made no claims about MacGregor. Here are my findings on some of your sources who are paid by Russia:

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107414/replies/2101469
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107414/replies/2101607
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107414/replies/2101850

EDIT: Oh, and thanks for bringing up Chris Hedges, who hosted a show on RT America. So that's another person who was directly paid by the Russian government. I don't think Chomsky is on their payroll; I just think he's lost his marbles in recent years.

---

So Max Blumenthal is a Russian agent because he attended an international media event in Russia 7 years ago? That's a bit flimsy. Bill Clinton received a $500,000 bribe from a Russian state-related concern for a 45 minute speech in Moscow while his wife was Secretary of State, but you're never going to call him a Russian agent...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5009373/FBI-surprised-Bill-Clinton-took-500-000-Russia.html

Max Blumenthal could have had a far more lucrative career just by using his contacts, his father being a well-connected Democrat and State Dept insider. His independent high-minded political views have considerably reduced his monetary journalistic horizons. And yet here you are calling him a Russian agent for an appearance in a rubber Kiev chicken gala...

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Guys like Ian Bremmer and Zeihan who derive their mid-6 figure income from speaking engagements, book sales and consulting to corporate and MIC clients are only going to stick to the rosy,, ideologically-driven narrative.

---

As opposed to your sources who (as I have demonstrated) take money directly from Russia?

Please.

---

You've demonstrated nothing, the notion that someone like Col. McGregor is on Russia's payroll is ridiculous. The extent of your demonstration was that some analysts or journalists like Noam Chomsky or Chris Hedges were on RT, that's it.

---

Wrong. I made no claims about MacGregor. Here are my findings on some of your sources who are paid by Russia:

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107414/replies/2101469
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107414/replies/2101607
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107414/replies/2101850

EDIT: Oh, and thanks for bringing up Chris Hedges, who hosted a show on RT America. So that's another person who was directly paid by the Russian government. I don't think Chomsky is on their payroll; I just think he's lost his marbles in recent years.

---

So Max Blumenthal is a Russian agent because he attended an international media event in Russia 7 years ago? That's a bit flimsy. Bill Clinton received a $500,000 bribe from a Russian state-related concern for a 45 minute speech in Moscow while his wife was Secretary of State, but you're never going to call him a Russian agent...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5009373/FBI-surprised-Bill-Clinton-took-500-000-Russia.html

Max Blumenthal could have had a far more lucrative career just by using his contacts, his father being a well-connected Democrat and State Dept insider. His independent high-minded political views have considerably reduced his monetary journalistic horizons. And yet here you are calling him a Russian agent for an appearance in a rubber Kiev chicken gala...

---

Bill Clinton didn't shift his foreign-policy positions to Russia-favoring ones immediately after receiving that check. Blumenthal did.

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Guys like Ian Bremmer and Zeihan who derive their mid-6 figure income from speaking engagements, book sales and consulting to corporate and MIC clients are only going to stick to the rosy,, ideologically-driven narrative.

---

As opposed to your sources who (as I have demonstrated) take money directly from Russia?

Please.

---

You've demonstrated nothing, the notion that someone like Col. McGregor is on Russia's payroll is ridiculous. The extent of your demonstration was that some analysts or journalists like Noam Chomsky or Chris Hedges were on RT, that's it.

---

Wrong. I made no claims about MacGregor. Here are my findings on some of your sources who are paid by Russia:

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107414/replies/2101469
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107414/replies/2101607
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107414/replies/2101850

EDIT: Oh, and thanks for bringing up Chris Hedges, who hosted a show on RT America. So that's another person who was directly paid by the Russian government. I don't think Chomsky is on their payroll; I just think he's lost his marbles in recent years.

---

So Max Blumenthal is a Russian agent because he attended an international media event in Russia 7 years ago? That's a bit flimsy. Bill Clinton received a $500,000 bribe from a Russian state-related concern for a 45 minute speech in Moscow while his wife was Secretary of State, but you're never going to call him a Russian agent...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5009373/FBI-surprised-Bill-Clinton-took-500-000-Russia.html

Max Blumenthal could have had a far more lucrative career just by using his contacts, his father being a well-connected Democrat and State Dept insider. His independent high-minded political views have considerably reduced his monetary journalistic horizons. And yet here you are calling him a Russian agent for an appearance in a rubber Kiev chicken gala...

---

Bill Clinton didn't shift his foreign-policy positions to Russia-favoring ones immediately after receiving that check. Blumenthal did.

---

So seven years later after having gotten what was probably a comped expense trip for a dinner conference there, Blumenthal is being a Russian agent? That must have been some dinner...

And in what universe can a fairly famous outspoken journalist-dissident receive money from Russia without any alphabet agencies noticing?

Obama / Biden inflamed Ukraine:

Stephen McIntyre@ClimateAudit

6h Replying to @notafinger42

@iowahawkblog and @MichaelRCaputo
"Ukraine is ethnically split. Western Ukrainian nazionalists bombing eastern Ukraine areas populated by ethnic Russians, who wanted to separate from Ukraine after US-backed coup removed elected President and voted to remove minority language rights. 2014: Obama-Biden began trouble"

Is General Milley also a Russian plant?

CNN: "Milley's push for peace has spilled into the public last week in comments at the Economic Club of New York, Milley praised the Ukrainian army for fighting Russia to a stalemate, but said that an outright military victory is out of reach.

"When there's an opportunity to negotiate, when peace can be achieved, seize it. Seize the moment," Milley said."

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Guys like Ian Bremmer and Zeihan who derive their mid-6 figure income from speaking engagements, book sales and consulting to corporate and MIC clients are only going to stick to the rosy,, ideologically-driven narrative.

---

As opposed to your sources who (as I have demonstrated) take money directly from Russia?

Please.

---

You've demonstrated nothing, the notion that someone like Col. McGregor is on Russia's payroll is ridiculous. The extent of your demonstration was that some analysts or journalists like Noam Chomsky or Chris Hedges were on RT, that's it.

---

Wrong. I made no claims about MacGregor. Here are my findings on some of your sources who are paid by Russia:

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107414/replies/2101469
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107414/replies/2101607
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/107414/replies/2101850

EDIT: Oh, and thanks for bringing up Chris Hedges, who hosted a show on RT America. So that's another person who was directly paid by the Russian government. I don't think Chomsky is on their payroll; I just think he's lost his marbles in recent years.

---

So Max Blumenthal is a Russian agent because he attended an international media event in Russia 7 years ago? That's a bit flimsy. Bill Clinton received a $500,000 bribe from a Russian state-related concern for a 45 minute speech in Moscow while his wife was Secretary of State, but you're never going to call him a Russian agent...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5009373/FBI-surprised-Bill-Clinton-took-500-000-Russia.html

Max Blumenthal could have had a far more lucrative career just by using his contacts, his father being a well-connected Democrat and State Dept insider. His independent high-minded political views have considerably reduced his monetary journalistic horizons. And yet here you are calling him a Russian agent for an appearance in a rubber Kiev chicken gala...

---

Bill Clinton didn't shift his foreign-policy positions to Russia-favoring ones immediately after receiving that check. Blumenthal did.

---

So seven years later after having gotten what was probably a comped expense trip for a dinner conference there, Blumenthal is being a Russian agent? That must have been some dinner...

And in what universe can a fairly famous outspoken journalist-dissident receive money from Russia without any alphabet agencies noticing?

---

So what if any agencies noticed? I don't think he broke any laws. This isn't about that, it's about where your influences and biases lie.

---

Come on Sy, you're usually better at arguing. You know full well that if there were any real money trail between Blumenthal and Russia, it would have been known, and it would have certainly
been published or leaked in order to discredit him. That's why guys like him don't take money from governments or other agents that might compromise their journalistic integrity.

Quote:

---

Blumenthal also wasn't the only source here. You only want to focus on him because it's the one you can make the best argument for.

---

Your first two links above posted as examples of Kremlin compromised were about him.

movielover said:

---

Col McGregor today claims that some sizeable Ukrainian leadership and support has withdrawn to about 10 miles from Poland, not where you retreat to if you are "winning" a war.

Putin and top officials in Belarus today, reportedly asking them to join the war. 70,000 active troops, 320,000 reservists.

McGregor says no one has the guts to pull the plug on the "self-licking popsicle". (MIC and DC.) They had a chance in the beginning for a better resolution, but now Putin is in charge.

---

I think the mobilization in Belarus could be a result of similar large-scale mobilization plans in Poland. I'm not sure if Belarusian troops are going to go into Ukraine, though there might be another incursion from the Russians towards Kiev now that they have the numbers. There is a 2-month window opening up now with the deep winter freeze that wasn't there last year.

In any case because the threat is there, Ukraine will have to keep a large garrison stationed in Kiev and along their northern border, that would be a motive there.

Cal88 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

The issue is that the statements you make are contrary to multiple experts and information outlets. These outlets range from Al-Jazeera and Wion to reuters to bbc to geopolitical strategists like ian bremmer, peter zeihan, STG, George friedman, and military experts like michael Kofman, and a few others.

Further it is not our place to pressure Ukraine to surrender. It is their freedom and they suffer the consequences. The ukranians are far more aware of the impact of the war than any of us internet warriors. The ukranians are the best informed people to choose whether or not to fight or surrender and if they still choose to fight, we should support them.

---

Guys like Ian Bremmer and Zeihan who derive their mid-6 figure income from speaking engagements, book sales and consulting to corporate and MIC clients are only going to stick to the rosy,, ideologically-driven narrative. Analysts like Col. McGregor on the other hand get zero coverage in the MSM.

We've actually been pressuring Ukraine to fight and not surrender. A high number of Ukrainian men have left the country in order to avoid being sent to the front, including some of my relatives. And a lot of Ukrainians who went to the front were sold on a rosier picture. The number of hardcore Ukrainian nationalists who are willing to die for this war is constantly dwindling, they are now in the minority. The proverbial silent majority of Ukrainians want a settlement and an end to this war, as reflected by their votes prior to the Maidan Coup.

---

And this why people receive your comments with scorn and derision. Because it is almost always wrong.

First, the income of speakers has nothing to do with the accuracy of their reporting so raising that issue is just dumb. Second, Zeihan thinks Russia will win, so your claim he (and the others) stick to an ideologically narrative and paints a rosy picture is wrong. Third, there is no way that breadth of sources from that range of countries are all in cahoots to promote a false narrative to continue support for Ukraine. Again, all of these sources directly contradict your narrative of Russia being smart, powerful and in control. Your continued and unapologetic wrongness defines you in this thread, that is why I value the input of these sources over yours. That is why I believe your counter narrative should be disregarded.

---

That scorn is mostly a reflection of people being emotionally hooked on the popular narrative that is hiding the nature and extent of the bloodbath in Ukraine.

You can't derive a high income from mainstream think tanks, or the client base of someone like Brennan if you don't espouse the main NATO narrative. Someone like Jeffrey Sachs, who has recently left the NATO plantation, is no longer featured on outlets like CNN he used to be on when it comes to discussing US foreign policy and foreign wars.

Sometime around the Iraq War and 9/11 aftermath, the MSM ceased to be abide by their historical journalistic standards and became glorified and embedded MIC cheerleaders. The bias in reporting on the Ukraine war is even more pronounced, as it is wrapped in an emotional narrative that makes it hard for their audience to accept anything that goes counter that narrative.

Eventually, sometime next year, I will be proven right on the main points discussed here.

---

So basically you claim anyone that is successful and well-respected within the geopolitical field is a tool of the military industrial complex and should not be trusted.

So basically we should not listen to the best and brightest minds in a subject matter that they have dedicated their professional lives to, and instead listen to the obscure contrarians and conspiracy theorists.

That does not make sense. I trust the opinion of 5 well respected experts over the opinion of 1 well respected expert.

I also trust the reporting of reuters, bbc, Al-Jazeera and wion. They dont always agree with each other but a well rounded understanding of the issue arises after reviewing each of their reports on an issue.

If he had worn a suit, republicans would go apesh*t.

This ungrateful piece of sh*t does not have the decency to wear a suit to the White House -- no respect the country that is funding his survival.

Track suit wearing eastern european con-man mafia.

Our leaders fell for it. They have disgraced us all. What an incredible insult. pic.twitter.com/7WdLnqfYur

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) December 21, 2022

okaydo said:

---

If he had worn a suit, republicans would go apesh*t.

This ungrateful piece of sh*t does not have the decency to wear a suit to the White House -- no respect the country that is funding his survival.

Track suit wearing eastern european con-man mafia.

Our leaders fell for it. They have disgraced us all. What an incredible insult. pic.twitter.com/7WdLnqfYur

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) December 21, 2022

---

Especially if it was a tan suit

"obscure contrarians and conspiracy theorists" - we'll all know in a few months, eh?

If Cal88 and others are largely correct, we'll know these "Ukraine is winning" folks are incompetent, sellouts, lost, tied to the MIC / groupthink, or all of the above.

For the record:

- I would have preferred Russia stay in Russia
- Ukraine stay in Ukraine
- the Donbas have some kind of independence, or join Russia, if that's what they desire
- that Biden and Obama didn't mettle in Ukraine a dozen years ago (overthrew a President?)
- NATO stop threatening Russia with new plans of next-door expansion, missiles in Eastern Ukraine, etc.

Cal88 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

The issue is that the statements you make are contrary to multiple experts and information outlets. These outlets range from Al-Jazeera and Wion to reuters to bbc to geopolitical strategists like ian bremmer, peter zeihan, STG, George friedman, and military experts like michael Kofman, and a few others.

Further it is not our place to pressure Ukraine to surrender. It is their freedom and they suffer the consequences. The ukranians are far more aware of the impact of the war than any of us internet warriors. The ukranians are the best informed people to choose whether or not to fight or surrender and if they still choose to fight, we should support them.

---

Guys like Ian Bremmer and Zeihan who derive their mid-6 figure income from speaking engagements, book sales and consulting to corporate and MIC clients are only going to stick to the rosy,, ideologically-driven narrative. Analysts like Col. McGregor on the other hand get zero coverage in the MSM.

We've actually been pressuring Ukraine to fight and not surrender. A high number of Ukrainian men have left the country in order to avoid being sent to the front, including some of my relatives. And a lot of Ukrainians who went to the front were sold on a rosier picture. The number of hardcore Ukrainian nationalists who are willing to die for this war is constantly dwindling, they are now in the minority. The proverbial silent majority of Ukrainians want a settlement and an end to this war, as reflected by their votes prior to the Maidan Coup.

---

And this why people receive your comments with scorn and derision. Because it is almost always wrong.

First, the income of speakers has nothing to do with the accuracy of their reporting so raising that issue is just dumb. Second, Zeihan thinks Russia will win, so your claim he (and the others) stick to an ideologically narrative and paints a rosy picture is wrong. Third, there is no way that breadth of sources from that range of countries are all in cahoots to promote a false narrative to continue support for Ukraine. Again, all of these sources directly contradict your narrative of Russia being smart, powerful and in control. Your continued and unapologetic wrongness defines you in this thread, that is why I value the input of these sources over yours. That is why I believe your counter narrative should be disregarded.

---

That scorn is mostly a reflection of people being emotionally hooked on the popular narrative that is hiding the nature and extent of the bloodbath in Ukraine.

You can't derive a high income from mainstream think tanks, or the client base of someone like Brennan if you don't espouse the main NATO narrative. Someone like Jeffrey Sachs, who has recently left the NATO plantation, is no longer featured on outlets like CNN he used to be on when it comes to discussing US foreign policy and foreign wars.

Sometime around the Iraq War and 9/11 aftermath, the MSM ceased to be abide by their historical journalistic standards and became glorified and embedded MIC cheerleaders. The bias in reporting on the Ukraine war is even more pronounced, as it is wrapped in an emotional narrative that makes it hard for their audience to accept anything that goes counter that narrative.

Eventually, sometime next year, I will be proven right on the main points discussed here.

---

So basically you claim anyone that is successful and well-respected within the geopolitical field is a tool of the military industrial complex and should not be trusted.

So basically we should not listen to the best and brightest minds in a subject matter that they have dedicated their professional lives to, and instead listen to the obscure contrarians and conspiracy theorists.

That does not make sense. I trust the opinion of 5 well respected experts over the opinion of 1 well respected expert.

I also trust the reporting of reuters, bbc, Al-Jazeera and wion. They dont always agree with each other but a well rounded understanding of the issue arises after reviewing each of their reports on an issue.

---

It would be hard to find much disagreement in the coverage of the Ukraine war by the media outlets you've named above. There's also a major difference in which many mainstream sources covered Ukrainian far right and its influence over the government and Ukrainian institutions before the war started, and after the war. They've stopped doing reports like this this year:

Welcome to Ukraine, the most corrupt nation in Europe
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/feb/04/welcome-to-the-most-corrupt-nation-in-europe-ukraine

I listened to a recent Zeihan presentation where he claimed in the first five minutes that there were 250,000 civilian deaths in Ukraine and nearly a million children trafficked/abducted by Russia, the guy is an idiot, but I guess Goebbels was right ("If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.")

---

Right because Al-Jazeera and the bbc might as well be the same company.

This is one of the best and most insightful presentation on the cultural and political dynamics within Ukraine that have led to the current crisis:



It's a short interview of Nicolai N. Petro, a Rhode Island U. Poli Sci prof who has written this book:


https://www.uri.edu/news/2022/12/uri-professors-new-book-looks-at-internal-divisions-in-ukraine-that-contributed-to-current-conflict-with-russia/

Quote:

---

About
I teach comparative and international politics at the University of Rhode Island, where I am a professor of political science. My professional focus is on the role that religious, historical, and cultural narratives play in democratic development. My regional areas of expertise are Russia and Ukraine.

My latest book, The Tragedy of Ukraine: What Classical Greek Tragedy Can Teach Us About Conflict Resolution (De Gruyter, 2023) looks at the conflict in Ukraine through the lens of classical Greek tragedy, highlighting its deep domestic roots. For the parties to move from confrontation to dialogue will require untangling these roots and embracing a change of heart, or catharsis. To facilitate this process, we should look to classical Greek tragedy, which once performed a similar therapeutic function in Athenian society.

Even as my writings have become more varied, a common thread remains -- the choice of cultural framework, or narrative, often determines a policy's success or failure.

---

Rutgers' prof. Rossi also has a good series on Russian/EE history, culture and politics, his class lectures are available online. Here is his recent interview of his colleague from URI:


If the American government were truly interested in promoting peace and progress around the world, we would have had scholars like Prof. Petro at the helm rather than warmonging freaks like McCain, Nuland or McFaul.

movielover said:

---

"obscure contrarians and conspiracy theorists" - we'll all know in a few months, eh?

If Cal88 and others are largely correct, we'll know these "Ukraine is winning" folks are incompetent, sellouts, lost, tied to the MIC / groupthink, or all of the above.

For the record:

- I would have preferred Russia stay in Russia
- Ukraine stay in Ukraine
- the Donbas have some kind of independence, or join Russia, if that's what they desire
- that Biden and Obama didn't mettle in Ukraine a dozen years ago (overthrew a President?)
- NATO stop threatening Russia with new plans of next-door expansion, missiles in Eastern Ukraine, etc.

---

Dont view the situation as black or white. It is quite possible that one side temporarily gains the upper hand only to have the other side take control later.

Russia was winning for a few months between about April and June, then Ukraine was winning between June and the present, but most of the experts are unsure what will happen from January to june. If Russia starts winning that does not mean that Ukraine was not winning for a few months. War is not linear, they are always fluid and constantly changing.

Cal88 said:

---

If the American government were truly interested in promoting peace and progress around the world, we would have had scholars like Prof. Petro at the helm rather than warmonging freaks like McCain, Nuland or McFaul.

---

Right if the US government were interested in promoting peace they would just let Russia conquer whomever they want. The Russians are known as peaceful benevolent rulers which is why Finland, Estonia, latvia, Poland, Lithuania, czechia, georgia and Romania all are scared of russia.

Cal88 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

The issue is that the statements you make are contrary to multiple experts and information outlets. These outlets range from Al-Jazeera and Wion to reuters to bbc to geopolitical strategists like ian bremmer, peter zeihan, STG, George friedman, and military experts like michael Kofman, and a few others.

Further it is not our place to pressure Ukraine to surrender. It is their freedom and they suffer the consequences. The ukranians are far more aware of the impact of the war than any of us internet warriors. The ukranians are the best informed people to choose whether or not to fight or surrender and if they still choose to fight, we should support them.

---

Guys like Ian Bremmer and Zeihan who derive their mid-6 figure income from speaking engagements, book sales and consulting to corporate and MIC clients are only going to stick to the rosy,, ideologically-driven narrative. Analysts like Col. McGregor on the other hand get zero coverage in the MSM.

We've actually been pressuring Ukraine to fight and not surrender. A high number of Ukrainian men have left the country in order to avoid being sent to the front, including some of my relatives. And a lot of Ukrainians who went to the front were sold on a rosier picture. The number of hardcore Ukrainian nationalists who are willing to die for this war is constantly dwindling, they are now in the minority. The proverbial silent majority of Ukrainians want a settlement and an end to this war, as reflected by their votes prior to the Maidan Coup.

---

And this why people receive your comments with scorn and derision. Because it is almost always wrong.

First, the income of speakers has nothing to do with the accuracy of their reporting so raising that issue is just dumb. Second, Zeihan thinks Russia will win, so your claim he (and the others) stick to an ideologically narrative and paints a rosy picture is wrong. Third, there is no way that breadth of sources from that range of countries are all in cahoots to promote a false narrative to continue support for Ukraine. Again, all of these sources directly contradict your narrative of Russia being smart, powerful and in control. Your continued and unapologetic wrongness defines you in this thread, that is why I value the input of these sources over yours. That is why I believe your counter narrative should be disregarded.

---

That scorn is mostly a reflection of people being emotionally hooked on the popular narrative that is hiding the nature and extent of the bloodbath in Ukraine.

You can't derive a high income from mainstream think tanks, or the client base of someone like Brennan if you don't espouse the main NATO narrative. Someone like Jeffrey Sachs, who has recently left the NATO plantation, is no longer featured on outlets like CNN he used to be on when it comes to discussing US foreign policy and foreign wars.

Sometime around the Iraq War and 9/11 aftermath, the MSM ceased to be abide by their historical journalistic standards and became glorified and embedded MIC cheerleaders. The bias in reporting on the Ukraine war is even more pronounced, as it is wrapped in an emotional narrative that makes it hard for their audience to accept anything that goes counter that narrative.

Eventually, sometime next year, I will be proven right on the main points discussed here.

---

So basically you claim anyone that is successful and well-respected within the geopolitical field is a tool of the military industrial complex and should not be trusted.

So basically we should not listen to the best and brightest minds in a subject matter that they have dedicated their professional lives to, and instead listen to the obscure contrarians and conspiracy theorists.

That does not make sense. I trust the opinion of 5 well respected experts over the opinion of 1 well respected expert.

I also trust the reporting of reuters, bbc, Al-Jazeera and wion. They dont always agree with each other but a well rounded understanding of the issue arises after reviewing each of their reports on an issue.

---

It would be hard to find much disagreement in the coverage of the Ukraine war by the media outlets you've named above. There's also a major difference in which many mainstream sources covered Ukrainian far right and its influence over the government and Ukrainian institutions before the war started, and after the war. They've stopped doing reports like this this year:

Welcome to Ukraine, the most corrupt nation in Europe
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/feb/04/welcome-to-the-most-corrupt-nation-in-europe-ukraine

I listened to a recent Zeihan presentation where he claimed in the first five minutes that there were 250,000 civilian deaths in Ukraine and nearly a million children trafficked/abducted by Russia, the guy is an idiot, but I guess Goebbels was right ("If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.")

---

Right because Al-Jazeera and the bbc might as well be the same company.

---

They essentially are. Qatar was set up as a British colony a century ago with the Al Thani clan, the deal was signed with the grandfather of the guy who put the arabian robe on Messi's back last Sunday.

---

Dont piss in my pocket and tell me its raining. I'm done for a while.

Have a nice holidays.

Cal88 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

The issue is that the statements you make are contrary to multiple experts and information outlets. These outlets range from Al-Jazeera and Wion to reuters to bbc to geopolitical strategists like ian bremmer, peter zeihan, STG, George friedman, and military experts like michael Kofman, and a few others.

Further it is not our place to pressure Ukraine to surrender. It is their freedom and they suffer the consequences. The ukranians are far more aware of the impact of the war than any of us internet warriors. The ukranians are the best informed people to choose whether or not to fight or surrender and if they still choose to fight, we should support them.

---

Guys like Ian Bremmer and Zeihan who derive their mid-6 figure income from speaking engagements, book sales and consulting to corporate and MIC clients are only going to stick to the rosy,, ideologically-driven narrative. Analysts like Col. McGregor on the other hand get zero coverage in the MSM.

We've actually been pressuring Ukraine to fight and not surrender. A high number of Ukrainian men have left the country in order to avoid being sent to the front, including some of my relatives. And a lot of Ukrainians who went to the front were sold on a rosier picture. The number of hardcore Ukrainian nationalists who are willing to die for this war is constantly dwindling, they are now in the minority. The proverbial silent majority of Ukrainians want a settlement and an end to this war, as reflected by their votes prior to the Maidan Coup.

---

And this why people receive your comments with scorn and derision. Because it is almost always wrong.

First, the income of speakers has nothing to do with the accuracy of their reporting so raising that issue is just dumb. Second, Zeihan thinks Russia will win, so your claim he (and the others) stick to an ideologically narrative and paints a rosy picture is wrong. Third, there is no way that breadth of sources from that range of countries are all in cahoots to promote a false narrative to continue support for Ukraine. Again, all of these sources directly contradict your narrative of Russia being smart, powerful and in control. Your continued and unapologetic wrongness defines you in this thread, that is why I value the input of these sources over yours. That is why I believe your counter narrative should be disregarded.

---

That scorn is mostly a reflection of people being emotionally hooked on the popular narrative that is hiding the nature and extent of the bloodbath in Ukraine.

You can't derive a high income from mainstream think tanks, or the client base of someone like Brennan if you don't espouse the main NATO narrative. Someone like Jeffrey Sachs, who has recently left the NATO plantation, is no longer featured on outlets like CNN he used to be on when it comes to discussing US foreign policy and foreign wars.

Sometime around the Iraq War and 9/11 aftermath, the MSM ceased to be abide by their historical journalistic standards and became glorified and embedded MIC cheerleaders. The bias in reporting on the Ukraine war is even more pronounced, as it is wrapped in an emotional narrative that makes it hard for their audience to accept anything that goes counter that narrative.

Eventually, sometime next year, I will be proven right on the main points discussed here.

---

So basically you claim anyone that is successful and well-respected within the geopolitical field is a tool of the military industrial complex and should not be trusted.

So basically we should not listen to the best and brightest minds in a subject matter that they have dedicated their professional lives to, and instead listen to the obscure contrarians and conspiracy theorists.

That does not make sense. I trust the opinion of 5 well respected experts over the opinion of 1 well respected expert.

I also trust the reporting of reuters, bbc, Al-Jazeera and wion. They dont always agree with each other but a well rounded understanding of the issue arises after reviewing each of their reports on an issue.

---

It would be hard to find much disagreement in the coverage of the Ukraine war by the media outlets you've named above. There's also a major difference in which many mainstream sources covered Ukrainian far right and its influence over the government and Ukrainian institutions before the war started, and after the war. They've stopped doing reports like this this year:

Welcome to Ukraine, the most corrupt nation in Europe
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/feb/04/welcome-to-the-most-corrupt-nation-in-europe-ukraine

I listened to a recent Zeihan presentation where he claimed in the first five minutes that there were 250,000 civilian deaths in Ukraine and nearly a million children trafficked/abducted by Russia, the guy is an idiot, but I guess Goebbels was right ("If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.")

---

Right because Al-Jazeera and the bbc might as well be the same company.

---

They essentially are. Qatar was set up as a British colony a century ago with the Al Thani clan, the deal was signed with the grandfather of the guy who put the arabian robe on Messi's back last Sunday.

---

Hilarious. Your claim here is that because of the British colonizing Qatar a century ago, that means that the modern-day news organizations in each country are basically the same. That's your standard here.

Yet Max Blumenthal being directly paid by the Kremlin to give a speech about 7 years ago is not evidence enough that he's under their influence. And you say we are pushing a narrative.