What hyperbole? Just about everything you post here is about how the USA and/or its allies are at fault for the war, and Russia just had to do what it had to do. Clearly this is your position: USA bad, Russia just put-upon. No?movielover said:
Hyperbole doesn't help your argument.
NO, that is not our position. It is that the US has been continually poking the bear. Whether Russia was justified in invading is not the point. The point is, had the US taken a neutral policy stance, Russia would not have invaded and war would have been avoided.sycasey said:What hyperbole? Just about everything you post here is about how the USA and/or its allies are at fault for the war, and Russia just had to do what it had to do. Clearly this is your position: USA bad, Russia just put-upon. No?movielover said:
Hyperbole doesn't help your argument.
🇺🇸🇷🇺‼️🚨 HOLY MOLY: “Now Is Not the Time to Negotiate With Putin”
— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) June 3, 2024
— Foreign Policy pic.twitter.com/RWjBeKFhgT
I don't think I ever said that. Talk about hyperbole!movielover said:
Now you're pretending that we're a victim?
In my opinion, the extent to which this happened has been DRASTICALLY overstated by people like you, especially if you compare it to all the shenanigans and nonsense Russia pulls in nations near its borders. And ultimately it's irrelevant to whether or not the US should support Ukraine's fight.Zippergate said:NO, that is not our position. It is that the US has been continually poking the bear. Whether Russia was justified in invading is not the point. The point is, had the US taken a neutral policy stance, Russia would not have invaded and war would have been avoided.sycasey said:What hyperbole? Just about everything you post here is about how the USA and/or its allies are at fault for the war, and Russia just had to do what it had to do. Clearly this is your position: USA bad, Russia just put-upon. No?movielover said:
Hyperbole doesn't help your argument.
sycasey said:I don't think I ever said that. Talk about hyperbole!movielover said:
Now you're pretending that we're a victim?
Anyway, I agree with keeping Ukraine neutral. That also means that when Russia tries to set up puppet governments to run their country, they have every right to kick those guys out. I don't mind if the US encourages such actions.
Is nobody going to ask Fauci about the biolabs in Ukraine?
— Clandestine (@WarClandestine) June 3, 2024
The Russian Military claim one of the main reasons they moved into Ukraine was because of US bioweapon development.
We are in a proxy war with Russia, and on the verge of WW3, over these labs, and NOBODY brought it up?… pic.twitter.com/1wK5lHfxqm
Zippergate said:
No and no. Your opinions. The facts are clear.
bear2034 said:Is nobody going to ask Fauci about the biolabs in Ukraine?
— Clandestine (@WarClandestine) June 3, 2024
The Russian Military claim one of the main reasons they moved into Ukraine was because of US bioweapon development.
We are in a proxy war with Russia, and on the verge of WW3, over these labs, and NOBODY brought it up?… pic.twitter.com/1wK5lHfxqm
Biolabs in Ukraine, blown-up undersea gas pipelines, Biden family involvement in Ukraine. This stuff isn't just going to go away.
sycasey said:
This "biolabs" thing is a great example of how the "facts" aren't really facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_bioweapons_conspiracy_theory
It's basically a claim thrown out by Russian state media to justify their invasion -- that the US was funding biological weapons research in Ukraine -- that then gets uncritically repeated by various "independent" Western sources who make it their business to always criticize US foreign policy whenever possible. Then later the US government "admits" that they have funded research labs in Ukraine . . . not for bioweapons research, but for standard medical research. By then, of course, the last part doesn't matter. The same sources now say (or obliquely suggest) that the US government confirmed their original story about bioweapons, even though they didn't and there is no real evidence for that.
Doesn't matter -- the original false claim has circled the moon and back before any of the truthful reporting can be done, and now it's "confirmed fact" that the US was funding bioweapons in Ukraine. This correction won't stop the claims from being repeated here again either, of course. I just find this whole system fascinating.
The clip doesn't say what Greenwald claims it does, but okay.Cal88 said:sycasey said:
This "biolabs" thing is a great example of how the "facts" aren't really facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_bioweapons_conspiracy_theory
It's basically a claim thrown out by Russian state media to justify their invasion -- that the US was funding biological weapons research in Ukraine -- that then gets uncritically repeated by various "independent" Western sources who make it their business to always criticize US foreign policy whenever possible. Then later the US government "admits" that they have funded research labs in Ukraine . . . not for bioweapons research, but for standard medical research. By then, of course, the last part doesn't matter. The same sources now say (or obliquely suggest) that the US government confirmed their original story about bioweapons, even though they didn't and there is no real evidence for that.
Doesn't matter -- the original false claim has circled the moon and back before any of the truthful reporting can be done, and now it's "confirmed fact" that the US was funding bioweapons in Ukraine. This correction won't stop the claims from being repeated here again either, of course. I just find this whole system fascinating.
From the horse's mouth:
Greenwald on Ukrainian biolabs:
"Self-anointed "fact-checkers" in the U.S. corporate press have spent two weeks mocking as disinformation and a false conspiracy theory the claim that Ukraine has biological weapons labs, either alone or with U.S. support. They never presented any evidence for their ruling how could they possibly know? and how could they prove the negative? but nonetheless they invoked their characteristically authoritative, above-it-all tone of self-assurance and self-arrogated right to decree the truth, definitively labelling such claims false.
Claims that Ukraine currently maintains dangerous biological weapons labs came from Russia as well as China. The Chinese Foreign Ministry this month claimed: "The US has 336 labs in 30 countries under its control, including 26 in Ukraine alone." The Russian Foreign Ministry asserted that "Russia obtained documents proving that Ukrainian biological laboratories located near Russian borders worked on development of components of biological weapons." Such assertions deserve the same level of skepticism as U.S. denials: namely, none of it should be believed to be true or false absent evidence. Yet U.S. fact-checkers dutifully and reflexively sided with the U.S. Government to declare such claims "disinformation" and to mock them as QAnon conspiracy theories.
Unfortunately for this propaganda racket masquerading as neutral and high-minded fact-checking, the neocon official long in charge of U.S. policy in Ukraine testified on Monday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and strongly suggested that such claims are, at least in part, true. Yesterday afternoon, Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), hoping to debunk growing claims that there are chemical weapons labs in Ukraine, smugly asked Nuland: "Does Ukraine have chemical or biological weapons?"
Rubio undoubtedly expected a flat denial by Nuland, thus providing further "proof" that such speculation is dastardly Fake News emanating from the Kremlin, the CCP and QAnon. Instead, Nuland did something completely uncharacteristic for her, for neocons, and for senior U.S. foreign policy officials: for some reason, she told a version of the truth. Her answer visibly stunned Rubio, who as soon as he realized the damage she was doing to the U.S. messaging campaign by telling the truth interrupted her and demanded that she instead affirm that if a biological attack were to occur, everyone should be "100% sure" that it was Russia who did it. Grateful for the life raft, Nuland told Rubio he was right."
bearister said:
Here's a splash of Ukrainian propaganda to keep this thread….
Putin suffers BACK-TO-BACK deadliest days in Ukraine with '2,600 troops wiped out' in just 48 hours | The US Sun
https://www.the-sun.com/news/11533516/putin-deadliest-days-ukraine-troops-killed/
BREAKING: NATO now planning to get US troops to the front-line to fight RUSSIA..
— Douglas Macgregor (@DougAMacgregor) June 4, 2024
What are they thinking?
NATO has disclosed its preparations to deploy American troops to the European frontlines in the event of a full-scale conflict with Russia.
Innovative 'land corridors'… pic.twitter.com/vmuMG1nCVH
Quote:
BREAKING: NATO now planning to get US troops to the front-line to fight RUSSIA..
What are they thinking?
NATO has disclosed its preparations to deploy American troops to the European frontlines in the event of a full-scale conflict with Russia.
Innovative 'land corridors' are being established to expedite the movement of soldiers through central Europe, bypassing local bureaucratic hurdles.
This strategic setup enables NATO forces to swiftly react should Putin's aggressive actions in Ukraine extend westward.
Reports suggest that these plans also encompass provisions for potential Russian attacks.
In such scenarios, troops could mobilize through corridors in Italy, Greece, and Turkey to reach the Balkans, or alternatively, advance towards Russia's northern border via Scandinavia.
These details were shared by officials with The Telegraph.
And there it is, "whether Russia was justified in invading is not the point." Let's just add it to the list of tribal positions that must be held to regardless of facts or rationality or ethics:Zippergate said:sycasey said:
...Whether Russia was justified in invading is not the point....
The last sentence does not follow from the previous. The first blame is on the country that decided to attack.Zippergate said:
You totally missed the point as expected. We don't control Russian policy. We DO control our own policy. We pursued policies that provoked the Russian evasion. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to blame the war on our policies.
sycasey said:The last sentence does not follow from the previous. The first blame is on the country that decided to attack.Zippergate said:
You totally missed the point as expected. We don't control Russian policy. We DO control our own policy. We pursued policies that provoked the Russian evasion. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to blame the war on our policies.
Can prior US policy be criticized? Of course. But the BLAME goes on Russia and Putin. They started the war.
You know what else we control? Our response and the words we say. Like words that excuse or justify Russian aggression.Zippergate said:
You totally missed the point as expected. We don't control Russian policy. We DO control our own policy. We pursued policies that provoked the Russian evasion. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to blame the war on our policies. The neocons wanted this war. It's sad to see someone with ties to Ukraine so blind to this.
If the Russian invasion is your standard, what do you do with Libya, Iraq, Syria, etc? Truly, Casey was thinking of you.
⚡️ RQ-4B Global Hawk Shot Down?
— Will Schryver (@imetatronink) June 4, 2024
Reports are circulating that a USAF RQ-4B Global Hawk reconnaissance drone has "disappeared" over the Black Sea near Crimea.
Apparently the Russians' patience finally wore thin.https://t.co/Swydt2fPto
If you mean when Russia annexed Crimea and started leading separatist militia groups in the Donbas, then I agree.Cal88 said:sycasey said:The last sentence does not follow from the previous. The first blame is on the country that decided to attack.Zippergate said:
You totally missed the point as expected. We don't control Russian policy. We DO control our own policy. We pursued policies that provoked the Russian evasion. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to blame the war on our policies.
Can prior US policy be criticized? Of course. But the BLAME goes on Russia and Putin. They started the war.
Most serious analysts like Mearsheimer or Sachs beg to differ, stating that the war started in 2014, due to the action of the post-Maidan Coup government.
Call me crazy but it seems to me that the way the judge a policy is by looking at the actual outcome of that policy, not the intended outcome or whether it aligns with one's cosmic view of justice. By that measure, are we "winning"? Is Ukraine "winning"? Are they better off thanks to our efforts? I'm trying unsuccessfully to think of a single neocon adventure that didn't end up as a total disaster, particularly for the countries like Ukraine we were trying to save. Perhaps you can help us out. There was a time when liberals cared about this kind of thing.blungld said:You know what else we control? Our response and the words we say. Like words that excuse or justify Russian aggression.Zippergate said:
You totally missed the point as expected. We don't control Russian policy. We DO control our own policy. We pursued policies that provoked the Russian evasion. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to blame the war on our policies. The neocons wanted this war. It's sad to see someone with ties to Ukraine so blind to this.
If the Russian invasion is your standard, what do you do with Libya, Iraq, Syria, etc? Truly, Casey was thinking of you.
sycasey said:If you mean when Russia annexed Crimea and started leading separatist militia groups in the Donbas, then I agree.Cal88 said:sycasey said:The last sentence does not follow from the previous. The first blame is on the country that decided to attack.Zippergate said:
You totally missed the point as expected. We don't control Russian policy. We DO control our own policy. We pursued policies that provoked the Russian evasion. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to blame the war on our policies.
Can prior US policy be criticized? Of course. But the BLAME goes on Russia and Putin. They started the war.
Most serious analysts like Mearsheimer or Sachs beg to differ, stating that the war started in 2014, due to the action of the post-Maidan Coup government.
blungld said:You know what else we control? Our response and the words we say. Like words that excuse or justify Russian aggression.Zippergate said:
You totally missed the point as expected. We don't control Russian policy. We DO control our own policy. We pursued policies that provoked the Russian evasion. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to blame the war on our policies. The neocons wanted this war. It's sad to see someone with ties to Ukraine so blind to this.
If the Russian invasion is your standard, what do you do with Libya, Iraq, Syria, etc? Truly, Casey was thinking of you.
Brave Ukrainian women fight the government thugs who kidnap their sons and husbands, trying to prevent them from being turned into cannon fodder in a doomed war. pic.twitter.com/uirFX54eaN
— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) June 4, 2024
Cal88 said:sycasey said:If you mean when Russia annexed Crimea and started leading separatist militia groups in the Donbas, then I agree.Cal88 said:sycasey said:The last sentence does not follow from the previous. The first blame is on the country that decided to attack.Zippergate said:
You totally missed the point as expected. We don't control Russian policy. We DO control our own policy. We pursued policies that provoked the Russian evasion. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to blame the war on our policies.
Can prior US policy be criticized? Of course. But the BLAME goes on Russia and Putin. They started the war.
Most serious analysts like Mearsheimer or Sachs beg to differ, stating that the war started in 2014, due to the action of the post-Maidan Coup government.
Crimeans overwhelmingly wanted to join Russia, as confirmed by their referendum and several independent/western polls.
Similarly, the seperatist movement in the Donbass was an organic movement, that is why they have managed to withstand the vastly larger Kiev army for nearly a decade.
sycasey said:Cal88 said:sycasey said:If you mean when Russia annexed Crimea and started leading separatist militia groups in the Donbas, then I agree.Cal88 said:sycasey said:The last sentence does not follow from the previous. The first blame is on the country that decided to attack.Zippergate said:
You totally missed the point as expected. We don't control Russian policy. We DO control our own policy. We pursued policies that provoked the Russian evasion. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to blame the war on our policies.
Can prior US policy be criticized? Of course. But the BLAME goes on Russia and Putin. They started the war.
Most serious analysts like Mearsheimer or Sachs beg to differ, stating that the war started in 2014, due to the action of the post-Maidan Coup government.
Crimeans overwhelmingly wanted to join Russia, as confirmed by their referendum and several independent/western polls.
Similarly, the seperatist movement in the Donbass was an organic movement, that is why they have managed to withstand the vastly larger Kiev army for nearly a decade.
The separatist groups were controlled by the Russian military.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_separatist_forces_in_Ukraine
It wasn't confirmed.Cal88 said:sycasey said:Cal88 said:sycasey said:If you mean when Russia annexed Crimea and started leading separatist militia groups in the Donbas, then I agree.Cal88 said:sycasey said:The last sentence does not follow from the previous. The first blame is on the country that decided to attack.Zippergate said:
You totally missed the point as expected. We don't control Russian policy. We DO control our own policy. We pursued policies that provoked the Russian evasion. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to blame the war on our policies.
Can prior US policy be criticized? Of course. But the BLAME goes on Russia and Putin. They started the war.
Most serious analysts like Mearsheimer or Sachs beg to differ, stating that the war started in 2014, due to the action of the post-Maidan Coup government.
Crimeans overwhelmingly wanted to join Russia, as confirmed by their referendum and several independent/western polls.
Similarly, the seperatist movement in the Donbass was an organic movement, that is why they have managed to withstand the vastly larger Kiev army for nearly a decade.
The separatist groups were controlled by the Russian military.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_separatist_forces_in_Ukraine
This opinion is brought to you by the same Wikipedia editors who will boldly claim that the Ukrainian biolabs, whose existence was confirmed by Nuland at a congressional hearing, don't really exist...
sycasey said:It wasn't confirmed.Cal88 said:sycasey said:Cal88 said:sycasey said:If you mean when Russia annexed Crimea and started leading separatist militia groups in the Donbas, then I agree.Cal88 said:sycasey said:The last sentence does not follow from the previous. The first blame is on the country that decided to attack.Zippergate said:
You totally missed the point as expected. We don't control Russian policy. We DO control our own policy. We pursued policies that provoked the Russian evasion. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to blame the war on our policies.
Can prior US policy be criticized? Of course. But the BLAME goes on Russia and Putin. They started the war.
Most serious analysts like Mearsheimer or Sachs beg to differ, stating that the war started in 2014, due to the action of the post-Maidan Coup government.
Crimeans overwhelmingly wanted to join Russia, as confirmed by their referendum and several independent/western polls.
Similarly, the seperatist movement in the Donbass was an organic movement, that is why they have managed to withstand the vastly larger Kiev army for nearly a decade.
The separatist groups were controlled by the Russian military.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_separatist_forces_in_Ukraine
This opinion is brought to you by the same Wikipedia editors who will boldly claim that the Ukrainian biolabs, whose existence was confirmed by Nuland at a congressional hearing, don't really exist...
She definitely said they had biolabs. What has not been confirmed is if those labs were ever used to create bio-weapons, or if the US participated in funding of that. There's no evidence of that, except from Russian state media.Cal88 said:sycasey said:It wasn't confirmed.Cal88 said:sycasey said:Cal88 said:sycasey said:If you mean when Russia annexed Crimea and started leading separatist militia groups in the Donbas, then I agree.Cal88 said:sycasey said:The last sentence does not follow from the previous. The first blame is on the country that decided to attack.Zippergate said:
You totally missed the point as expected. We don't control Russian policy. We DO control our own policy. We pursued policies that provoked the Russian evasion. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to blame the war on our policies.
Can prior US policy be criticized? Of course. But the BLAME goes on Russia and Putin. They started the war.
Most serious analysts like Mearsheimer or Sachs beg to differ, stating that the war started in 2014, due to the action of the post-Maidan Coup government.
Crimeans overwhelmingly wanted to join Russia, as confirmed by their referendum and several independent/western polls.
Similarly, the seperatist movement in the Donbass was an organic movement, that is why they have managed to withstand the vastly larger Kiev army for nearly a decade.
The separatist groups were controlled by the Russian military.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_separatist_forces_in_Ukraine
This opinion is brought to you by the same Wikipedia editors who will boldly claim that the Ukrainian biolabs, whose existence was confirmed by Nuland at a congressional hearing, don't really exist...
This is your version of dajo's insisting that Putin is dead. Just pretend that Nuland never did say that Ukraine had biolabs, and keep pushing that square peg into the round hole...
