Merged Russian (genocidal) internal propaganda and goals about Ukraine

[GraculusTheGreenBird]

If you declare that Russian journalism is worthless, while British journalism is flawless, this is an example of anti-Russian racism, and Western arrogance. This is your problem, not mine.

Not Russian journalism. Just RT, or anything sourced from the Russian MoD.

That is worthless, and all lies.

You continue to post Russian propaganda, because you are a Russian propagandist, and apparently now a supporter of fascism also.

 

[Wildy]

I wouldn't say fair game, there is a decision to take.

The Russians may have been brutal in Grozny, but Grozny 1995 is very different from Donetsk 2022 (Donetsk is currently controlled by allies of Russia).

And Grozny was officially Russian territory that was being controlled by separatists. Russia was in the same position there as Ukraine is now with Donetsk.

(Fun fact, the Russians were just as brutal in 1999-2000 when they assaulted Grozny again. I assume that was also okay because Russia can't do no wrong.)

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I note that this story about HIMARS hitting an orphanage was presented without a shred of evidence.
What steps did you take to verify this claim, Michel H?

It is normal for a news outlet to not show its sources to ordinary readers (people's republics authorities, Russian Ministry of Defence and so on).

I didn't ask for the sources: I asked for the evidence. None was provided in the RT article. None at all.

I assume the story is authentic because I do have some trust for RT, like I do have some trust in the BBC.

Right. So just confirmation bias, then.

It seems unlikely they just made up this report, this wouldn't be good for their reputation in Russia.

Have you read any of the critiques of RT that have been posted?
Have you read any of the take-downs of ridiculous Russian propaganda posted here?
Furthermore, what do you know about the opinion of ordinary Russians of RT? Do you know that they trust it as unquestioningly as you do?

Another (current) report on RT in Russian (which is even worse, in term of casualties):

The consequences of the shelling of Donetsk by the Armed Forces of Ukraine - video
In Donetsk, as a result of the strike of the Armed Forces of Ukraine on the square of the Baku Commissars in the Kuibyshev region, according to preliminary data, 13 people were killed. The number of wounded is being specified. Earlier, the Ukrainian military fired at the Donetsk penal colony, one person was injured.

(https://russian.rt.com/ussr/video/1050553-doneck-posledstviya-obstrela-vsu)

This report is corroborated by the BBC:

Deadly Donetsk blasts hit separatist-run city in Ukraine
Thirteen people have been killed and others wounded in a series of explosions in the separatist-run city of Donetsk in eastern Ukraine, according to its Russian-backed mayor.

(https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62952641).

Can you really not see the difference between the reporting of those stories on the two sites?
Russia claims it was Ukrainian forces. The BBC does not.
What evidence is there that this was carried out by the Ukrainians?

Apparently, the Ukrainian regime, which has decided to ignore democracy in Crimea and Donbass (and to try to join a proven criminal organization - NATO), is so confident about fanatical support by the West (which seems to have learnt nothing in Afghanistan and Iraq), that they are now routinely resorting to war crimes (targeting of civilian, and civilian infrastructure).

Constantly posting bilge does not make it any more true.

For fairness, Russia has also been targeting civilian and civilian infrastructure, perhaps in a more extensive way.

Perhaps? There's no perhaps about it, except in the mind of craven apologist for Russian crimes.



]It is normal for a news outlet to not show its sources to ordinary readers (people's republics authorities, Russian Ministry of Defence and so on).

I assume the story is authentic because I do have some trust for RT, like I do have some trust in the BBC.

It seems unlikely they just made up this report, this wouldn't be good for their reputation in Russia.

Another (current) report on RT in Russian (which is even worse, in term of casualties):

(https://russian.rt.com/ussr/video/1050553-doneck-posledstviya-obstrela-vsu)

This report is corroborated by the BBC:

(https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62952641).

Apparently, the Ukrainian regime, which has decided to ignore democracy in Crimea and Donbass (and to try to join a proven criminal organization - NATO), is so confident about fanatical support by the West (which seems to have learnt nothing in Afghanistan and Iraq), that they are now routinely resorting to war crimes (targeting of civilian, and civilian infrastructure).

For fairness, Russia has also been targeting civilian and civilian infrastructure, perhaps in a more extensive way.[/QUOTE]

 

[Michel H]

Then why are you advocating for complete Ukrainian surrender and capitulation? That's not "somewhere in the middle", that's firmly on the Russian side.

No, because, according to my peace plan, Russian forces should withdraw to their pre-invasion (February 23) positions, and there should be no reward for aggression (and the Russian military has clearly suffered in this invasion, and has been considerably weakened).

If the war goes on, we may see an annexation of the Kherson region, which, according to military experts (if I remember correctly), is more difficult to retake.

My peace plan is not very original, but you may have noticed that there is really not much on the market in terms of good and realistic peace plans, which could possibly be accepted by Russia.

Neutrality + Crimea belongs to Russia + the Donbass republics are independent (or join Russia, but with no territorial expansion) + all sanctions are lifted, in a society of peace and disarmement.

 

[Craig4]

No, because, according to my peace plan, Russian forces should withdraw to their pre-invasion (February 23) positions, and there should be no reward for aggression (and the Russian military has clearly suffered in this invasion, and has been considerably weakened).

If the war goes on, we may see an annexation of the Kherson region, which, according to military experts (if I remember correctly), is more difficult to retake.

My peace plan is not very original, but you may have noticed that there is really not much on the market in terms of good and realistic peace plans, which could possibly be accepted by Russia.

Neutrality + Crimea belongs to Russia + the Donbass republics are independent (or join Russia, but with no territorial expansion) + all sanctions are lifted, in a society of peace and disarmement.

None of this matters. No one is going to do this. Besides. Ukraine has already liberated parts (small parts) of Donbas. They don't need to do in of this. They're just going to take their territory back and it will be as if you never said anything.

Everyone who knows about your "peace plan" will laugh at you when this is over and Ukraine retakes their lost territory. Everyone else will never know you even existed. Your angst at the injustice of it all will be excellent schadenfreude.

 

[Wildy]

None of this matters. No one is going to do this. Besides. Ukraine has already liberated parts (small parts) of Donbas. They don't need to do in of this. They're just going to take their territory back and it will be as if you never said anything.

And to add to this, they never lost the entirety of Donetsk Oblast, which is probably why we haven't seen Russia come to the table with anything other than empty words.

 

[Wildy]

No, because, according to my peace plan, Russian forces should withdraw to their pre-invasion (February 23) positions, and there should be no reward for aggression (and the Russian military has clearly suffered in this invasion, and has been considerably weakened).

Except, as has been pointed out to you already, all the rewards for their aggression.

If the war goes on, we may see an annexation of the Kherson region, which, according to military experts (if I remember correctly), is more difficult to retake.

They were always going to try and annex Kherson Oblast. If the Ukrainians hadn't stopped the offensive at Mykolaiv and the Russians had managed to push their way to Odesa, we'd be hearing about those "People's Republics" asking to be annexed by Russia.

My peace plan is not very original, but you may have noticed that there is really not much on the market in terms of good and realistic peace plans, which could possibly be accepted by Russia.

Your "peace plan" is just capitulation to Russia.

Neutrality

Which ultimately means "a pro-Russian worldview".

Crimea belongs to Russia

Which is rewarding Russia for its aggression.

the Donbass republics are independent (or join Russia, but with no territorial expansion)

Which again rewards Russia for its aggression.

all sanctions are lifted

Which is still rewarding Russia for its aggression.

...in a society of peace and disarmement.

Which makes Ukraine an easy target for Russia when it licks its wounds and decides to try again for the parts they didn't win this time around.

What exactly makes this a good deal for Ukraine, especially after all this fighting?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Perhaps you could tell us also if you believe that Kosovo should be forever a province of Serbia, and that Taiwan should be forever a province of communist China.

Taiwan was never part of communist china. Civil wars result in nations breaking up all the time.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

No, because, according to my peace plan, Russian forces should withdraw to their pre-invasion (February 23) positions, and there should be no reward for aggression (and the Russian military has clearly suffered in this invasion, and has been considerably weakened).

What's the first step in achieving your plan? Just the very initial one please.

 

[Craig4]

Why does some Belgium rando think he needs to come up with a peace plan? Even if his idea didn't suck so much, who is ever going to see it? Who can he get it in front of?

Can you even make it past the first ring of horse-holders and get it in front of someone who works for someone who can do anything about your little "plan"?

 

[arthwollipot]

Neutrality + Crimea belongs to Russia + the Donbass republics are independent (or join Russia, but with no territorial expansion) + all sanctions are lifted, in a society of peace and disarmement.

Like I said, this is exactly what Russia is demanding, and therefore would constitute complete surrender and capitulation. You are not neutral. This is not a middle ground. This is Russian ground.

 

[GraculusTheGreenBird]

Neutrality + Crimea belongs to Russia + the Donbass republics are independent (or join Russia, but with no territorial expansion) + all sanctions are lifted, in a society of peace and disarmement.

Once again, this is obviously giving Russia everything they wanted, and rewarding them for their aggression.

You are suggesting this because you are a pro-Russian propagandist.

Your suggestion is worthless.

 

[Wildy]

Once again, this is obviously giving Russia everything they wanted, and rewarding them for their aggression.

You are suggesting this because you are a pro-Russian propagandist.

Your suggestion is worthless.

But he can't be a pro-Russian propagandist because he opposes the invasion. Capitulation to Russia is just being reasonable, people should be reasonable right?

 

[trustbutverify]

But he can't be a pro-Russian propagandist because he opposes the invasion.

But he claims Ukraine is responsible for the invasion, so...

 

[Michel H]

But he claims Ukraine is responsible for the invasion, so...

It is true that, like Wildy correctly said, I oppose Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine, that he started on February 24, which has created a serious crisis and has caused considerable suffering and trauma for many people.

trustbutverify is only partly right: I believe Ukraine and the West have persecuted Russia too much, with too many sanctions of various kinds, and therefore have a limited and partial responsibility in the invasion and the current crisis. Western sanctions and arrogance have had the result of making the Russian population angry.

Perhaps the most shocking aspect of Western policies is how they have decided to ignore democracy in Crimea, by rejecting in a contemptuous way the results of the 2014 referendum.

The announced new referendums in Kherson and other regions seem much more "fake" to me than the 2014 ones.

 

[Michel H]

What's the first step in achieving your plan? Just the very initial one please.

Perhaps a meeting in Turkey between Zelensky, Putin, Erdogan, and the U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, where a peace treaty would be agreed, based on the following principles: Russian withdrawal to February positions, Crimea is Russian, the Donbass republics are independent or Russian (but with no territorial expansion compared with February), Ukraine remains neutral (no joining NATO) and all economic sanctions are lifted (with the North Crimean canal providing water to Crimea).

 

[arthwollipot]

Putin would enthusiastically agree to such terms.

 

[Michel H]

Why does some Belgium rando think he needs to come up with a peace plan? Even if his idea didn't suck so much, who is ever going to see it? Who can he get it in front of?

Can you even make it past the first ring of horse-holders and get it in front of someone who works for someone who can do anything about your little "plan"?

See first replies here: https://twitter.com/ZelenskaUA/status/1567182927703728129 .

 

[Wildy]

Perhaps a meeting in Turkey between Zelensky, Putin, Erdogan, and the U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, where a peace treaty would be agreed, based on the following principles: Russian withdrawal to February positions, Crimea is Russian, the Donbass republics are independent or Russian (but with no territorial expansion compared with February), Ukraine remains neutral (no joining NATO) and all economic sanctions are lifted (with the North Crimean canal providing water to Crimea).

You would have to explain to everybody why this is a good deal for everybody. Because, if you haven't figured it out already, pretty much everybody here sees this deal of yours as only favouring Russia.

 

[arthwollipot]

Not only would Putin enthusiastically agree to the proposed terms, he would also be thrilled to bits that you think you came up with them yourself.