liberal hypocrisies

[BeBMan]

Then quote her and translate

Western media in 2018 - Oh look, Ukraine has a Nazi problem
Western media in 2022 - Oh look, Azov heroes are defending democracy

Which one serves you? I trust the 2018 media more than the 2022 media

Oh I see, you came up with "oh look what she admitted" without any source, then changed what she - supposedly - said after I asked, still without any source. Now after I found the origin of her quote, you want me to translate it

[Berzerker]

we killed millions of people

[Berzerker]

If the West, as in the decision makers not just millbloggers or neocon commentators, really wanted a proxy war with Russia how could they make Ukraine give them that? How could they hope to stop Zelensky from stopping Azov? What was their leverage? Especially, what leverage with respect to what is an existential issue for Ukrainians?

You believe this narrative not because of any compelling evidence or because other narratives have less explanatory power. You believe it because you are absolutely convinced that war occurs because the people who profit from arms sales are the only ones with any influence on government decisions to go to war or to foment war.

The problem is that doesn't make any sense. War profits are far smaller than peace dividends, especially for the elites. The real reason wars happen are power clashes between groups of states and also between states and armed organizations. Why do you find this harder to believe?

By arming fanatics who kill Ukrainians for opposing their bloody coup. 3/4s of Ukraine elected Zelensky to end the war. Why did he fail? When he tried to remove Azov from a position because of Minsk they told him to get lost and he did. Zelensky would have been killed if he interfered just like the peace negotiator last year. Do you think the USA wanted peace in the Donbas? And there you go again telling me what I believe.

[-Jrabbit]

Amazing how government reports only seem to have credibility when they support your POV.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

Congressional Republicans erupted on Twitter Sunday afternoon after the U.S. Energy Department reportedly assessed that the covid 19 pandemic likely originated from an accidental lab leak in China. The lab leak theory, or the theory that the virus came from a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan China, was widely dismissed as a conspiracy theory and "misinformation" by Democrats, major news outlets, scientists and social media companies in the early stages of the pandemic.

well well well... conspiracy theory, "misinformation" and just GOP fluff. hmmm... and dems knew it all along. sounds like more liberal hypocrisy to me.

[Geronimo]

I already explained that, Russia wanted Minsk to succeed, the west did not and Azov continued shelling the Donbas. If Minsk was a success the west would have to restart the war after years of peace. The west didn't care if the Donbas was independent or stayed in Ukraine with greater autonomy, the west wanted a proxy war with Russia and eastern Ukrainians were sacrificed. The people there wanted independence from Ukraine long before the west ousted their leader in a coup. Democracy for Nazis killing people, not for their victims.

If the West, as in the decision makers not just millbloggers or neocon commentators, really wanted a proxy war with Russia how could they make Ukraine give them that? How could they hope to stop Zelensky from stopping Azov? What was their leverage? Especially, what leverage with respect to what is an existential issue for Ukrainians?

You believe this narrative not because of any compelling evidence or because other narratives have less explanatory power. You believe it because you are absolutely convinced that war occurs because the people who profit from arms sales are the only ones with any influence on government decisions to go to war or to foment war.

The problem is that doesn't make any sense. War profits are far smaller than peace dividends, especially for the elites. The real reason wars happen are power clashes between groups of states and also between states and armed organizations. Why do you find this harder to believe?

[Berzerker]

Why would Minsk being "designed to delay a war with Russia until Ukraine could fight." (keeping in Mind that Russia had as much access to "design" Minsk as any other party to the agreement) mean that the US wanted Ukraine to go to war with Russia and was spending lot of US money to make that occur? Ukraine's allies didn't want Ukraine to be forced to make painful concessions. How is that a surprise or a sign of a desire for war? When Putin indicates that he didn't want Milosevic or Assad to make painful concessions did that mean he really wanted to arrange for a war between Serbia or Syria and its enemies or did it mean that he didn't want two relatively friendly governments undermined? Did Russia's support mean that Serbia and Syria were puppets of Russia?

I already explained that, Russia wanted Minsk to succeed, the west did not and Azov continued shelling the Donbas. If Minsk was a success the west would have to restart the war after years of peace. The west didn't care if the Donbas was independent or stayed in Ukraine with greater autonomy, the west wanted a proxy war with Russia and eastern Ukrainians were sacrificed. The people there wanted independence from Ukraine long before the west ousted their leader in a coup. Democracy for Nazis killing people, not for their victims.

[Berzerker]

So? none of those articles claimed that the Nazis held the reigns of power.

From the Atlantic Council article:

If the far right groups weren't being reigned in but didn't call the shots their relevance is greatly limited. If you compare both articles you won't find contradictions and it makes sense that 4 years later after substantial reigning in of the far right groups an entirely different tone would be called for. The first article in no way supported Putin's ape**** crazy narrative and the second flatly opposed it.

You claim the US financed the Ukrainian Far Right and used them to start the war it desired. Where is the evidence? Where is the motive? Where is the mechanism? Why would Russia be forced to invade in 2022 but not in 2018 when by all accounts and evidence the Ukrainian far right problem was larger?

You brought up S Ossetia so I posted links. As for the reins of power in Ukraine, we are the power and Nazis do our fighting. Nuland chose Ukraine's post-coup leader and didn't want the Nazi leader for obviously ascetic reasons. Zelensky ran on ending the Donbas war and won a landslide. What happened when he tried? Azov told him to gtfo so he tucked tail and did. When Russia and Ukraine were making a deal to end this war the west told him no.

"The United States has been aiding and training Ukrainian forces in their fight against Russian-backed separatists since 2014"

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/380483-congress-bans-arms-to-controversial-ukrainian-militia-linked-to-neo-nazis/

The motive is to bleed Russia and weaken China, the mechanism was the war in the Donbas. Trump was in the WH, thats why this war didn't start until after he was gone. Lets go, Brandon.

[Berzerker]

That's not what she said, regardless how often you claim it is. It would be even clearer when you would present the original, but I'm not going to ask you to learn German, and you clearly have no interest in providing sources for your claims anyway, so it's all pointless

But great to see you rely on Western Media when you think it serves you, while complaining about the same elsewhere

Then quote her and translate

Western media in 2018 - Oh look, Ukraine has a Nazi problem
Western media in 2022 - Oh look, Azov heroes are defending democracy

Which one serves you? I trust the 2018 media more than the 2022 media

[Broken_Erika]

He probably watched it on a Jimmy Dore video

[Geronimo]

Weapons are not donated, we pay for them. You complain when I quote Merkel and Schiff but you dont quote me, you tell me what I think instead. So you're admitting Minsk was designed to delay a war with Russia until Ukraine could fight. If Russia was intent on taking Ukraine why didn't they rather than agree to Minsk and wait 7 years for Ukraine to build up?

As for Georgia

https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/13/world...ict/index.html

When the USSR started dismantling its empire under Yeltsin Georgia declared its independence and S Ossetia voted to be independent of Georgia so the Georgians attacked them and Russia stepped in.

"The armed conflict, in the making since spring 2008, started August 7 with Georgia’s military assault in South Ossetia and Russia’s military response the following day, and lasted until a ceasefire on August 15"

https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study...-south-ossetia

We dangled Nato membership to both Georgia and Ukraine

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-n...79714620080403

Why would Minsk being "designed to delay a war with Russia until Ukraine could fight." (keeping in Mind that Russia had as much access to "design" Minsk as any other party to the agreement) mean that the US wanted Ukraine to go to war with Russia and was spending lot of US money to make that occur? Ukraine's allies didn't want Ukraine to be forced to make painful concessions. How is that a surprise or a sign of a desire for war? When Putin indicates that he didn't want Milosevic or Assad to make painful concessions did that mean he really wanted to arrange for a war between Serbia or Syria and its enemies or did it mean that he didn't want two relatively friendly governments undermined? Did Russia's support mean that Serbia and Syria were puppets of Russia?

[Geronimo]

I didn't mention ethnic cleansing and genocide and the media was less muted about the Nazis following the coup. Most of the people killed in the Donbas died in 2014-15 driving millions to flee Azov's attacks. Many articles addressed Ukraine's Nazi problem, Google and look for articles before 2022. Even the rabid neocon warmongers at the Atlantic Council admitted it.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blog...this-headline/

That was from 2018... Notice the change in tone in 2022?

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blog...-imperial-war/

We were arming Azov and ISIS in 2014

So? none of those articles claimed that the Nazis held the reigns of power.

From the Atlantic Council article:

To be clear, far-right parties like Svoboda perform poorly in Ukraine’s polls and elections, and Ukrainians evince no desire to be ruled by them. But this argument is a bit of “red herring.” It’s not extremists’ electoral prospects that should concern Ukraine’s friends, but rather the state’s unwillingness or inability to confront violent groups and end their impunity. Whether this is due to a continuing sense of indebtedness to some of these groups for fighting the Russians or fear they might turn on the state itself, it’s a real problem and we do no service to Ukraine by sweeping it under the rug.

If the far right groups weren't being reigned in but didn't call the shots their relevance is greatly limited. If you compare both articles you won't find contradictions and it makes sense that 4 years later after substantial reigning in of the far right groups an entirely different tone would be called for. The first article in no way supported Putin's ape**** crazy narrative and the second flatly opposed it.

You claim the US financed the Ukrainian Far Right and used them to start the war it desired. Where is the evidence? Where is the motive? Where is the mechanism? Why would Russia be forced to invade in 2022 but not in 2018 when by all accounts and evidence the Ukrainian far right problem was larger?

[Berzerker]

You think some quote mining is adequate to demonstrate claims this big? You're claiming that the West created Euromaidan to start a war in the Donbass through creation and control of Azov to make a lot of money by donating weapons to Ukraine? You think that the fact that Merkel thought the Minsk agreement was actually not a worthwhile agreement and would support it only to buy time for Ukraine constitutes evidence of your whacky narrative? A treaty in which Ukraine is forced by Russia surrender the Donbass to Russia's armed forces the way Russia forced Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and other frozen conflict areas have been surrendered? Surrendered and filled with people Russia provides with Russian passports and in each case led to Russian "peacekeepers" permanently stationed in the surrendered territory to the exclusion of any other sovereign armed forces?

Weapons are not donated, we pay for them. You complain when I quote Merkel and Schiff but you dont quote me, you tell me what I think instead. So you're admitting Minsk was designed to delay a war with Russia until Ukraine could fight. If Russia was intent on taking Ukraine why didn't they rather than agree to Minsk and wait 7 years for Ukraine to build up?

As for Georgia

https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/13/world...ict/index.html

When the USSR started dismantling its empire under Yeltsin Georgia declared its independence and S Ossetia voted to be independent of Georgia so the Georgians attacked them and Russia stepped in.

"The armed conflict, in the making since spring 2008, started August 7 with Georgia’s military assault in South Ossetia and Russia’s military response the following day, and lasted until a ceasefire on August 15"

https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study...-south-ossetia

We dangled Nato membership to both Georgia and Ukraine

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-n...79714620080403

[BeBMan]

Did her quote show intent? She was bragging about how Minsk achieved its goal, it wasn't peace.

That's not what she said, regardless how often you claim it is. It would be even clearer when you would present the original, but I'm not going to ask you to learn German, and you clearly have no interest in providing sources for your claims anyway, so it's all pointless

But great to see you rely on Western Media when you think it serves you, while complaining about the same elsewhere

[Berzerker]

Except that her quote does not contain "design" or "war". Spin is not fact.

And btw you still did not bother to provide a source. Shockingly I found out meanwhile this appeared in western media first, namely in an interview with German mag "Die Zeit". So we better check this in detail to be sure

Did her quote show intent? She was bragging about how Minsk achieved its goal, it wasn't peace.