45
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2024
45 points (77.8% liked)
World News
37866 readers
376 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
To your knowledge, what was the reason Russia invaded Ukraine?
How is that relevant? Maybe it was because Ukraine is a nazi-fascist-baby-eating-puppy-kicking nation? It would make it even crazier for them to trust Russia not to attack them again, and even more important for Russia to build trust with others.
It's relevant because understanding the root cause of the war is critical to defending your mind from the propaganda you're being constantly subjected to.
Up to a week before the invasion Ukraine was threatening to install nukes and minimise Russia's response time. This is a security threat that no state can tolerate. You know full well that the USA wouldn't tolerate anything remotely similar.
This war was started by the USA overthrowing Ukraine's democracy in 2014 and installing a puppet Banderite Nazi government designed to be a proxy for NATO to threaten Russia. The US believed they could take over Russia again and loot and pillage it like they did in the 90s. They lost control of it with the Iraq war, when Putin refused to help them murder a million plus Iraqis. He was supposed to be their tame, controlled dictator of the place that they were selling off to their oligarchs for pennies.
This was all well understood and known before the massive propaganda avalanche after the 2022 invasion (that Russia tried to avoid for the 8 years prior). Absurd repetition of the "Unprovoked" invasion, reinventing history to spin a yarn about Russia just deciding to invade to steal land etc.
Most people think they're immune to propaganda, or that it's just not happening to them, it happens to people in foreign countries.
Here's the news before the invasion:
Forbes - Ukraine Deradicalized Its Extremist Troops. Now They Might Be Preparing A Counteroffensive
The Hill - Congress bans arms to Ukraine militia linked to neo-Nazis
Years of the Western (BBC) Media Admitting to Extremism Among Azov Military Units:
BBC - Outside Source, (March 23, 2022)
BBC - Torch-lit march in Kiev by Ukraine's far-right Svoboda Party (2014)
BBC - Neo-Nazi threat in new Ukraine: NEWSNIGHT (2014)
BBC - Ukraine conflict: 'White power' warrior from Sweden (2014)
BBC - Ukraine underplays role of far right in conflict (2014)
BBC - Ukraine's most-feared volunteers (2015)
BBC - The far-right group threatening to overthrow Ukraine's government - Newsnight (2015)
BBC - Ukraine: On patrol with the far-right National Militia - BBC Newsnight (2018)
BBC - Ukraine coat of arms in UK anti-terror list furore (2020)
BBC - Behind Belarusian 'far-right mercenary' claims (2021)
Al Jazeera - Ukrainian fighters grease bullets against Chechens with pig fat (2022)
The Hill - The reality of neo-Nazis in Ukraine is far from Kremlin propaganda (2017)
These are all western sources. This was real reporting. I think the question you have to answer is were they lying then? Or are they lying now?
No, that is disinformation. Show me the original interview where Merkel said that.
"Hatten Sie gedacht, ich komme mit Pferdeschwanz?"
Die Zeit
7. Dezember 2022
https://archive.md/c4ZVK
Merkel: Das setzt aber voraus, auch zu sagen, was genau die Alternativen damals waren. Die 2008 diskutierte Einleitung eines Nato-Beitritts der Ukraine und Georgiens hielt ich für falsch. Weder brachten die Länder die nötigen Voraussetzungen dafür mit, noch war zu Ende gedacht, welche Folgen ein solcher Beschluss gehabt hätte, sowohl mit Blick auf Russlands Handeln gegen Georgien und die Ukraine als auch auf die Nato und ihre Beistandsregeln. Und das Minsker Abkommen 2014 war der Versuch, der Ukraine Zeit zu geben. Anm. d. Red.: Unter dem Minsker Abkommen versteht man eine Reihe von Vereinbarungen für die selbst ernannten Republiken Donezk und Luhansk, die sich unter russischem Einfluss von der Ukraine losgesagt hatten. Ziel war, über einen Waffenstillstand Zeit zu gewinnen, um später zu einem Frieden zwischen Russland und der Ukraine zu kommen. Sie hat diese Zeit hat auch genutzt, um stärker zu werden, wie man heute sieht.
(Translated): Merkel: But that requires saying what exactly the alternatives were at the time. I thought the idea of Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO, which was discussed in 2008, was wrong. The countries did not have the necessary prerequisites for this, nor had the consequences of such a decision been fully considered, both with regard to Russia's actions against Georgia and Ukraine and to NATO and its mutual assistance rules. And the Minsk Agreement in 2014 was an attempt to give Ukraine time. Editor's note: The Minsk Agreement is a series of agreements for the self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, which had broken away from Ukraine under Russian influence. The aim was to gain time through a ceasefire in order to later achieve peace between Russia and Ukraine. It also used this time to become stronger, as we can see today.
Exactly. She said to give Ukraine time to mature for an entry to NATO. Not to prepare for war with Russia. That is disinformation.
Maybe read the rest. Macht deine Position weniger peinlich.
I'm german, let me translate: "The goal was to achieve peace between Russia and Ukraine via a ceasefire. She (Ukraine is meant here) also used this time to get stronger (considering the context here being military conflict, it means stronger in the military sense.), as can be seen today."
You mean "time to become stronger" i.e. prepare for war and not implement minsk II (why would you want to "become stronger" if not prepare for war; it's in contradiction with implementing minsk)
She doesn’t say anything about „stronger.“
They also used the time to become stronger. But that was not the goal of Minsk.
Yea it was to bring peace. Why would you want "to become stronger", when part of the peace agreement was to become a buffer zone to NATO? Why else would the Russians else have signed it? How do you explain that with Merkel saying that it was just to buy time? Wouldn't the Russians feel betrayed/played if it wasn't implemented for peace, but just to stall them?
I did not get your point. Even with a treaty in place, why would Ukraine not trying to become stronger with the Russian threat? Again, Merkel says quite clearly IMHO that it was for not escalating the conflict to get to peace, possibly then integrating Ukraine in the EU or NATO.
Because "getting stronger" in this context means militarily. Why would you want to bolster your military, when the Minsk treaty guarantees safety from russia? Not implementing the treaty and continued prospect of joining NATO, bolstering Ukraines military antagonized Russia, as they saw that the Minsk agreement got ignored. Merkel admitting that it was just to buy time, proved the Russians right.
why would you keep lying when you've already been exposed lying. 🤦
She said that they used the time to become stronger, not that this was the goal of Minsk. You are either reading into it what you want it to mean or you are repeating Russian propaganda.
You're either completely lack reading comprehension or intentionally repeating NATO propaganda.
Look at a mirror holy god
FYI I got some lightly used straws for sale if you need more of them to grasp at
You're just splitting hairs. They used the Minsk peace negotiations to buy time to prepare for war, "to become stronger"... and not for actual peace. This is a fact that you have to accept.
Later Hollande corroborated the admission.
The "merit" of peace agreements to prepare for war.