28 ms·

One example: the number of times Russia publicly stated they would not invade Ukraine, leading up to the invasion. Another: Russians stating this is a "special

One example: the number of times Russia publicly stated they would not invade Ukraine, leading up to the invasion. Another: Russians stating this is a "special military operation" against military targets, when their actions explicitly target civilians and civilian infrastructure. etc etc etc I'm not commenting about the US, only to state that the number of times Russia has proven it cannot be trusted is now truly countless. Hello from Ukraine.

jesterson 5y ago
> Russians stating this is a "special military operation" against military targets, when their actions explicitly target civilians and civilian infrastructure That's a manipulation at least. Russian forces indeed targeted only military objects, but once numerous fights erupted, it's very hard to determine who was destroying civilian infrastructure. Ukraine has accumulated tremendous experience in blaming everyone else except their own forces in atrocities happened in eastern part of it, so at this stage I personally have very little trust in what they say. > truly countless So you mentioned 2, one is easily refuted. Can you bring more of those "truly countless"?
- EB-Barrington 5y ago
  You have refuted neither.
  - jesterson 5y ago
    Your aggressiveness shows nothing but weakness of your arguments. If you'd bother to read what I am saying instead of pushing your opinion as the only correct one - I am not blaming one or another side. World is much more complex that that, particularly in a conflict zones. Ukrainian official sources have lied many times about shelling in easter ukraine. Why would anyone believe them now? When battle ensues, it's hard to know which missile hit civilian building, particularly when it's very beneficial to blame it the other side. To give you an example, recent demolition on world largest plane AN-225 Mriya, which was quickly blamed on russian forces. Very convenient, isn't it? Until video surfaced where AN-225 is in smoke altogether with many russian vehicles around it. It seems to be very clear that ukrainian artillery just shelled mindlessly everything around and later media just blamed it on russia. So there will be no further examples of "truly countless" cases? Thought so.
    - EB-Barrington 5y ago
      No.
      - jesterson 5y ago
        That was predictable as well :) It was nice having a civilised discussion refuting your unsubstantiated claims :) Now you can find more gullible people to spread the narratives.
        EB-Barrington 5y ago
        For posterity: Lavrov himself today confirmed that the Russians bombed a maternity hospital. Complete, 100% confirmation. He did not deny in any way - he only offered reasons as to "why" this civilian maternity hospital was targeted and destroyed by the Russian invaders. If the Russians and the Ukrainians both agree that the Russians bombed this hospital, video evidence exists, eye witnesses exist ...and you still call it "unsubstantiated", then clearly you're trying to spread disinformation. Perhaps you're not aware, Russia is seriously losing the disinformation/propaganda war, but you can try I guess. Please, refute that single example. To make it simpler: did the Russians bomb a maternity hospital (civilian infrastructure) in Ukraine? There are two answers: "yes" Or, "yes, but.... <insert Russian excuse here>" Guessing you will take the second answer. Would love to chat more, but the air raid siren just sounded.
        jesterson 5y ago
        Wow, it's pathetic to edit your own posts afterwards. You do it to look nice and conceal you lies or there are other reasons? What you are doing is again, a typical manipulation. If you are doing it because of lack of logic, please have a read about logic. Now back to your question. I'm not acquainted with topic, but if Lavrov said russian forces bombed some hospital, then russian forces bombed some hospital. Does it mean that russian forces destroy civilian infrastructure? No it doesnt. Does it mean they destroy the particular hospital? Yes it is. And to go back to your lies - I call you out on unsubstantiated claims on different matters, which you have no proof whatsoever.

jesterson 5y ago

> Russians stating this is a "special military operation" against military targets, when their actions explicitly target civilians and civilian infrastructure That's a manipulation at least. Russian forces indeed targeted only military objects, but once numerous fights erupted, it's very hard to determine who was destroying civilian infrastructure. Ukraine has accumulated tremendous experience in blaming everyone else except their own forces in atrocities happened in eastern part of it, so at this stage I personally have very little trust in what they say. > truly countless So you mentioned 2, one is easily refuted. Can you bring more of those "truly countless"?

EB-Barrington 5y ago
You have refuted neither.
- jesterson 5y ago
  Your aggressiveness shows nothing but weakness of your arguments. If you'd bother to read what I am saying instead of pushing your opinion as the only correct one - I am not blaming one or another side. World is much more complex that that, particularly in a conflict zones. Ukrainian official sources have lied many times about shelling in easter ukraine. Why would anyone believe them now? When battle ensues, it's hard to know which missile hit civilian building, particularly when it's very beneficial to blame it the other side. To give you an example, recent demolition on world largest plane AN-225 Mriya, which was quickly blamed on russian forces. Very convenient, isn't it? Until video surfaced where AN-225 is in smoke altogether with many russian vehicles around it. It seems to be very clear that ukrainian artillery just shelled mindlessly everything around and later media just blamed it on russia. So there will be no further examples of "truly countless" cases? Thought so.
  - EB-Barrington 5y ago
    No.
    - jesterson 5y ago
      That was predictable as well :) It was nice having a civilised discussion refuting your unsubstantiated claims :) Now you can find more gullible people to spread the narratives.
      - EB-Barrington 5y ago
        For posterity: Lavrov himself today confirmed that the Russians bombed a maternity hospital. Complete, 100% confirmation. He did not deny in any way - he only offered reasons as to "why" this civilian maternity hospital was targeted and destroyed by the Russian invaders. If the Russians and the Ukrainians both agree that the Russians bombed this hospital, video evidence exists, eye witnesses exist ...and you still call it "unsubstantiated", then clearly you're trying to spread disinformation. Perhaps you're not aware, Russia is seriously losing the disinformation/propaganda war, but you can try I guess. Please, refute that single example. To make it simpler: did the Russians bomb a maternity hospital (civilian infrastructure) in Ukraine? There are two answers: "yes" Or, "yes, but.... <insert Russian excuse here>" Guessing you will take the second answer. Would love to chat more, but the air raid siren just sounded.
        jesterson 5y ago
        Wow, it's pathetic to edit your own posts afterwards. You do it to look nice and conceal you lies or there are other reasons? What you are doing is again, a typical manipulation. If you are doing it because of lack of logic, please have a read about logic. Now back to your question. I'm not acquainted with topic, but if Lavrov said russian forces bombed some hospital, then russian forces bombed some hospital. Does it mean that russian forces destroy civilian infrastructure? No it doesnt. Does it mean they destroy the particular hospital? Yes it is. And to go back to your lies - I call you out on unsubstantiated claims on different matters, which you have no proof whatsoever.