2 ms·

This is a highly biased article. It makes assertions that are unproven and have been highly propagandised. > Since the Bucha massacre was made public There is

by oska 5y ago

This is a highly biased article. It makes assertions that are unproven and have been highly propagandised. > Since the Bucha massacre was made public There is no proof that the people killed in Bucha were killed by departing Russian troops. The Russians are suggesting that the killings were of 'Russian friendly' Ukrainians, killed after the troops left. We won't know what actually happened until a proper inquiry has been done; not feverish reporting from a highly biased US/European press based on Ukrainian govt. claims. > While Putin and his army destroy Ukraine and commit genocide There has been no genocide committed in Ukraine. This is a clearly false claim.

cracker_jacks 5y ago
> The Russians are suggesting that the killings were of 'Russian friendly' Ukrainians, killed after the troops left. Satellite imagery taken before Russian troops left shows massacre happened before withdrawal. https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1511060668610457612 https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1511060668610457612
- oska 5y ago
  This isn't the place for such a debate. There needs to be a proper legal inquiry into the massacre; not trial by media. I wasn't making any assertions of my own as to who was responsible; I was just pointing out that responsibility has not yet been properly determined and thus should not be asserted as fact as Pueyo is doing here. And I'm not being pedantic; this is an extremely important point. Many propagandistic stories are pushed during a war. We should be careful not to buy into them.