5 ms·

Who are you quoting? > we put our guy at its head a couple years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Ukrainian_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.o

Who are you quoting? > we put our guy at its head a couple years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Ukrainian_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Ukrainian_presidential_el... this is denying that ukraine has agency of its own. Nobody put a guy anywhere. He was elected. > we will bring forth the apocalypse. The only country that is threating 1st strike is Russia.

rjzzleep 4y ago
- _visgean 4y ago
  Here you go https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/30/putin-annexation-speech-more-angry-taxi-driver-than-head-of-state-ukraine https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/30/putin-annexati... > literally begged NATO to do preemptive nuclear strikes against Russia 3 days ago he did not say that these strikes be nuclear https://kyivindependent.com/news-feed/zelenskys-staff-forced-to-clarify-statement-after-president-suggests-preventive-strike-on-russia https://kyivindependent.com/news-feed/zelenskys-staff-forced... but also it matters very little as UA has no nuclear weapons (because it gave them to russia for teritotial guarantees which turned out just great...)
- flohofwoe 4y ago
  It really doesn't make much sense to lookup Putin's speeches, because as became obvious over the last couple of months, as soon as he's opening his mouth, a lie comes out.
  - Normille 4y ago
    >It really doesn't make much sense to lookup Putin's speeches... It does if you're arguing not about whether what he said was true or not, but whether he eactually said what you're accusing him of saying. >as soon as he's opening his mouth, a lie comes out. So, just a regular politician, then. But wait! --It's like one of those logic puzzles then. So, if everything he says is a lie and he says he's goiung to use nuclear weapons... then that means he's NOT going to use nuclear weapons. Hurrah! --we're saved!
- Normille 4y ago
  >The only country that is threating 1st strike is Russia. >All of Putin's speeches are available in english on the kremlin website. Shh! --you're spoiling the doublethink. It's the same as how the energy crisis has now become "Russia turned off the taps" when, in fact, Europe decided to shoot itself in the foot by refusing to buy Russian gas, beforehand. Now "Russia has threatened to use nuclear weapons" when, in fact They never said any such thing. There were just some vague threats to use whatever means necessary [or similar] to defend 'their people' in Ukraine. Even after BBC News [Nation Shall Speak Propaganda Unto Nation] played Putin's speech [with overdubbed translation] where he pointedly DIDN'T mention nuclear weapons at all, the newsreader summarised the speech by saying Putin had "threatened to use nuclear weapons" It really is like living in Orwell's 1984 these days. Consequences are quoted as initiating actions and even when we're [rarely] allowed to hear what Goldstein actually said, we're officiaslly informed that he said something else.
  - flohofwoe 4y ago
    > "Russia turned off the taps"... Europe decided to shoot itself in the foot by refusing to buy Russian gas, beforehand. Russia has indeed 'turned off the taps' (at least Nord Stream 1). At first the excuse was maintenance work, but when that excuse didn't work any longer they first reduced and then stopped the gas flow completely.
    - DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
      It would be very silly for the Europeans to think that Russia would continue supplying them with gas after the EU cut Russia off from the international financial system. This was the obvious consequence.
    - rjzzleep 4y ago
      > Russia has indeed 'turned off the taps' (at least Nord Stream 1). At first the excuse was maintenance work, but when that excuse didn't work any longer they first reduced and then stopped the gas flow completely. There was maintenance work every year at that time. Nobody has seen the maintenance contract, so there are opinions that the reason why Russia refuses to install the repaired turbines is because they wanted to turn off the tap. While that part is pure speculation, what's agreed fact is that Canada refused to send back the turbines to Russia(because of European sanctions) and after long begging from Germany sent them to Germany instead. What I also know first hand is that in bigger construction projects nobody would accept hacks(for example an elevator sent through an intermediary rather than the counterparty that signed the contract with) that might result in potential liability issues, especially when the counterparty is already hostile towards you. Just last week German media reported that if the leaked stays for too long Nordstream will corrode irreparably. Nordstream AG requested to assess and repair the Nordstream damage and Norway refused to give them a permit[1]. So, yeah, maybe. But there are a lot of factors at play here before Russia turned off the tap and even then it wasn't fully turned off. [1] https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/russia-ukraine-crisis/nord-stream-1-pipeline-operator-says-norway-blocked-permits-unable-to-conduct-inspection-articleshow.html https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/russia-ukraine-cris...
input_sh 4y ago
When people say something along these lines, they're usually pointing to 2014 when Ukraine had a revolution in which pro-Russian president was toppled, and a more pro-EU president was elected. That's also when Russian invasion started. Note that I absolutely do not agree that anybody but Ukrainian people put Poroshenko there, just pointing out you're looking at the wrong elections to counter this narrative.
- jules-jules 4y ago
  Pro-US to quote Vicky 'Fuck the EU' Nuland.
DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
They're referring to the overthrow of the elected government in 2014. That government was relatively friendly towards Russia. The US was involved[0] in the revolution/coup (whatever you want to call it, though a lot of people in eastern Ukraine considered it a "coup"), and the Russian government saw it as an attempt to bring Ukraine into the orbit of the United States. Whatever you think of Yanukovych and the people who followed him, the US getting so heavily involved in a country right on Russia's doorstep was a very risky move. There have been warnings from several prominent American foreign policy analysts about how this sort of action would prompt an extreme reaction from Russia. George Kennan, the father of the US' Cold War containment strategy, was extremely prescient, all the way back in 1998: > "Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are - but this is just wrong. [...] This has been my life, and it pains me to see it so screwed up in the end."[1] If both Russia and the US continue to push maximalist positions, this conflict will just escalate and escalate, and nobody can say where it will end. 0. Recorded call from 2014 between high-level US State Department officials, in which they work out who should go in what position in the Ukrainian government: https://youtu.be/JoW75J5bnnE https://youtu.be/JoW75J5bnnE 1. George Kennan discussing NATO expansion in 1998: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-now-a-word-from-x.html http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-no...
cpursley 4y ago
I'll send you (or anyone) a $1,000 in Bitcoin if you can provide a source where Putin threatened a 1st nuclear strike. Drive-by MSN headlines don't count.
- chuckschnitzel 4y ago
  Keep your funny money, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use FWIW it's not that different from the US' position.
  - cpursley 4y ago
    That's a Wikipedia post. Did you read the actual speech?
- _visgean 4y ago
  he very much implied it - 1st annex the territories of UA and then when they try to recapture them you consider it an attack on RF and has the right to use them...
  - cpursley 4y ago
    Did you read the speech or just go with what CNN/twitter/reddit told you to think?
    - _visgean 4y ago
      1. Yeah I did. https://www.miragenews.com/full-text-of-putins-speech-at-annexation-866383/ https://www.miragenews.com/full-text-of-putins-speech-at-ann... 2. He says "We will protect our land with all the forces and means at our disposal and will do everything to ensure the safe life of our people. This is the great liberation mission of our people." The key point here is "our land" - this includes the newly annexed oblasts "all the forces and means at our disposal" - this includes nuclear forces. In other words he is saying that Russia can use nuclear forces to protect Donetsk / Luhansk / Crima from Ukraine. now please send those 1000 bitcoins to UA: https://savelife.in.ua/en/donate-en/#donate-army-crypto https://savelife.in.ua/en/donate-en/#donate-army-crypto

rjzzleep 4y ago

_visgean 4y ago
Here you go https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/30/putin-annexation-speech-more-angry-taxi-driver-than-head-of-state-ukraine https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/30/putin-annexati... > literally begged NATO to do preemptive nuclear strikes against Russia 3 days ago he did not say that these strikes be nuclear https://kyivindependent.com/news-feed/zelenskys-staff-forced-to-clarify-statement-after-president-suggests-preventive-strike-on-russia https://kyivindependent.com/news-feed/zelenskys-staff-forced... but also it matters very little as UA has no nuclear weapons (because it gave them to russia for teritotial guarantees which turned out just great...)
flohofwoe 4y ago
It really doesn't make much sense to lookup Putin's speeches, because as became obvious over the last couple of months, as soon as he's opening his mouth, a lie comes out.
- Normille 4y ago
  >It really doesn't make much sense to lookup Putin's speeches... It does if you're arguing not about whether what he said was true or not, but whether he eactually said what you're accusing him of saying. >as soon as he's opening his mouth, a lie comes out. So, just a regular politician, then. But wait! --It's like one of those logic puzzles then. So, if everything he says is a lie and he says he's goiung to use nuclear weapons... then that means he's NOT going to use nuclear weapons. Hurrah! --we're saved!
Normille 4y ago
>The only country that is threating 1st strike is Russia. >All of Putin's speeches are available in english on the kremlin website. Shh! --you're spoiling the doublethink. It's the same as how the energy crisis has now become "Russia turned off the taps" when, in fact, Europe decided to shoot itself in the foot by refusing to buy Russian gas, beforehand. Now "Russia has threatened to use nuclear weapons" when, in fact They never said any such thing. There were just some vague threats to use whatever means necessary [or similar] to defend 'their people' in Ukraine. Even after BBC News [Nation Shall Speak Propaganda Unto Nation] played Putin's speech [with overdubbed translation] where he pointedly DIDN'T mention nuclear weapons at all, the newsreader summarised the speech by saying Putin had "threatened to use nuclear weapons" It really is like living in Orwell's 1984 these days. Consequences are quoted as initiating actions and even when we're [rarely] allowed to hear what Goldstein actually said, we're officiaslly informed that he said something else.
- flohofwoe 4y ago
  > "Russia turned off the taps"... Europe decided to shoot itself in the foot by refusing to buy Russian gas, beforehand. Russia has indeed 'turned off the taps' (at least Nord Stream 1). At first the excuse was maintenance work, but when that excuse didn't work any longer they first reduced and then stopped the gas flow completely.
  - DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
    It would be very silly for the Europeans to think that Russia would continue supplying them with gas after the EU cut Russia off from the international financial system. This was the obvious consequence.
  - rjzzleep 4y ago
    > Russia has indeed 'turned off the taps' (at least Nord Stream 1). At first the excuse was maintenance work, but when that excuse didn't work any longer they first reduced and then stopped the gas flow completely. There was maintenance work every year at that time. Nobody has seen the maintenance contract, so there are opinions that the reason why Russia refuses to install the repaired turbines is because they wanted to turn off the tap. While that part is pure speculation, what's agreed fact is that Canada refused to send back the turbines to Russia(because of European sanctions) and after long begging from Germany sent them to Germany instead. What I also know first hand is that in bigger construction projects nobody would accept hacks(for example an elevator sent through an intermediary rather than the counterparty that signed the contract with) that might result in potential liability issues, especially when the counterparty is already hostile towards you. Just last week German media reported that if the leaked stays for too long Nordstream will corrode irreparably. Nordstream AG requested to assess and repair the Nordstream damage and Norway refused to give them a permit[1]. So, yeah, maybe. But there are a lot of factors at play here before Russia turned off the tap and even then it wasn't fully turned off. [1] https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/russia-ukraine-crisis/nord-stream-1-pipeline-operator-says-norway-blocked-permits-unable-to-conduct-inspection-articleshow.html https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/russia-ukraine-cris...

input_sh 4y ago

When people say something along these lines, they're usually pointing to 2014 when Ukraine had a revolution in which pro-Russian president was toppled, and a more pro-EU president was elected. That's also when Russian invasion started. Note that I absolutely do not agree that anybody but Ukrainian people put Poroshenko there, just pointing out you're looking at the wrong elections to counter this narrative.

jules-jules 4y ago
Pro-US to quote Vicky 'Fuck the EU' Nuland.

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago

They're referring to the overthrow of the elected government in 2014. That government was relatively friendly towards Russia. The US was involved[0] in the revolution/coup (whatever you want to call it, though a lot of people in eastern Ukraine considered it a "coup"), and the Russian government saw it as an attempt to bring Ukraine into the orbit of the United States. Whatever you think of Yanukovych and the people who followed him, the US getting so heavily involved in a country right on Russia's doorstep was a very risky move. There have been warnings from several prominent American foreign policy analysts about how this sort of action would prompt an extreme reaction from Russia. George Kennan, the father of the US' Cold War containment strategy, was extremely prescient, all the way back in 1998: > "Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are - but this is just wrong. [...] This has been my life, and it pains me to see it so screwed up in the end."[1] If both Russia and the US continue to push maximalist positions, this conflict will just escalate and escalate, and nobody can say where it will end. 0. Recorded call from 2014 between high-level US State Department officials, in which they work out who should go in what position in the Ukrainian government: https://youtu.be/JoW75J5bnnE https://youtu.be/JoW75J5bnnE 1. George Kennan discussing NATO expansion in 1998: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-now-a-word-from-x.html http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-no...

cpursley 4y ago

I'll send you (or anyone) a $1,000 in Bitcoin if you can provide a source where Putin threatened a 1st nuclear strike. Drive-by MSN headlines don't count.

chuckschnitzel 4y ago
Keep your funny money, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use FWIW it's not that different from the US' position.
- cpursley 4y ago
  That's a Wikipedia post. Did you read the actual speech?
_visgean 4y ago
he very much implied it - 1st annex the territories of UA and then when they try to recapture them you consider it an attack on RF and has the right to use them...
- cpursley 4y ago
  Did you read the speech or just go with what CNN/twitter/reddit told you to think?
  - _visgean 4y ago
    1. Yeah I did. https://www.miragenews.com/full-text-of-putins-speech-at-annexation-866383/ https://www.miragenews.com/full-text-of-putins-speech-at-ann... 2. He says "We will protect our land with all the forces and means at our disposal and will do everything to ensure the safe life of our people. This is the great liberation mission of our people." The key point here is "our land" - this includes the newly annexed oblasts "all the forces and means at our disposal" - this includes nuclear forces. In other words he is saying that Russia can use nuclear forces to protect Donetsk / Luhansk / Crima from Ukraine. now please send those 1000 bitcoins to UA: https://savelife.in.ua/en/donate-en/#donate-army-crypto https://savelife.in.ua/en/donate-en/#donate-army-crypto