5 ms·
Shitty reporting that supports your intelligence agency's agenda is pretty straight-forward fake news.
by kodyo 4y ago
Shitty reporting that supports your intelligence agency's agenda is pretty straight-forward fake news.
- ajross 4y agoWhat agenda? The state department and white house straight up denied this story when it ran!
- kodyo 4y ago
- andrewflnr 4y agoI'm pretty sure that's just so they don't feel like they have to go all Article 5 on Ukraine. That would be really awkward, going to war against a country you were donating arms to yesterday, right? So sure, there's an agenda, but it seems like a morally defensible one, and not one supported by lies (at least not where it intersects with US interests).
- kube-system 4y agoIf Russia was not firing missiles at Ukrainian cities, Ukraine would not be firing their defense systems.
- duxup 4y agoI don’t see anyone getting anything out of that story… Who would push that story and then just let the news come out that it was actually Ukrainian? I also haven’t seen anything to indicate it was anything but just bad reporting.
- kube-system 4y agoHave you read anything that the DoD says about this conflict? They very clearly do not want to get involved in this war first-hand. Nor would it make any sense for them to do so, the most selfish action here is to simply send weapons and let Ukraine do all the dirty work.
- somenameforme 4y agoThat is literally their only choice. Ukrainians and Russians are dying by the tens of thousands. American soldiers would be better trained and better equipped than both sides, but they would also be dying in large numbers. We lost nearly 5000 thousand soldiers in Iraq, with complete and unchallenged air superiority, to disorganized religious radicals running around with 1950s era rifles and low-grade improvised explosives. We're all just vulnerable sacks of flesh and bone in the end. And Americans would tolerate this for approximately 0 seconds. Consider how we feel about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that died or were killed during our invasion of Iraq (high end figures putting it in the millions), contrasted against the 5000 Americans who died. It's an entirely different sort of care when speaking of people you have no connection to as opposed to your neighbor or even your own son dying. When its other people, the real cost isn't truly felt.
- kodyo 4y agoI agree. It is absolutely in the interest of the American government to have Ukrainians and Russians die, preferably through the use of American weapons. The fact that America and NATO have been supporting the war rather than pursuing peace seals the argument. Any news story that keeps the good versus evil narrative going is desirable.
- kube-system 4y ago> It is absolutely in the interest of the American government to have Ukrainians and Russians die It is in the US's interest for Russia to deplete their military capability, and for Ukraine to not become part of Russia. > The fact that America and NATO have been supporting the war rather than pursuing peace seals the argument. How does NATO "pursue peace" in a conflict they aren't a party to? What exactly do you think they should do? One side of this war has the unilateral power to end it, and it ain't NATO, the US, or Ukraine.
- somenameforme 4y agoIf the US stops sending endless weapons and money to Ukraine, the war ends. If Ukraine agrees to concede the predominately ethnic Russian areas that Russia has occupied, the war ends. If Russia surrenders said territories to Ukraine, the war ends. But nobody wants to concede anything. So the war will continue, undoubtedly with plentiful more opportunities to find ourselves in WW3.